I ran a "Be a Happy RSE" workshop at the RSE's first annual conference This a writeup of that workshop.
I had been thinking explicitly of happiness for a few months. I had attended a 10-week course on Raising Teens (brilliant course, link from https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/residents/children-and-families/parenting-and-family-support/parenting-courses/; if you have a chance to attend something like locally this, do it!) recently. It was a good chance to really think about resilience, support, boundaries, praise, labels, deeds-not-doers, Maslow. Part of the purpose of a course like this (you find out, it's never said to you explicitly) is to think about yourself, not about your teen. So I had been thinking about what my resilience was like. Was I resilient? Was I happy?
It was a short jump from there to, while proposing F#+Z3 as a workshop to RSE16 (got rejected, boohoo, I wasn't happy; you can see what you missed at https://github.com/sishtiaq/compose-z3-tutorial), I thought: I'm a research engineer, what makes me happy might also be what makes others happy; how about I run a session on happiness for RSEs? It was a short jump but a scary one: to think that I could just go in and talk about being happy. And, no, I hadn't done anything like this before. But, I thought, while I don't have the answers, it might be that others have some of the answers. Why not share what we have?
I proposed the session to the RSE organizers. They said yes, but were concerned that too many people would just use it to dump baggage. But I wasn't going to run it if it was going to become a gathering of Moaning Myrtles; I wanted most people to come away with a positive outcome. In the end, the positive attitude of the attendees surpassed all my expectations.
Once I got the go-ahead from the organizers I had to get my act in gear. I knew pretty much what I didn't want: I didn't want to just talk at the front of the room; it would be boring and I didn't have all/any of the answers. I wanted everyone to hear what everyone else had to say.
I talked to my wife Zoe at the dinner table a lot about this (we have
to talk to each other, otherwise the dinner conversation would involve
only our children talking about
Bunny v Monkey.
I consulted Tom Crick (Cardiff Met), Ben Hall (MRC Cancer Unit), Kenji
Takeda (azure4research), John Bronskill (MSR) and Matthew Johnson
(MSR). I showed them my
notes
and discussed how to run the session. In the end, I stole the format
of the Raising Teens group work sessions: we split up into four
groups. There would be four stations, each with a specific topic to
talk about. A group per station. They would talk and take enough notes
on the flipchart to be able to give a summary at the end. After every
10/15mins, we would rotate. Right at the end of the entire session,
after three rotations, we'd have everyone report back on their
summaries.
The four topics I wanted us to talk about were: Here & Now, Work I, Work II, and Life. I wanted them to analyze (moan, dump luggage); then discuss; and lastly come up with actions. To seed discussion on these topics, I stuck up slogans of sub-topics.
80 people had signed up for the workshop. I was properly terrified for a week before-hand!
I took 5 or 10 minutes at the beginning of the session to say how the session would be run, and what we'd be talking about. I confessed up-front that I didn't know how to make them happy. But I did say that I was happy that they weren't going to the C++ and go sessions that were being run in parallel. By making this choice for themselves, I said, they already realized a crucial part of the story: that being happy was their choice. I said that, at the end of the session, it would be nice if everyone could come away with a short menu of actions they could (maybe now, maybe some time in the future)do to make them happier.
In the Here & Now topic, I wanted people to say why they were here, not as an existential question, but --- literally --- why didn't they go to the C++ session? Are they happy now, and if so why? Why did they want to be an RSE (maybe they were a failed researcher, or maybe they wanted to be an engineer from the start)?
I had thought that people would be happy if they felt they were doing something useful and if they were valued. I told the story of my 10yo son: I asked him what made him happy; he thought and said "I'm happy because I'm so busy".
Or maybe some people didn't want to be happy? A "refusal to win", to borrow a phrase.
The discussion brought up many useful answers to these questions. Turns out, RSEs (or, at least, those attending the workshop) were generally happy. They liked working with others, they liked solving problem ("tenacity" one person said), they liked what they were doing, they liked being busy. The vast majority of the RSEs there were employed by institutions that allowed them autonomy and freedom to be in control of their own work; they had good ("contained" one person said) work hours.
For some, learning how to make others happy made them happy.
Many said that the UK RSE made them happy (good job, UK RSE!). It gave them recognition of their role, their status, in their work. They also like it that they were part of a community that they didn't know existed before. Several people said that they always wanted to be an RSE but didn't know what to call it or what it was; when they found UK RSE, it was as if they'd found home. For some, UK RSE unblocked their career path via their EPSRC Fellowship; for others, their RSE role was a re-start, opening up new avenues. Others (maybe more junior?) did say, on the other hand, that there was still uncertainty in their role, they were missing feedback, they had a lack of recognition.
In his keynote talk, Matthew Johnson had talked about the spectrum of an RSE: from SDE/dev/IT all the way to Researcher. This is a good concept, with both positive and negative implications. Many people said that they enjoyed the dual aspects of Software Engineering and domain expertise. They produce something that is used again and again: the obvious analogy is to a successful paper cited many times. On the other hand, there is no recognition by journals of this work; quite a lot of journals have no need for code in publication. And there might not be any job security despite good software/download statistics. Both ends of the RSE spectrum were bought up: on one end, an RSE might not write papers, they might only do releases; on the other end, the analogy to a researcher was highlighted by one person who said: "A senior PI doesn't do research", so what's the analogous role of a senior RSE?
There were two "work" topics. "Work I" was about the relationship an RSE had with specific others: with their researchers, with their manager, with their Director or Head of Dept. It also covered an RSE and their project. It's the old joke about programmers who say that their life would be so much easier if it weren't for their users. But others exist, and we have to deal with them so we might as well make a good job of it.
An RSEs comparison, and so their relationship, with a Researcher is a particularly interesting. I've come across Researchers who want to do the ideal (and so never finish), and Researchers who write just enough code to make this one paper work. One of the participants talked about a researcher presenting the RSE's work "in very nice conference :-(". More positively, several participants said that an RSE's work should be evaluated by an RSE, that a researcher being a stakeholder, not a "boss", makes both sides happier.
Then there's managers. Over time, as many institutions are becoming more corporate, an RSE will start to have a manager, maybe several "matrix" managers. Often these managers might not know what they are doing, and the new managers might need active managing by RSEs themselves. Sometimes your new manager might be your old friend and colleague; what do you do then?
The discussion brought out many opinions of managers. Some had a lot of autonomy, a lack of management (a good thing!), or an informal/collaborative management (someone said that this could cause problems); some had a good relationship with their manager, and used them as a sounding board; some had multiple managers.
Many RSEs reported that they had a lot of freedom to decide the project path. They liked working in projects, there was a team spirit there, in which a shared understanding made for happy collaboration. They felt they had a unique and critical special role in projects. And that they could show off their solutions and get feedback in this trusted environment. This good feeling was marred by several RSEs talking about short-term contracts.
Not many I listened to talked about finishing projects (this only came up in the context of when the research grant they were on ended; see short term contracts above). How do you join another project? Can you start a project, does it have to be a Researcher who does this? Are you able to complete the project before moving to the next one?
Above managers, is your Head of Dept. Do they know you? Do they know you as more than a "resource"? Can you hide from them forever? Many RSEs in the session said that many HoDs were unaware of RSE work. Note what they said: not just unaware of RSEs, unaware of even their work. This is serious, something for UK RSE to address.
Lastly, even though there were RSEs there from mainland Europe and the US, there was a very British discussion of overcoming impostor syndrome. We often get very difficult things done, that no one else can do. We should be proud to claim our achievements without being arrogant about it. We should also encourage, amongst ourselves, an openness to learning more, and to admitting that there are things we don't know ... but can find out.
The second Work session was meant to be about the more holistic aspects of work: how you work, what you like working on, what do you think of your career, how you got things done. In fact, the discussion was more wide ranging than that.
For many RSEs in the session, they liked the fact that they had the autonomy to chose their own projects. But many were concerned that the work-item estimates they were making were very inadequate. They also realized that expectations of both themselves and the researchers ("enthusiastic clients" one person called them) needed to be managed, especially as there was a lot of missing knowledge of the software creation process at their places of work.
Participants liked the fact that their work was very flexible, that they had good core hours. But they were critical that communication of their colleagues and managers was, as one person put it frankly, "piss poor". One person said that they would rather work by themselves rather than with others; that others took, not shared, and this led to a draining of energy. Several people said that for issues, some of which were very serious (alcoholism was mentioned), colleagues and managers didn't do anything. Problems were not handled; and this happened all the time. Several participants mentioned exploitation of juniors, and especially short term contracts.
Some participants talked a bit about their role in a team. They said that clarity in their role would be good. Others said that they needed to be seen (visibility --- this could be interpreted either way), facetime was important.
There were some other points brought up in this session. One person said that people need challenges, that busy was happy. Another said that, as an RSE, you might be on something cool, but it might not be useful or used; on the other hand, supporting legacy software might be boring and lead to a dead end career.
Some things I wanted to find out, but didn't get to see whether people talked about them were: Did people work with others outside their domain, outside their organizations? What were their team sizes? How was their performance judged? What was their career path like, and could they change careers the way an academic can?
To me, this was the most interesting topic, needing more reflection from the participants. And they came through: this was the session that was very busy, that I had real trouble moving people on from.
The main topic of this session was to: look after yourself. To make sure, at the risk of sounding like a Dept of Health advert, to exercise/diet/sleep well.
Who wouldn't admit that sleep and relaxation are good for you? Many saw sleep to be good for solving problems. And, contrariwise, some participants enjoyed being in the flow/zone so much, they didn't want to be interrupted by sleep and relaxation; they enjoyed the genuine joy/full control over their problems, and didn't want to be taken out of them. Even if they were at home, they might be thinking about work (vs. doing work itself).
But many participants wanted a clear separation of work and home. They desired and kept a good work--life balance. "Don't let work colonise your life", one person said.
There was a good diversity of participants in the workshop, and the comments on trying to keep a good work/life balance at different times of your life reflected this. At different times of your life, what you have to do is different, and transitions in maintaining the balance is difficult. Not all of it is under your control. Working at home or working part time has positives and negatives (unrealistic expectations, salary cuts). Family can have a lack of understanding and support. (But I would argue: bring them on your side, they can be turned into a strong bulwark of understanding and support.)
One person gave a good summary: You must find what works for you; find your productive time; and let other people find theirs.
Side Projects was one of the topics in this part. I had mentioned my allotment as a side project at the start of the workshop; I said, looking at some of the much younger RSEs, that maybe it was an older thing. But that, given council waiting times, you do end up being older by the time you get to the front of the allotment queue.
Side projects are good, but should they be technical or not? Maybe you want a break from staring at a screen all day, or maybe not. There was a whole list of hobbies and interests: pilates, road cycling, Greenpower F24 car racing, dancing, soapbox science, school governor, music, singing, art, ice skating, flying trapeze, board games, cooking, reading. For many, family is a big (BIG!) side project: having a family cuts you off, keeps you grounded, children re-prioritize your life. People also listed Scratch Day, videogames, and open source community engagement (though, guys, these are really not non-technical).
The essence of these activities is that they are outside work, they involve other people. One of the things I do, for instance, is run a Dads Film Club (though the secret there is that it suits introverted men, and you need not talk that much as the film takes up most of the time).
For some of the participants, the constructive side projects were seen as an escape route from feeling stuck or depressed, they allowed mediation and mindfulness. For others, maybe for most, it was an expression of their self, their free choice, and gave them a sense of achievement.
There was a lot of positive vibe from this topic. I think a lot of people realized that they had a good Triangle of Flexibility/Autonomy/Stability going. They wanted to keep their body happy, they wanted to relax their brain, they wanted to step outside their comfort zone. As someone reminded everyone: go easy on yourself, you are highly employable, you have job freedom.
At the end of the session, while we were being urged by the organizers to finish and close, I asked the groups to quickly summarize their sessions at each station. Representatives from each group spoke, everyone else listened, I quickly took some notes. If anything, these summarize the entire session very well:
Being recognized and valued. "Came to the workshop to be a happy RSE". Remember that we should expect to be happy. UKRSE. Problem solving. Invested.
Travel makes up part of the community. Risk of brain drain. Watch out for impostor syndrome. Be open, claim your achievements. Communication important. Management good/bad. Creative freedom. Peer review. Good relationship w/ manager(s) needed but difficult. Short term contracts bad.
Good to work with good colleagues. Self pressure.
Sleep is good. But BeingInZone is better. Listen to your body. You choose to work, don't let work colonize your life. You can easily get a job: you don't have to deal with this shit.
There was an absolutely amazing buzz at the session. Far from an initial fear that it would be full of cynics, it was in fact full of positive, inspiring, happy people. My one big regret is that I couldn't be in each team/station all the time.
It would be great to develop many of the things that came out of the workshop session. Maybe we should run another session like this at RSE17? Maybe run similar sessions on-demand at universities? Maybe the format needs adjusting, more time given to each topic? Maybe talk about different topics?
Nearly everything that was written in relation to this workshop is stored at my RSE16 github repo; this includes my rough notes in preparing for this session, and photos of the flipcharts. If you want to use anything from there, please do. If you have feedback or comments, please get in touch.
I want to thank Sam Bishop and Jo Seymour, Family Workers at Cambridgeshire County Council, for their Raising Teens course.
I want to thank Federica Bogo, David Carter, Sylvan Clebsch, Camilla Longdon, Gavin Smyth, Sam Webster, Sarah Winkler, and especially John Bronskill, Tom Crick, Ben Hall, Matthew Johnson for providing feedback.
I want to thank Tarek Allam for helping out on the day, and for his suggestion on how to re-shape the groups.
Finally, thank you, Zoe!