Being a Schrödinger Scholar

Who is a Schrödinger Scholar? If you have not heard of this term before, do not worry, because I am pretty sure I just made it up. But, before I begin my restrained ramblings on this ludicrous, yet meaningful, notion, allow me to take a moment and brief on what the Nobel Prize-winning physicist has to do with my identity as a scholar. 

Many of us are aware of Erwin Schrödinger and his thought experiment, which he devised to explain the problem with relating quantum mechanics to everyday objects. Using the thought experiment, he attempted to explain the paradox of a state called quantum superposition. But, the physics is not of importance here. What is important is the thought experiment itself, starting with the following lines from Wikipedia:

Schrodinger's Cat: Wanted Dead and Alive
Source: Quotesgram.com

In simple terms, Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (a radioactive atom) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both “dead and alive”.

The beauty of this thought experiment is that it is often also used to represent how scientific theory works. A scientific theory is neither right nor wrong until it can be tested and proved. The act of extending Schrödinger’s thought experiment to explain scientific theory is, to me, spectacular in itself. Given my admiration, lately, I have been fixating over this idea. And the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me how it is also a complex representation of human identity. 

From past one year, while working on my dissertation, I have been thinking (more than usual) about my identity as a researcher and the influence of being a researcher on my identity. Both are different in some sense, yet spin like pieces of yin and yang hovering in the abyss of eternal space. My struggle with defining myself is rooted in the intersectionality of the different, and conflicting, components of my identity that shape how I think about research and where I position myself (shoutout to Lynette Guzman, Cassie Brownell, and Elise Dixon for pushing me to think about this).

My struggle became real when I found myself in an uncomfortable position of explaining myself to other people. The paradoxical nature of my identity as a scholar was looking at me in the eyes. When I met researchers from different areas of educational research, everywhere I went, I was treated like an outsider. Being a literacies researcher working on (and studying) educational technology, who values qualitative research but comes from a quantitative background, and is obsessed with humanities and language arts but sees science as a way of knowing the world, depending on who I was talking to, I was being perceived as an outsider. 

The struggle of belongingness turned up a notch when I started to prepare my profile for future job applications. “How do I portray myself?” It is like choosing a part of you and leaving the rest behind. Why do I have to choose? As I strived to frame myself as a scholar, Schrödinger appeared to me in a dream (well, not really). I realized that my identity was not in conflict. Rather it was the act of observation of my words that enforced labels on me. Just like Schrödinger’s Cat, other people’s observation of my words, sometimes, portrayed me an outsider to them. So, I used the very words that were deceiving me to create my own thought experiment and better explain how I see myself:

My identity is, too, like Schrödinger’s Cat.
I am a qualitative and a quantitative scholar, at the same time.
I am an ed tech and an ed psych student, at the same time.
I am a social justice advocate and cautious of my assumptions, at the same time.
I am a liberal and respect conservatism, at the same time.
I am social and alone, at the same time.
I am a scientist and an artist, at the same time.
I am rational and emotional, at the same time.
I am patriotic about India and anti-national, at the same time.
I am everything and I am nothing, at the same time.
I am a Schrödinger Scholar. And you can be too, at the same time.

An Introvert’s Guide to Networking

Irrespective of how clichéd this title is, for quite some time now, I have been meaning to write about the role of networking in my life as a “budding” scholar (or for any scholar, if I may), who happens to be an introvert. I have been thinking a lot about what I need to do professionally as a researcher and academic to be taken more seriously. Yes, I know–less puns. But, other than that, perhaps a list of strengths and weaknesses that I need to be focusing on?

The more I think about this, the more I realize the value of networking with other researchers and socializing. I know some people are naturally good at it. Unfortunately, I would categorize that as a weakness for me. I am awkward; although I wear my awkwardness with pride. And I consider myself better at writing than speaking, especially when English is not my first language (and not even second for that matter). This often puts me in even more awkward situations, especially when it comes to communicating with strangers.

So, to deal with this challenge I had identified, like any decent scholar, I started to make a list of possible steps or changes that I need to make to overcome this weakness. Therefore, I started with a suggestion I saw in the following Ted Talk by Amy Cuddy, where she highlighted this idea of “faking it till you become it.” In other words, pretending that you are good at networking, and doing things that someone who is good at networking or socializing would do. Eventually, and arguably, you become this person. Now, I don’t quite accept the validity of this study it. I have my doubts. But, there was nothing for me to lose. So, I tried her suggestions.

I realized that if I wished to pretend to be good at networking, I might need a frame of reference–a list of traits of a person who is good at this. Because if I knew what I needed to do to become better at networking, I might have just gotten better at it by now. I clearly did not know. Therefore, I decided that I will form an imaginary person who has these traits that I desire to have. Then, I will pretend to be that person. It may sound weird at first, but it is not something radical. I recall watching Jason Alexander and Jack Black talking about a similar approach in their acting, on different occasions. They pretend to be an actor who they think would be perfect for the role they are working on, and just do whatever they think that actor would have done. If you get a kick out of Star Trek references, this can be defined as the “What Would Picard Do?” approach.

Long story short, I decided to think of academics and scholars who I have met in person, and made a medley of their qualities that I admire. I then decided to pretend how I think they will handle a situation; which in this case is networking with people.

Now, I would not bore you with details, but here is what I have learned from trying to execute this approach at an international conference:

  1. It helps losing the inhibition. The biggest obstacle when trying to meet new people, especially when these are some established names in their fields, is what would you say? My adviser once told me that there is no point being a groupie running behind big names at conferences. What is important is to follow up later. What he meant was that most of the big names in education are nice people, but they would not remember who they had met. It is better to talk about something short and substantial at first, ideally something interesting that you do, and then follow up with an email later, with better detail. In the email, you can coherently get your thoughts together. Now, all this is assuming that you wish to learn something from this person, or wish to collaborate, and are not just bugging them because of their celebrity. If this is the case, pretending to be someone who can approach such a situation can help you lose that inhibition of approach someone new or relatively famous.
  2. Rehearse and improvise. You can never be ready for any possible situation, but you can always have a few tricks up your sleeve. Getting a handful of self-introductions ready can help. How would you introduce yourself in 5 seconds? In 1 minute? If you had a dinner appointment? And so on. Then being flexible with these guidelines lets you improvise when new things come your way.
  3. Insightful comments (being useful). You don’t have to be an extrovert to be good at your job. You know your research well. If you are in sessions at conferences where you have common interests with the presenter, saying something useful and insightful can always earn you some points. This is clearly no breakthrough here, but we often tend to forget to be nice and to compliment other people’s work. If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say it. Unless there is something seriously wrong with the research.
  4. Finally, promoting the brand: you. As corny as it may sound, this is what it boils down to. And this is something I have brought up in conversations with my adviser quite a few times. Modesty is something I value, and it is also something that acts as a weakness, when it comes to sharing what you do. Modest people tend to undersell themselves; and this can be bad when you are in a field when you are the brand. As scholars, when we go into the job market, we are selling our ideas and what we stand for. Our job is to convince other people that we have something substantial to say. The problem is that no one else is going to sell your ideas for you. You need to do it yourself. This is why, we sometimes need to keep modesty on simmer, and find a way to get its flavor as you promote your achievements. The balance is hard. And I think it can be developed with practice. I also think this is a skill people often lose easily. For instance, writing this post in itself is a struggle. How can I say what I genuinely mean to say without sounding precocious? Well, using the word precocious does not help.

In sum, networking and promoting oneself is hard in itself. It becomes even harder when it does not come naturally to you. If you are already good at networking and think it comes naturally to you, help those who struggle. If you are an introvert like me, and struggle with it, I hope these thoughts help you, even if slightly.

Teachers Teaching Teachers

My colleague and friend at MSU EPET Chris Seals and I recently got an opportunity to share our work as a part of the MSU Urban STEM Leadership fellowship program with other amazing people here at Michigan State. This presentation was at the LOCUS conference hosted by some of the coolest people at Digital Humanities. If you have not had an opportunity to look at their work, do check out their website.

In our presentation, Chris and I gave a quick overview of the MSU Urban STEM program and what it means to us and our fellows. You can watch the entire presentation on YouTube, thanks to the folks at DH.


PS. Our friend Sarah Gretter also presented her work on Media and Information Literacy. Check it out here, along with all the other presentations.

“Everything is a Remix”: Open Educational Resources

On Friday, November 20, 2015, I had an opportunity to host another webinar for the Master of Art in Educational Technology program at Michigan State University. This was the episode 20 of the #MAETBridge webinar series, which I have had the honor and pleasure of being a part of from the very first episode, which was led by Dr. Michelle Schira Hagerman.

In this episode, I got to host – in my own quirky (and desparate-haircut-needing) ways – three experts on the topic of using available open resources in classrooms. We discussed open educational resources from the perspective of research, practice, and student experience and outcome.

Long story short, check out the discussion in the video below. You can also watch our previous webinars hosted by Spencer Greenhalgh and Sarah Keenan, Michelle, or myself at bridge.educ.msu.edu.

A Promise to Keep or: Why should we write?

This is not my first attempt at blogging. I started using blogspot.com (now blogger.com) around 2006 (I guess) to write weird poems, and analyze songs I liked. It died abruptly, due to some external pressure (long story). Nevertheless, I started again in 2010ish, this time about something I love the most in the world: films. This was about the same time I was watching about 500 movies a year, and enjoying most of them, which gave me enough motivation to write. I like to call this time the iCheckMovies era.

During this time, besides watching 3-4 movies a day, I spent hours (whatever were left) talking to people all over the globe, on forums that some of us build, and Facebook, about films that we all loved to watch and talk about. These were not the “typical mainstream trash” (inside joke, no offense intended). These were the movies that could change the way you think about yourself and the world as you know it. At least I can say that about myself. I became deeply involved with films, and wanted to do something about it. There are several things about films that I love. From the art of making films to the sheer genius of critiquing them. I love it all. But the thing that I love the most is the power and influence of cinema (and any other form of visual media for that matter), and its educational implications. I knew I wanted to write about films, so my love for critiquing films got me into blogging after a hiatus. As you might have predicted, I failed to foster the excitement, since it did not satisfy any intellectual purpose for me. I was writing mainly about the things I hated, and eventually, the mere thought of a blog started to vex me. I realized soon enough that it was the educational aspect that could allow me to both cherish and respect films without starting to hate the process of analyzing them.

When I started the Educational Psychology and Educational Technology program at MSU, even I did not think I’d do things this close to my interest. In short, I get to watch, analyze, discuss, think, and, finally, write about films and visual media. The best part is that I also get paid. Here, in EPET, I am surrounded by interesting discussions and topics of intrigue. Meaning making, neuroscience, cosmology, politics, theology, science, films, history, geography, we enjoy talking about it all. The ebb and flow of new ideas is more vivid than ever. While I get to academically write about some cool things that I like, there are still ideas that I wish to talk/write about. Everyday I promise myself, “I should write about this” or “This is so blog-worthy.” But as you can see from the blog, the last time I wrote was back in the good old days of 2013. I have been procrastinating more than ever, and this time I have no reason not to blog. So, this is it. I will blog regularly now (failure to commit is evident). Once a month (that’s more like it).

Consider this my first blog post of a new age of blogging (for me, that is). You must be thinking, “Who gives a sh*t?” Well, I do. Writing about the wonders of the world we live in is the best gift we can give to ourselves. Our words are all that will live on. If I do not start writing today, I am wasting another day. And why just me, everyone is. Don’t be like me. Start writing about the things you love. Science, Art, Math, Poetry, Language, Humor, Films, and all the things that make you happy. Things that you want to be remembered for.

This is it. This is all we have. Leave your mark. Bloggers will rise!

Rules for Success in Academia

What if, at the very beginning of your career, somebody handed you a book with all the covert rules of your field in it?

Well, ‘Psychology 101 1/2: The Unspoken Rules for Success in Academia does exactly what it says in the title. This book by Robert J. Sternberg is somewhat of a self help book with all the things that you should know about the field of research for people who are starting their career in academics or are already in it from quite some time. Continue reading “Rules for Success in Academia”