This document provides instructions and timings for a scientific collaboration exercise. Participants are asked to introduce themselves, brainstorm potential collaborative projects, prepare a 3-slide presentation summarizing a proposed project within their group, and present their ideas within 4 minutes. The presentation should include the project title, names and affiliations of collaborators, a brief problem summary, and an overview of each collaborator's relevant expertise. Advice is given on effective collaboration, including embracing different skills within the group, resolving conflicts respectfully, and using source control for documents.
This talk was delivered during the graduate seminar at Georgetown University Computer Science Department. It offers practical principles and techniques for English academic writing.
The slides were used when I present an alt.chi paper, title "QnDReview: Read 100 CHI Papers in 7 Hours" in CHI 2014. The contents will show what kinds of benefits that you will have if you are forced to read papers in a short period of time. More details could be found in the following URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2578884
Abstract: In 2013, 392 research papers and notes were published in the CHI conference (The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems) and even more papers in the domain of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) are constantly published in various conferences and journals. It is quite arduous, if not impossible, to read all of these papers. One approach to deal with this information deluge is to focus on skimming through lots of papers in a short period of time, so that one can more wisely choose what to read before investing time in them. In order to teach such a skimming technique, I have taught a technique, called "Quick and Dirty Review (QnDReview)," in a graduate-level HCI course. The method has been employed in the course for five semesters, and students' responses were collected and analyzed. Results showed that students spent, on average, 4.3 minutes per paper and believed that they got the gist of each paper. However, the largest benefit I noticed is that students get the overall pictures of the fields while exposing themselves to various new ideas through this approach.
This talk was delivered during the graduate seminar at Georgetown University Computer Science Department. It offers practical principles and techniques for English academic writing.
The slides were used when I present an alt.chi paper, title "QnDReview: Read 100 CHI Papers in 7 Hours" in CHI 2014. The contents will show what kinds of benefits that you will have if you are forced to read papers in a short period of time. More details could be found in the following URL: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2578884
Abstract: In 2013, 392 research papers and notes were published in the CHI conference (The ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems) and even more papers in the domain of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) are constantly published in various conferences and journals. It is quite arduous, if not impossible, to read all of these papers. One approach to deal with this information deluge is to focus on skimming through lots of papers in a short period of time, so that one can more wisely choose what to read before investing time in them. In order to teach such a skimming technique, I have taught a technique, called "Quick and Dirty Review (QnDReview)," in a graduate-level HCI course. The method has been employed in the course for five semesters, and students' responses were collected and analyzed. Results showed that students spent, on average, 4.3 minutes per paper and believed that they got the gist of each paper. However, the largest benefit I noticed is that students get the overall pictures of the fields while exposing themselves to various new ideas through this approach.
A talk delivered by Liz McCarthy at the Anybook Oxford Libraries Conference 2015 - Adapting for the Future: Developing Our Professions and Services, 21st July 2015
These are slides that I use to teach our incoming graduate students how to avoid common troubles that graduate students / researchers experience. It is more for Purdue IE students, but most of the advice could be relevant to many graduate students.
Presentation Seminar - Harada Ushiku Lab - The University of Tokyo (in English)
(日本語版:https://www.slideshare.net/AntonioTejerodePablo/presentation-skills-up-seminar-harada-ushiku-lab)
Research results in peer-reviewed publications are reproducible, right? If only it was so clear cut. With high profile paper retractions and pushes for better data sharing by funders, publishers and the community, the spotlight is now focussing on the whole way research is conducted around the world.
This talk from the Software Sustainability Institute's Collaborations Workshop 2014 describes how cloud computing, with Microsoft Azure, is helping researchers realize the goals of scientific reproducibility.
Find out more at www.azure4research.com
Why Computer Science is a Great Choice
Lecture to International Summer School, St Andrews, June 30 2015, by Ian Gent
For image credits go to the last slides.
Women in Science 2015: The Computer Scientist and the Cleanerturingfan
If I tell you a story about a heterosexual couple who are a computer scientist and a cleaner, would you have any preconceptions as to which was the man and which was the woman? You might not, but Google image searches show that the internet does.
Prof Ian Gent will use this as a parable about the vital problem of gender imbalance and stereotyping in Computer Science, perhaps the most important problem for the field. Ian will also discuss the Petrie Multiplier, a graphic illustration of how gender imbalance can dramatically affect the minority, even when the majority doesn't behave any worse.
Talk given at the Dundee Women in Science Festival, 18 March 2015
A talk delivered by Liz McCarthy at the Anybook Oxford Libraries Conference 2015 - Adapting for the Future: Developing Our Professions and Services, 21st July 2015
These are slides that I use to teach our incoming graduate students how to avoid common troubles that graduate students / researchers experience. It is more for Purdue IE students, but most of the advice could be relevant to many graduate students.
Presentation Seminar - Harada Ushiku Lab - The University of Tokyo (in English)
(日本語版:https://www.slideshare.net/AntonioTejerodePablo/presentation-skills-up-seminar-harada-ushiku-lab)
Research results in peer-reviewed publications are reproducible, right? If only it was so clear cut. With high profile paper retractions and pushes for better data sharing by funders, publishers and the community, the spotlight is now focussing on the whole way research is conducted around the world.
This talk from the Software Sustainability Institute's Collaborations Workshop 2014 describes how cloud computing, with Microsoft Azure, is helping researchers realize the goals of scientific reproducibility.
Find out more at www.azure4research.com
Why Computer Science is a Great Choice
Lecture to International Summer School, St Andrews, June 30 2015, by Ian Gent
For image credits go to the last slides.
Women in Science 2015: The Computer Scientist and the Cleanerturingfan
If I tell you a story about a heterosexual couple who are a computer scientist and a cleaner, would you have any preconceptions as to which was the man and which was the woman? You might not, but Google image searches show that the internet does.
Prof Ian Gent will use this as a parable about the vital problem of gender imbalance and stereotyping in Computer Science, perhaps the most important problem for the field. Ian will also discuss the Petrie Multiplier, a graphic illustration of how gender imbalance can dramatically affect the minority, even when the majority doesn't behave any worse.
Talk given at the Dundee Women in Science Festival, 18 March 2015
The computer scientist and the cleaner is a parable about gender preconceptions.
These slides are a draft talk to first year students on gender balance and sexism in Computer Science.
For more details about the context of this talk, visit my blog at
http://iangent.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-computer-scientist-and-cleaner.html
This seminar discussed ways in which to produce professional academic writing, from academic papers to research proposals or technical writing in general.
You’ve Got A Lot To Say. People Deserve to Hear It.
You don’t need to picture people in their underwear to get up on stage and share what you know. You do, however, need to have a compelling idea along with a well-written abstract and a well-structured, well-prepared presentation in order to give the talk you–and your audience–deserve.
That’s not all–show up with 5 minutes of a presentation and learn from seasoned professionals who have seen their fair share of stages. We’ll provide you with a safe, welcoming environment and help you by providing valuable and actionable feedback that will help you level-up your presentation game.
Start here, and evolve your own patterns and techniques that work best for you.
Participating in conferences and learning from experts is great, but as a community we are missing a lot when it’s the same faces every year, everywhere. We have to do our best to include everyone from a diverse background as speakers and learn from their experiences. This talk will prove you have what it takes to become a speaker yourself, and will give you practical advice to start your career as a speaker. We will talk about overcoming the impostor syndrome and eliminating self-doubt like “I don’t know what to talk about” and “I can’t talk in front of people”. This is a fun, inspiring talk, and by the end of it you will discover the super-hero speaker in you, bursting already with ideas for your first talk.
Writing for Publication: Get Started, Get Support, Get PublishedSelf Employed
Slides from @EAHIL2015 workshop in Edinburgh, 10-12 June 2015 facilitated by Maria J Grant, Editor-in-Chief of the Health Information and Libraries Journal (m.j.grant@salford.ac.uk)
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Normal Labour/ Stages of Labour/ Mechanism of LabourWasim Ak
Normal labor is also termed spontaneous labor, defined as the natural physiological process through which the fetus, placenta, and membranes are expelled from the uterus through the birth canal at term (37 to 42 weeks
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
2. Timings…
• 10.20 Find Room & Group
• 10.25 Introductions
• Introduce yourselves to the other members of the group
• 10.40 Brainstorming
• Figure out something you could work together on
• Anything!
• 11.00 Write down summary of ideas
• 11.10 Finish text for presentation
• 11.20 Email pdf of presentation to committee
• 11.30 Give presentation to your room in 4 MINUTES!
• 12 The End
3. What do I bring to the party?
I have done a little bit of collaboration in my time …
Özgür Akgün, Sylwester Arabas,
Michael R. Bareford, James L. Caldwell,
David A. Clark, Michelle Cope,
Tom Crick, Joseph C. Culberson,
Jeremy Frank, Alan M. Frisch,
Enrico Giunchiglia, Benjamin M. Gorman,
Peter Gregory, Masih Hajiarabderkani
4. What do I bring to the party?
Kevin Hammond, Warwick Harvey
Tristan Henderson, Neil P. Chue Hong
Holger H. Hoos, Sophie Huczynska
Bilal Syed Hussain, Luke Hutton
Robert W. Irving, Christopher Jefferson
Thomas W. Kelsey, Sergey Kitaev,
Alexander Konovalov, Lars Kotthoff, Stephen Linton
5. What do I bring to the party?
Inês Lynce, Ewan MacIntyre
David Manlove, Ciaran McCreesh
Iain McDonald, Paul McKay
Ian Miguel, Neil C. A. Moore
Massimo Narizzano, Glenna F. Nightingale
Peter Nightingale, Ruma R. Paul
Justin Pearson, Karen E. Petrie
Patrick Prosser, Abdul Razaq
6. What do I bring to the party?
Daniël Reijsbergen, Andrea Rendl
Colva M. Roney-Dougal, Andrew Rowley
Josh Singer, Alan Smaill
Barbara M. Smith, Kevin Smyth
Kostas Stergiou, Armando Tacchella
Kenji Takeda, Armagan Tarim
Neven Tomov, Judith L. Underwood
Toby Walsh, Wu Wie
... But that doesn‘t mean I‘m good at collaborating!
7. What do I know about collaboration?
• Intimidating list of paper co authors
• Ok that’s a bit unfair because of a 17 author paper
• Oh well that also means good collaborator too…
• Many types of collaborator
• People who have changed my life
• Others who pass through my life
• Some I’ve never met
• That’s what to expect
8. But that doesn‘t mean I‘m good at collaborating!
• I used to think I was a bad collaborator
• Did my PhD without writing any joint papers
• Even with my supervisor
• Wrote only with one collaborator for a couple of years after that
• Then I thought I was better collaborator than most of my colleagues
• Then I realised both of the above statements are consistent!
• So this is a great idea for a workshop!
11. Why collaborate?
• Also
A project of this scope could not be realized without the aid of many
people, or rather it could but it would be dumb to do it that way when
there are so many people around willing to give their aid.
• Peter Schickele
The Definitive Biography of P.D.Q. Bach (1807-171)?
12. You may have collaborated before
• Maybe five authors in your research group
• You had the idea, did all the implementation, wrote about half the paper, etc
• Postdoc wrote all the code yours is an adaption of, pointed out the critical
bug in your code 2 days before submission, and wrote a quarter of the paper
• Lecturer wrote about an eighth of the paper
• Senior Lecturer wrote the impressive abstract
• Professor has their name on the paper too but you’ve no idea why
• This exercise is not about that kind of collaboration
13. This kind of collaboration…
• You meet somebody or a group of people
• There might be some interesting work you can do
• Maybe there is and maybe there isn’t
• But how might you find out?
• Let’s try today!
14. The Exercise…
• We want you to meet a group of collaborators
• Introduce yourselves to each other
• Find out what you work on
• Figure out something you could work on together
• Figure out what you might do on that
• Prepare a presentation about it
• Give the presentation
• You’ve got more than an hour, easy!
• I did it with Oche in a few minutes
15. Presentation
• 4 Minutes is not very long
• And we have to be strict
• Want MAX of three slides
• Slide 1:
• title of potential project,
• names of collaborators, affiliations
• Slide 2
• Brief (obviously) summary of project
• What’s the problem you are trying to address
• Perhaps ideas of how to solve it
• Slide 3
• What do we bring to the party?
• How the different collaborators might be able to help
16. Timings…
• 10.20 Find Room & Group
• 10.25 Introductions
• Introduce yourselves to the other members of the group
• 10.40 Brainstorming
• Figure out something you could work together on
• Anything!
• 11.00 Write down summary of ideas
• 11.10 Finish text for presentation
• 11.20 Email pdf of presentation to committee
• 11.30 Give presentation to your room in 4 MINUTES!
• 12 The End
17. Constraint Modelling for Energy Efficient Video
• Oche Ejembi & Ian Gent
• Summary
• Example Use Case: Home video server delivering multiple streams
• How do we satisfy users most in terms of quality etc while using minimal
energy and obeying physical constraints?
• What do we bring to the party?
• Oche: study of video codecs energy & resource usage
• Ian: understanding of optimisation techniques using constraints
• Combine these by building optimisation model using results of Oche’s studies
19. Do be the stupidest person in the collaboration
• Somebody asked me how I coped with working with two particularly
ridiculously smart people
• I said, “exactly, I work with them!”
• Look at it this way
• You want your collaboration to be the smartest possible
• Will it be smarter if you are the smart one in the collaboration, or if you are
the stupid one?
20. Do be smart enough to work with people smarter
than you
• A more polite way of saying exactly the same thing!
21. Do put up with other collaborators
being incredibly annoying
• You are probably incredibly annoying sometimes
• But also you do good stuff
• I think this is one thing that makes me a good collaborator
• I let my co-authors down and they let me down
• And I might be incredibly annoyed
• But I get over it and we write more papers together
• This doesn’t mean you should put up with abuse or bullying of course
22. Do put up with arguing
• Similar but not quite the same as the last point
• Listen carefully when your co-authors disagree with you
• Especially the quiet one who never says anything but is looking dubious in
the corner
• Arguments among co-authors are often the best way to come up with a new
solution
• And guards against some things your reviewers would spot
23. Don’t lose your paper
• I mean literally lose your paper and not be able to recreate it
• And I’m not joking
• I can think of two cases where this has happened to me so …
24. Do use source code control
• LaTeX works well with git, hg, etc
• Right now I’m writing a paper via Word & DropBox
• And it’s scaring the whatsit out of me
• Great for working on different parts of paper at the same time
• With source code control …
• It doesn’t matter how stupid your collaborators YOU are
• You can retrieve the situation
25. What do you bring to the party?
• Let’s say you are still worried about not being the smart one…
• There’s almost certainly something you can bring to the party …
• … which is probably more important to the paper than being the smart one
26. Are you …
• The one who knows the literature?
• The one who can see the mistake in the past paper
which means you can fix the literature?
• The one who can predict what reviewers won’t like
about your paper as is?
• The one who can see how to sell the paper idea?
• The one who can structure the paper just right?
• The one who can get the paper submitted on time?
• The one who can resolve edit conflicts?
• The one who can get the paper back into length when
it’s a page over 4 hours before submission?
27. Timings…
• 10.20 Find Room & Group
• 10.25 Introductions
• Introduce yourselves to the other members of the group
• 10.40 Brainstorming
• Figure out something you could work together on
• Anything!
• 11.00 Write down summary of ideas
• 11.10 Finish text for presentation
• 11.20 Email pdf of presentation to committee
• 11.30 Give presentation to your room in 4 MINUTES!
• 12 The End