164 – Further Reflections on the ICMS Workshop

Lucie: [00:00:00] Hi, and welcome to the IDEMS podcast. My name’s Lucie Hazelgrove Planel, a Social Impact Scientist and anthropologist, and I’m here today with Kate Fleming, one of the directors of IDEMS. Hi Kate.

Kate: Hi, Lucie.

Lucie: So today I thought it’d be interesting for us to reflect on the recent workshop for PhD Mathematicians and postdoctoral mathematicians at the ICMS, in Edinburgh, which I think stands for the… 

Kate: We probably should have looked that up. I’ll look it up right now. I have looked it up before, I think it’s the International Center for Mathematical Sciences. I think that’s it, International Center for Mathematical Sciences.

Lucie: It was back in February, I think, the workshop? I’ve completely lost track of time. Yeah. It was February. And I think we were the only two non mathematicians in the room.

Kate: We were, although I would even credit you with being more [00:01:00] mathematic, the last math class I took was calculus in high school. You studied math in college, right? In university.

Lucie: Yeah, college being university in the UK context. 

Kate: I have to put on my anglophone hat. 

Lucie: Yeah, but compared to those mathematicians, I’m not a mathematician.

Kate: Yes this was truly mostly, all PhD, all very advanced mathematicians, yes. So both of us in that sense were fish out of water, although we swim in this water all the time. But this was, I think we are in spaces with mathematicians who have already made the leap into impact and are used to working more collaboratively.

Whereas this was very much people who are still deeply embedded in mathematics in that world, in that community. And that was actually what I think we both were interested in is what is that, what is that world? And, yeah, just understanding why there aren’t more impact mathematicians and what [00:02:00] the challenges are to bringing people over.

Lucie: Absolutely. And yes, so there’s been a couple of other episodes about this workshop, which explained the sort of nuts and bolts of it and what were the aims were. But for us it’s really much more about what our perspective is or was on the workshop. 

Kate: Can I interrupt you and ask you a question? Did you go in with expectations? Did you have any idea of what you hoped would come out of it or what your experience would be?

Lucie: Yeah, that’s great. So I think in general, I try never to have expectations or I manage never to have expectations. But I was very surprised. Like I think I had without, consciously thinking about it, I had expected to feel like I knew the people. They’re PhD students, they’re young academics basically, and so I expected to know what they would be like. 

But I think I was surprised, there was actually a big difference and I could see a big difference between me interacting with the participants and my [00:03:00] colleagues who have maths PhDs interacting with them. I could see that my colleagues felt like this is my community, I recognise these people. Whereas with me, I was like. Who are these people?

Kate: Yeah, I think I felt that too in ways that I didn’t expect where, I agree, normally I would go into a space with advanced academics and you just get into intellectual conversations. And I suppose it’s that in pretty much any other field, you automatically leap to applied thinking. So you then are talking, you are getting out of the domain weeds and into kind of the application space of it.

Whereas this was very, I still felt very much like this was by mathematicians for mathematicians. And actually I will make a leap because it came out, so we had a dinner at the end of it, we were just all put at different tables. So I was sitting with a group of the conference attendees, different mathematicians.

Lucie: Interestingly, we were put into groups according to our meal [00:04:00] requirements.

Kate: Yeah, I think it was very random. In fact, I was sitting with a couple who had been put at separate tables because I think they had different dietary requirements, and then they broke the rule. But somebody brought up, well, could you explain the research you do for a layperson audience?

Lucie: Yes. Great question.

Kate: It was a very good question, and it was very revealing because it was a struggle. I would say there was one person at our table who had really thought about it and was better at it. Mostly it was a struggle for everyone to say why am I doing this? What’s the value of it? What does it mean for society? Why have I committed my whole life to studying this? 

Whereas I think in most fields you would be used to being held to account in some way for your work or having to justify it. Maybe that’s not fair.

Lucie: No I think it’s more that, to me, the social value, or the sort of its role in social life is clearer, it’s easier to identify in [00:05:00] other fields. Whereas in these sort of theoretical abstract fields, it’s so specialized in such a small component of something that to see its immediate relevance is harder, or to describe its immediate relevance, because the applications, they’re harder to compare, perhaps. 

Kate: Well, I think you have to make more steps where you have to say, this is what I’m studying, this is what this kind of is as a field, and then you finally get to this is like when airplanes are being designed, like whatever the thing is. And then I think what happens, and I saw this at this dinner, is that applied example feels very unsatisfying to the mathematician because it is minimizing the intellectual richness and complexity of what they know they’re holding and studying. So the moment they say, oh, it’s about like airplanes and drag or something, you’re just like, oh, that’s basic. That’s solved, whatever it is. 

I think it’s that challenge of [00:06:00] painting the vision of what your research is doing. That’s hard for anybody, it’s very easy to point to something that’s addressing poverty or something that’s like tangibly experienced, it’s happening now, I can see.

Lucie: And that sort of thing, whether you’re addressing poverty in Scotland or whether you’re doing it in France, you can easily make a comparison, you can easily think about how it relates to your own context. 

Kate: Yes. It doesn’t require like real intellectual, equal and opposite matching from the person who’s listening to you or like stretching their own brain to hear and kind of sit with what you are working on. So there is this real burden, I think, on the mathematician to really get into here’s what would be possible if we kind of address this, if we can figure out how this works.

And I think we end up working on a lot of this in our own team, when I’m sitting in a meeting with the Topos team or something. So they talk about category theory, all this stuff that I had never really thought, [00:07:00] never thought about, certainly didn’t study. And now I’m like, oh, category theory. Okay. And then I was in some meeting with Esmee on our team and I mentioned something about oh, category theory. And I think she was like, what? How do you know about that? Why are you even… that’s like obscure mathematics. 

But now I see oh, I completely see the vision for how this mathematical theory could be brought into the real world so like really transform how technology works, how we can imagine digital systems. But that’s been a lot of people working together to figure out that road, how to bring it out of that esoteric mathematical theoretical space and into the applied space. 

So yeah, that’s a long-winded way of saying I’m sympathetic. And yet at the same time, I think that’s like an important part, like, how do you make your research accessible?

Lucie: And I think this exactly ties onto the question of why we think that there is this need for [00:08:00] sort of impact activation and there’s this need for workshops to help people who are very theoretically minded think outside of that area. Because there is this problem that in those sorts of specialisms, the specialism is so minute that to think outside it, for somebody who’s inside it, to think outside it, to think about how to collaborate with others, it’s a whole different arena. It’s a whole different type of work. 

Kate: Yeah, and I think one of the things that, I wasn’t expecting it, but I just anticipated, is most of the time, if you go to a workshop that’s like careers for this, it’s quite prescriptive. It’s here’s what you do, here’s the way you would, you get an internship, you reach out to these groups, here are the resources that are available.

And I think a little bit of a point of frustration for the attendees was like, it’s not prescriptive. There isn’t that pathway. There isn’t just this immediate here’s how you would go about finding those collaborations and pulling your theory into the real world. It’s very [00:09:00] individualized, it’s hard, it’s hard to do that. 

And so I think that was something that David was very conscious of. David Stern on our team was so aware going in that this was never going to be prescriptive. This was just getting people to understand how hard this is and why these are challenges. But I’m not sure, I think the hope on the attendee level was that they would just get the handbook.

Lucie: Exactly. That was, I think one of the interesting, outcomes or sort of promotions, suggestions perhaps is a better word, was to encourage people to get outside of their small comfort zone, small specialism, but to get other experiences and find out what else is out there and how they themselves and their expertise can fit into these other systems, which is I think interesting.

Kate: And I think, even talking to other mathematicians, because they actually found, I think the attendees found it quite rewarding to meet other people who are interested in impact. So yesterday I was on a call with David Stern on our team and [00:10:00] a cryptographer, an academic, who’s working on privacy systems, in how would this work for impact, how could we benefit society through privacy. And it’s something that I’ve been really interested in for a long time through an applied lens. 

But I think David was like, this is too hard, we don’t work in privacy. Like for him it just felt too removed from the mathematical frameworks and knowledge that he holds. But then being in conversation with this other mathematician, he suddenly was sparking in this way where it was like, I think lately I’ve been very aware of sort of triangulation, you just need more and more data points to start to form the shape. If you just are doing a one-to-one, you can’t ever create the structure that gives something meaning, and it takes the other point of view, and sometimes multiple, maybe it’s not even triangulation. 

Lucie: I’m sorry, it has to be triangulation because the IDEMS logo is a…

Kate: Right. However many points of information you need. But often it takes, you know, these [00:11:00] multiple points of contact, sometimes with someone who speaks your language, sometimes with someone who doesn’t, but anyone alone isn’t enough, you need these multiple touch points. 

And so I think that was part of the value that I could see very explicitly from the workshop was, oh, these people are building relationships, they now have other people who are thinking in the same directions, working in different spaces. These now become colleagues, peers, people they can bounce ideas off of. That’s actually a really important starting point. I think they maybe saw that as an accidental byproduct rather than, well, that’s kind of the point, you’re just building this community and then you never know what’s going to spark in places that create the opportunity, that might be your whole career emerges from whatever that is.

Lucie: Exactly. So one of the participants was telling me about, in her field, you know, conferences, it’s always the same group of people because there’s a small group of people who are specialists in that particular field. And so, you know, really sort of in-depth conferences for her aren’t [00:12:00] actually that interesting because perhaps those people aren’t that nice or other things like that. So there aren’t that many opportunities for her to go to other sorts of conferences and networking events where she can meet other mathematicians or other interesting people in that sense.

And to me that’s quite different to, for example, in anthropology you’re always meeting people doing amazing things and interesting things, whether it’s in your own specialism, your own geographical or topic specialism, or whether it’s in, there’s other types of workshops and events. 

Kate: I think that’s a criticism though, that could be levelled everywhere. I think it’s probably even worse in math because there is such disciplinary, theoretical thinking. But I think about, I mean for myself, probably for you too, like how often are we in spaces where you really get to meet somebody? 

The space where I met David, that was quite unusual where I would’ve been put into a space where we were thinking, and mainly because it was to do with impact, with social impact, [00:13:00] and so that put us in contact with each other. So you need all of these different frameworks that convene different people.

So it’s okay, you have your theoretical math, but then you have your impact mathematicians conference, and then you have your applied impact. Whatever those things are, I think it points up to the fact that there need to be way more convenings that allow for serendipitous connection and unexpected alliances. 

Lucie: Yeah, that’s really interesting. Another thing I was aware of is that there were a few of the participants who are already doing, they’re already starting on their journeys of impact, doing things within their department, doing things in a wider sphere. This again touches on exactly what you were saying that people tend to work on, they only see what they know.

So that’s why the activities that were already being done by participants, it was all things that were within their experience or they had identified challenges and then they wanted to help others in getting over those challenges. But they hadn’t had those other experiences which had [00:14:00] enabled them to think outside of their sort of academic sphere. Which again, points to the need for these sorts of workshops, these sorts of bringing people together into the same room to discuss different ideas.

Kate: I guess also, even as you’re saying that, something that stood out for me is I think there are different levels to which all people want to be involved in impact. And so I think it happens to be that those of us who work with IDEMS are probably on the more extreme end of being really oriented toward pushing new directions, making this our whole career, like really doing this purpose work as a whole.

But some people, I think it’s just they feel powerless in society right now, and they just wanna be participating in ways, and it might not be that their path to having impact is through their professional lives. It might be just get involved in your community, just be more political, do whatever these things are that make you feel, like [00:15:00] volunteer, that might be enough. I did talk to people at the conference who I thought, they only feel right now, like the choices are all or nothing. 

They choose this as their career and that’s how they make a difference. Or they’re just in a lab totally isolated and they’re not making any difference at all. And I think what you were describing of like the people who are actually doing stuff are the people who just looked around them, saw problems and started working on them. And I think to some extent that is probably the wisest approach where you can’t hold out hope that you’re going to serendipitously find your calling.

But you can step your way. And actually, I think this is probably the point, is like the idea that your calling is just going to magically drop in your lap at some conference. I think what you do is you just go out and you work on the things you care about. Is that animals? Is that homelessness? Whatever the issue.

Lucie: These are all very concrete issues.

Kate: Yeah they are, and so I think if you’re a mathematician, you’re looking at that and saying how in the world would I ever connect [00:16:00] math to protecting animals. And maybe you never will, but maybe if you work long enough on this issue that you really care about, you will eventually see oh, there’s this really unexpected issue here that does need math, where math is this, you know, thing that could help address this particular angle of this problem, or whatever it is. 

I guess even the idea of the conference that attendees might have had in mind, where you’re going to get answers, that’s unhelpful thinking in the sense of just start doing things and see what feels right. That’s not very helpful, I guess if you’re looking for your career, your impact career, but I still feel like it’s relevant.

Lucie: It is, and there’s the aspect that the skills, like your example in terms of if you’re interested in animals, then you might actually discover that there is a way that your theoretical thinking is transferrable. I think for PhD students, like the career centers, they often talk about transferable skills, but they don’t think [00:17:00] about it perhaps in a useful way, well, at least not my experience, they say you can write, you can read. 

Kate: I guess it’s because career centers are tasked with being prescriptive, where actually most of this stuff is creative. You have to be in spaces where you’re just open and you’re curious and you’re interested in different things, and it means that you’re sitting at a table with vets and just someone who works at an animal shelter like helping clean cages. You’re getting all of these different perspectives and you have to be fine with that, which is the humility piece I think that we always talk about where you recognise like each of these people is bringing a perspective that is expanding my worldview. 

And it might not immediately yield some like amazing insight that inspires me. But over time you might start to see patterns, you might start to see, well, this particular direction is really underserved and it’s underserved because there aren’t people who have mathematical thinking and skills working in [00:18:00] it.

Lucie: Yeah, exactly.

Kate: Yeah, so I think that is where if you are just coming out of school and you’re used to being on, like you apply for university and you get in and then you get to the next best program, I think that is so unsatisfying. It’s no, just tell me what I can apply for and get and then this will set me on the next path. Unfortunately, I don’t think is often how it works.

Lucie: That works for some people, I think we are really interested in the people for whom that doesn’t work. The people who are interested in what is out there, or what else is out there.

Kate: Yeah.

Lucie: I wanted to ask also, what were your experiences? I can’t remember which day it was, but we had a speed dating session.

Kate: Oh yeah.

Lucie: I think we all had a couple of minutes to speak with, I dunno how many other people, how many other participants. What was your experience of that?

Kate: My experience was probably the most, like speed dating, where it was just meeting someone completely random. How do I draw you out, get some sense of who you are? I didn’t actually [00:19:00] particularly ask about math. I just asked who are you?

Lucie: You didn’t ask about maths.

Kate: What was I gonna ask? Also that’s not usually what’s most interesting about somebody, you know? It’s like, yeah just how do you get someone talking about themselves? So from my experience, it was just learning about who these people were. And I suppose sometimes one of my insights was, I don’t think that some of these people have had enough time or space to really develop themselves as people. 

You still are, in many ways, a student and you’re used to just going through the system. And that’s not doing that hard work of what do I care about, what are my values? So there were some people who definitely had that, but I would say that for me, that was my experience. What about you? 

Lucie: Yeah, same. Because we started off by sort of asking if we had expectations before going in there. So to me at first I was, with the speed dating, I was like what can be my role within this, and then because I hadn’t been able to [00:20:00] participate in, I think one of the morning sessions, so I had less chance to get to know some of the participants. So I also took it as a opportunity to have different discussions. 

Interestingly, one of the participants did ask me if only mathematicians, is it only mathematicians who need to have, who can or should be activated for impact? Which I thought was a good question. 

Kate: Everyone else already is. No. It’s not true. Well actually, I guess, this comes back to something that I said before this call, where I have been surprised to find, I think this is something that I had been saying but thought I was generalizing a bit, but I just keep finding it reinforced everywhere, is mathematicians more than any other field, do not seem to have any sort of impact curriculum or thinking or it’s not woven into their education in [00:21:00] any way. 

I wouldn’t say that other fields, it’s necessarily woven in, but it seems more likely that you would encounter it. You would have a professor who cares about it, you would have students who are in some group something where it’s more likely to have come out, that you’re thinking about impact. And I think it does feel in mathematics, like it can feel quite lonely if you want to work on impact and you look around and you can’t see anywhere where you would even begin to find role models or advice or think that you’re not just crazy for thinking that you might bring those together.

Lucie: Yeah, I think as far as I’m aware, a lot of the conversations within the maths departments in terms of impact at the moment is trying to make even maths departments more gender balanced, and in terms of having not just white people, but having a range of people from all over the world, perhaps being mathematicians.

So to me, yeah, exactly what you’re saying, that there’s a lot more, a lot further yet to go within [00:22:00] these more theoretical departments in terms of how to think about not just academic expertise, but these impact aspects, or having a role within society.

Kate: I think that was for me where if I look at was this a success or not, because it was our very first one and we’re just finding the way, I think it was successful for just building a community. Now you know people who are also thinking in these directions, you start to have a sense of not being alone in these things. 

Which I think we feel in IDEMS all the time, and you start to feel like this is normal thinking this way because everyone else on our team thinks that way. But then you step outside of that even one degree and it’s oh, this is quite anomalous. And I think that for most attendees. And maybe that’s just a sign that we need to point to that more where it’s like that really is more the point of this is just beginning to find this community that makes this something that [00:23:00] you can think about, even.

Lucie: Yeah. From my perspective, it was definitely a success, both from the participant’s point of view in terms of they were clearly really positive about it. But then also from our perspective in terms of the learnings we’ve identified, I think for how to do it next time. And I think, from my side at least, I’ve really seen the value of it and have been able to think through the value of it too.

Kate: Yeah, me too. I think I would know next year how to contribute better to setting the whole structure. This year I was just, let’s just be a fly on the wall and observe. I definitely was not a fly, I was participating. I didn’t feel confident in my ability to drive the direction, where I think I would feel more comfortable in the future establishing the framework, setting up some basic things that help people understand what to expect. 

Because I think most things are that, just manage people’s expectations . You know, sometimes dissatisfaction just comes from misalignment, where it’s [00:24:00] not that you actually didn’t enjoy yourself, it’s that you didn’t enjoy yourself if you thought this was supposed to be the outcome, you were going to come out of this with a job, this would be a very disappointing workshop if that was your assumption. 

But if your assumption was, I just wanna meet people, I wanna learn. I wanna learn what other people are doing. I wanna get a sense of how this might even work, I think this was a very satisfying workshop. You saw lots of examples of that. So yeah.

Lucie: Great. Anything else to add? I think we should probably wrap up.

Kate: No, yeah. Thanks Lucie. This was nice to reflect on.

Lucie: Likewise and we’ll see what happens next time. Thanks.