Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to University of Oulu The Supervisors’ Academy, the podcast where doctoral supervisors and other experts share stories, strategies, and the occasional stumble from the frontlines of academic work. Whether you’re a seasoned supervisor or just starting out, this podcast is for you. We’ll explore good practices, common challenges, and the kind of wisdom you only gain through experience.
[recording starts]
[music playing 00:00:05]
Päivi Jokinen [00:00:07]: I am happy that you mentioned this because I think I have this kind of image, and I think some people might have that kind of idea, that in those more technical fields, where there are very specific ways of talking and very specific jargon and technical language, there is no such thing as a unique individual writer's voice, in comparison to social sciences or in humanities. I think you mentioned this here.
Magda Karjalainen [00:00:38]: Yes, a unique style.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:00:40]: That is why I mentioned earlier about that metaphor. You come up with all these things by going through.
Magda Karjalainen [00:00:51]: Welcome to the University of Oulu Supervisors Academy podcast; a space where doctoral supervisors and other research companions share their stories, strategies, stumbles, surprises, and slow learnings from the front lines of academia. Whether you are a seasoned supervisor or newly stepping into the role, this podcast is for you. We will explore good practices, common challenges, and the kind of wisdom that only reveals itself over time: through success, failure, curiosity, and care. Tervetuloa!
[music playing 00:01:28]
Magda Karjalainen [00:01:29]: And today we are joined by Professor Nandana Rajateva, who is the head of the Broadband Connectivity with Intelligence group in the 6G flagship research program in the Center for Wireless Communications here at the University of Oulu. And Professor Nandana has kindly agreed to share with us his supervising experience. Welcome, Professor Nandana. Thank you for joining us.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:01:57]: Thank you for inviting me. Yes. Good morning.
Päivi Jokinen [00:01:59]: Good morning.
Magda Karjalainen [00:02:01]: It is incredible to have someone as experienced as you here with us, especially from the Center for Wireless Communication, which is such an important part of our university community. Also, that you have all this experience with supervision. So, we are really looking forward to this discussion. Nandana, with Magda, we are both teachers of academic writing, and we have both finished our PhD journeys just a couple of years ago. This has brought us to understand quite deeply how scientific writing is at the very core of doctoral studies. It is the backbone of academic communication, research dissemination, and knowledge creation. It is a powerful tool with transformative potential. This is how we see it. And it is also one of the main modes of academic identity formation and socialization into the academic community. Yet, when it comes to PhD, we often see only the end product, a printed thesis or published articles, and those are also most recognized, whereas the writing process behind the final product is often invisible. Also, the supervisor's role is often invisible. So, much of this silent wisdom of academic community is something that we wish to be uncovering here during these podcast discussions. To get started, could you tell a little bit about your own journey to becoming a PhD supervisor here in Oulu?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:03:43]: Yes. So, I did my bachelor's degree in Sri Lanka. You also need to write a thesis there. So, there is some writing involved, although the area is pretty technical. So, there is some initial reporting and those kinds of things. I think importantly, when I went to do my master studies and PhD then in Canada, of course, we have to put a lot of emphasis on getting the message across on what exactly you are doing. My supervisor there was very strict on this, that whatever I write, I give it to him, then he will comment a lot. Then you have to go through this, this, and these things. Then sometimes it was annoying to see all the marks. Of course, it is a process, so it takes time getting used to the way of writing paper. Initially we start off with a conference paper before you write any journals or theses. So, it is the first step, as far as I am concerned, but also importantly, you read papers by other authors. So, in your field, there is a way of writing in terms of vocabulary to be used and certain phrases and things like that. Even coming from English literature, I remember there was one sentence saying how do you solve this problem? Alexandrian way of fun time, the Gordian knot. Just cut it with the sword. So, it helps have some background, in my opinion, in English and English literature to some extent. When you submit, sometimes you get comment such as okay, check it by a native English speaker. With your supervisor you can then see how to get to this writing process and writing and trying it in conferences and like that. When I finished my studies in Canada, I returned to Sri Lanka and stayed there for one year. Then I went and joined this institute in Thailand called the Asian Institute of Technology, which was supported by the government of Finland and Nokia. So, there we had a lot of students coming from all over Asia. We selected the best, we gave the scholarships, and then we start this process. They have mostly master students, but then we put them through tough process in terms of coursework and in terms of theses. Here you have to defend the thesis, like in a doctoral program. So, we have a committee. In front of the committee you have to defend your master thesis. It is graded from excellent to pass. So, it has to be written properly. So, that also takes a lot of time to come up with a good thesis. Of course, then doctoral thesis, as well. I came here in 2010. I was already familiar of course with the Finnish system since I was interacting with Finland and university [?? 00:07:25]. I spent my [?? 00:07:27] in, at that time, Helsinki University of Technology, now Aalto. So, this compilation thesis and monograph. So, that is the process of coming here.
Magda Karjalainen [00:07:41]: To be here today, yes. For a long time, I was thinking about how it has been 30 years in your career that you have been following the development in the field of telecommunication since the time when you were in Bangkok working for the Nokia research company.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:08:03]: This is actually the graduate school there, Asian Institute of Technology, which was supported by both Nokia and especially the government of Finland. So, they had supported it for 20 years. The reason was that telecom at that level was not taught in Asia at that time. They established that in 1990. So, it was one of the best programs available at that time. So, most of the senior people, telecom people in Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, they all graduated from this place. Then, of course, quite a lot of them came to Europe or North America to do a PhD. They are now employed everywhere.
Magda Karjalainen [00:08:49]: Yes. It has been wonderful that that brought you to our university and also that you have been developing this important field of research for such a long time in this area, as well. From that perspective, trying to understand somehow the connections between your field, research area, and research writing, I think this particular discipline probably brings its own particularities to the process of writing. So, we could start discussing about how you guide your students already at the master's level and then in the PhD level, since you are very experienced in having your students graduate. You have had several defenses with your PhD researchers during this study year here and before, and also in the future. So, how does it work in your field or your discipline? How do people learn to write about their research and what they are doing? As a person who does not understand very much about technology, I am trying to think about how to write about wireless broadband issues in your research reports.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:10:14]: Right. Like you said, it is a process. So, they start off with the coursework. There they are already exposed to textbooks and papers. In the courses I teach, I especially put a lot of emphasis on solving problems, which means that means they have to refer to things and find out how to do things. So, I think they are familiar with the terminology to some extent. Then, of course, we have these research groups. Every professor has a research group. There you have to present your work to some extent and present in front of others and to be able to communicate it so that others understand it. Obviously, this is still within this specialized area of research of wireless communication. Even within that, there are a lot of other sub areas. Generally, once you start as a doctoral student, you get familiar with the basics of these things, most importantly about how you are writing because the idea is to get published because [?? 00:11:39] has this unofficial criteria departmental group wise. You need to have a certain amount of journal papers or conference papers. So, it is critical to get published. Therefore, it is essential to be able to write well. Even if you do high quality research, if you do not write it well, then nobody is going to accept it. So, this writing, abstract, introduction, because introduction is pretty general. So, you should be able to write it in a way that it is easy to communicate your contributions and how much you know about the background. So, these words are formed by going through literature and papers. Then you are supposed to compile it into a coherent story. It is a story eventually. Then, you go into your equations and like that, which makes it obviously easier once you start the mathematical part, then again, you need to discuss your results and then show in a coherent fashion that what you are doing is something novel. That is the most important thing. You have to show that there is something new as opposed to what is already published. So, all this is communicated through English, naturally. Of course, from all our entering master students, there is a minimum English requirement that they need to maintain, although I think the doctoral students do not have that. I find it a little bit strange why it is not because we are more strict and harsh on the master student, not so much on the doctoral student.
Päivi Jokinen [00:13:39]: Can I comment on this very briefly?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:13:41]: Yes.
Päivi Jokinen [00:13:42]: Is it because it is assumed that doctoral students or researchers, when they enter or they apply, they already have well-developed writing skills, which of course might be an assumption that necessarily is not the reality. Could that be the reason?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:14:02]: Okay, let me put it another way. So, when you are applying for the master's program, English is one thing, but then there is your academic program. This academic program varies a lot across the world. That is why we have ranked universities. You rank the different places. So, there is a very big difference. So, it is the same in English, as well. Yes, they say that we studied in English, but that still leaves room. So, it is better to be uniform, in my opinion, at least. As far as I know, in North America, they do not care what you do. You have to have this done. TRE, TOEFL must be there, so that minimum quality is assured. Of course, it depends on the way that you assess people. Naturally, if you are coming with a lot of master's level publications, yes, it shows that, but still, it may be that when you are really looking into this, maybe there are other supports because writing a paper can be a combination of several people. So, how do you know exactly what that particular candidate knows? It is better to test it, in my opinion, than not.
Päivi Jokinen [00:15:34]: Yeah. The minimum language skills are one thing. Then there are scientific writing and writing the conventions.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:15:41]: Yeah. Vocabulary matters a lot, in my opinion. You have no choice, like the Suki test. I did it myself at 60 years old. If I can do it, I do not see why a much younger person, 30 years younger than me, cannot do English tests. So, that is how I see it. In that way, we try to assure the input quality. Then you can nurture it. I think that is a better way, in my opinion.
Päivi Jokinen [00:16:18]: What is your role as a supervisor? What do you think about the supervisor's role in general in that process of learning, nurturing, and growing those skills?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:16:32]: Yeah. I assign them to read various. First thing is that you have to be familiar with the standard textbooks in your area. You cannot say you do not know certain authors that are well-established. If you say you do not know, that means you do not have that background. It is as simple as that. It does not matter whatever it is. So, there are certain set of textbooks which are accepted, and that means you go through them. They are also written in English, so you have to really be familiar. Then in the latest innovations in your own area. We come through, let's say, European Union projects or the publications. So, a lot of papers are now open source. So, it means that you can read and we have access to all the databases. So, we normally like them to read and present what they understand out of that because that is also a part of this research problem formulation: how much you understand. In that way, it is a back and forth. So, we discuss maybe once or twice a week about what you are going through and maybe you are presenting those in a group meeting in your research group. Then there is a hierarchy of junior students and senior students. So, those who are more versed with writing and presenting, so they can also help in that process together with the supervisor. As time goes on, this becomes more entrenched in what you are doing. So, you have to be familiar with the literature, so that you can discuss things more effectively, along with the research problem. Then I would prefer them to submit to some kind of conference. I think that is what most of us do. And from there, it is a challenge to get to the next level, which is getting a journal paper published. Sometimes it takes a couple of years or even more, depending on how competitive your area is.
Päivi Jokinen [00:19:08]: Do you have some specific practices when it comes to, for example, choice of the journal that you are supposed to publish? How does it work in your field?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:19:19]: Like I mentioned, there is this [I triple E? 00:19:22]. In our area, there are these accepted well-known journals. You can publish in others, but if you do not publish in these things, people do not really care. Maybe there are also some kind of politics involved. Obviously, there are these things like who are your reviewers, who are the editors, and they prefer certain people, but on the whole, there are these, what we call, top quality journals. I think in Finland also there is this assessment criteria. So, you want to publish in those, at least.
Päivi Jokinen [00:20:01]: I am asking because I know that differs across fields and even within fields across different research groups. Some doctoral researchers maybe have a little bit more freedom where they want to publish, depending on what is the purpose of a particular publication. I just attended a webinar on that, so I have these questions freshly in mind. That is why I am digging into this topic.
Magda Karjalainen [00:20:24]: And I think it is very relevant also what you were now talking about in terms of language and the use of language, since I think one of the quite fascinating areas at the moment is how international the university community is as itself. Then how to select the best candidates to the doctoral programs, but also once we have the wonderful researchers here working on their PhDs, then how do we guide them through the process in terms of supporting their language skills, and how do we get to communicate scientific issues in the best possible language. For most of us, English is a second language. There are not that many for whom it would be the first language in the academic community even today. So, it is quite a big issue that we are all also learners of the English language, even thinking of myself as a researcher.
Päivi Jokinen [00:21:34]: Yeah. I think what you said earlier about the technical language versus this metaphor of how you can write in a more natural way as a native speakers would write using the metaphors, which are very natural for them, but they are not necessarily for us. So, that is an interesting dynamic. To what extent we should be supporting?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:22:03]: If I talk a little bit still about myself because English is my second language. Of course, in Sri Lanka, it is a subject. Every student has to take one period, but I did not really care much about English because we do not need English to pass high school. It is done in our language. Our language is Sinhala, so that is enough to pass. I thought, okay, why not first pass that? Then there is this hard cutoff. When you enter the university, I went to engineering, everything is done in English, not a letter of our language is taught in that language. So, there was six or seven months where I no choice but to now get to that competency level. So, I started learning the basics again from grade school, following through all the textbooks. It is easier to listen to sports commentary. I think in our area, it is cricket, like it is hockey. So, you listen to that and it is interesting for you. Everybody listens. So, there is English commentary, so you understand. So, that way you listen actively to something that is happening, so that you can enrich your vocabulary in that way. So, that is what I did. Of course, I read newspapers and things like that. Newspapers also communicate very well. I think it is in the similar way that we learn Finnish here. Of course, we have the technical terms. So, I got those books and then I went through those. Somehow I was ready to take on the journey in the English language once I entered the university, but still it is not an English speaking country, so you have to put significant effort to keep it. So, I guess it is similar here, so once they are here, it is better if they also read. In my opinion, any books also help you. I used to read a lot of books, such as novels, in English. Finland is also not exactly English speaking environment, so that you need to really find material from these bookshops or library. It does not need to be related to your area. A lot of these students have various hobbies, so you can read according to that and listen to movies to really know how it would be as a native speaker in that way. Of course, I think [?? 00:24:51] offers some courses that are to some extent maybe helpful, but I would say it is useful to listen to English every day in some way.
Päivi Jokinen [00:25:04]: Yeah, I completely agree. I think you highlight something really important here, which is the exposure to language. Sometimes we maybe forget that in the obsession of writing and producing the language, that the exposure actually is equally important. Like you said, not necessarily only field-specific technical literature, but just reading and listening for pleasure.
Magda Karjalainen [00:25:29]: As Magda and I are both language teachers, we are so happy to hear about the importance of reading as well, because I think the younger generations are not as used to reading as much as the older generations maybe have been. That also brings me to ask a question about writing research as storytelling. You have mentioned a couple of times that how you see the process of the becoming thesis, that it is about creating a story about the research topic. How do you teach that? How do you teach your engineer background researchers to tell a story about what happened in the wireless broadband world?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:26:21]: [laughs] Yeah. These are little things not necessarily taught directly, but they can then see how it happens. That is why it is important, in my opinion, to meet with peers outside the university and attend conferences. Then you see how others talk and present, especially people who are native speakers. So, you see how it is. Otherwise, some students are a little bit more producing artificial things. You can see the difference. I think it is good to go outside to be exposed to this in the wider world so that you can interact and see how this is presented. When they are presenting their papers, if it is a good presenter, they have some story to tell. This is exactly what I did and how I came here. So, in a way, you can absorb that, so that you can also use it to promote what you are doing. If you read any kind of paper or thesis which is well written, there is always some sort of tie that binds everything. With the introduction, you go through, okay, this is the background, but in this chapter, this is what I did and like that. So, you have been exposed to this for several years before you come to the point where you are going to write the thesis. In your papers and in your journals it is still mini stories. Then you bring this together in the final thesis.
Magda Karjalainen [00:28:19]: Yes. In your faculty, we have learned that it is common that you write a monograph.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:28:30]: Yes, all of my students write short monographs.
Magda Karjalainen [00:28:32]: Okay. So, how does that work with the papers and then the monograph? What happens there?
Päivi Jokinen [00:28:39]: Also in terms of time management, if you think about doctoral studies.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:28:44]: Yeah. Of course, a lot of time is spent on solving what you are trying to solve. Sometimes they are stuck and they cannot proceed and months go by. It becomes sometimes very depressing for the student. There is no progress. It is something new and there is no easy way out. It is not like some problem given in the textbook because no matter how hard it is in the textbook, you can always be one hundred percent sure that you can solve it, but this is unfortunately not the case for research.
Magda Karjalainen [00:29:22]: For new scientific inventions and so on.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:29:26]: Yes. So time goes by. Sometimes years go by. That is the reality of what we are doing. Then, the time comes for you to do this writing thing. You are, of course, maybe exposed to European Union level project. There are always local projects like with Nokia and other companies. So, you have to produce this deliverable. You have to write them up. If you are a senior doctor student, you are in this little bit bigger project, like a European Union level project, so that you see how these reports are written. It is all these little things combined together to come to the point where you are going to write the thesis. Of course, papers are always very much space restricted. You cannot just write whatever you want, but thesis, you have the freedom to expand on that. If you just put the paper into it, then others cannot understand because papers are reviewed always by expert people, so you cannot put everything there, but in a thesis, you have to put enough material so that it flows properly as a real story. It should not read like a paper. So, you can put more descriptions. So, that process can take a little bit time once you start, but you have the experience in being exposed to other project reports. So, there is some time before you come to this point, around three years to three and a half years. So, through that you have some experience to get it done, but of course then you can discuss it.
Päivi Jokinen [00:31:17]: It's fascinating how you are revealing cross-disciplinary differences because in some fields, three or four years might be spent on writing the monograph, whereas in your field, it sounds like people are exposed and practicing different genres during their studies, and then the monograph is towards the end. It is really, really interesting. Reports, scientific reports, policy report, project reports, journal articles, and then monographs.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:31:49]: Yeah, so normally it is like that because put a lot of emphasis on getting a couple of ideas published because that is the main thing. That is what people look into because eventually not many people perhaps read your thesis, but everybody will read your papers. So, they have to be published in some place of quality. So, that is where the time is spent because when you submit, most of the time it is maybe rejected.
Magda Karjalainen [00:32:26]: That is the reality.
Päivi Jokinen [00:32:28]: Actually, can I link that to a thought I had in mind? In relation to what you said earlier about research not progressing or being stuck, which might be difficult emotionally for doctoral researchers, and rejections being quite difficult emotionally to handle, how do you see your role in supporting this socio-emotional aspect of doctoral studies?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:32:56]: Yeah. So, I think best is to really have honest discussions. In my case, I discuss anything. They are free to tell me anything they want. They have their own support system, but still as a supervisor, I have my responsibility to see their well-being no matter what it is. I tell them to let me know if there is anything, whatever it is. It does not matter whether it is related to research or not. Then I try to come up with some solution because we have experienced people. There is a community, as well. Yeah, rejections are tough. Maybe you have a team of people also. So, others can also say, okay, these are the things that need to be improved. We have senior people and postdoc fellows, so everybody has their own understanding of different things. So, we can discuss a little bit in that way. You have your co-authors, as well. Sometimes the paper is going through various areas. Some people are more experts in one area, the supervisor is an expert on another thing. Then you need to get some input from other people to see if it is acceptable past the review. This is about the toughest thing a doctoral student will face. Then they are really disappointed when they get bad results. Well, sometimes they are not. So, you have to really you know understand where they are coming from, and then to see how best to address it. Yeah, it is a serious challenge to do this.
Magda Karjalainen [00:34:49]: Listening to you, Nandana, tell about that, it really highlights how much experience you have as a supervisor. As you are mentioning now that there is the element of emotional support. Then on the other hand, there is this very practical way of trying to help the PhD researcher to after rejection, for example, find a way to solve the situation. For example, how their peers could help and in what area in the paper there are things that needs to be developed further and so on. So, then you also help them in your group to get through the challenging stumble blocks. The common stumble blocks. Looking back to my own PhD journey, I do think that the moments of rejection, and even the moments of receiving very thorough review comments for the first time, those were tough moments. It could even take a couple of days to recover from reading some very critical comments to such a personal thing as your own paper. So, it is a great thing to hear that a supervisor can be there for the researcher by using their own experience to not leave them alone to experience the worry of I will never have this published or I am the most unsuccessful student ever or I am just not meant to be a researcher. So, the supervisor can actually be there. It is always like that. It is very often like this. This is the part of the scientific process. This is what happens. So, that is something that you see from your own experienced position. So, that is something also too.
Päivi Jokinen [00:36:53]: What came to my mind also as a form of support or form of developing the resilience in that area is the practice of feedback and how you offer feedback to your doctoral researchers. I just remember still what you mentioned at the very beginning when you talked about your journey, that when you studied in Canada, you often got this very detailed feedback, which was sometimes annoying. So, have you learned from that in terms of how has it impacted on how you, for example, deal with giving feedback to your researchers?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:37:36]: Yeah. So, of course, you have to be honest in saying that something is good or something is not, but normally I encourage them to not get distracted by reviewer comments because the main thing is that you have something new and you have done something significant. It is a matter of now selling it properly. Sometimes reviewers do not see it. So, I say okay, no matter what they say, you have done something, so let us try to get it published. Maybe you need to do little bit more, so that they can accept it. So, I always encourage them, but I also tell them, of course, if this part is not written well, you have to rewrite it, so that it can communicate more effectively. Sometimes when you see they write the abstract as the introduction, this is when you know it is not going to go well with the reviewers. You can give that kind of comments, and then they can improve on that. I always tell them that you have done something, which means you can get it across and publish because they spent a lot of time to doing it. I know there is something here, so they can get it published, but maybe it needs more polishing or maybe adding a little bit here and there. Sometimes reviewers just comment for the sake of commenting oh, you have to do this, this, and these things. And if you do all these things, you can publish some other things.
Magda Karjalainen [00:39:18]: That is also probably particular to your field. Thinking of engineering science that, like you said that there is something that you have done. So, you do a lot of empirical work in your discipline, right? For example, thinking of the 6G flagship program where you are working, so there is so much fascinating scientific development work going on that can be actually really cutting edge for the whole world, basically. So, then your researchers are working on those topics and they develop some practical empirical work and then they report that, right? So, they do first a practical empirical report?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:40:07]: Yeah. Let us say you identify this particular aspect is not done. So, you have your mathematical formulation and then you go through your computer simulations. So, you verify it properly and compare with what is published from other authors, so that you can show that there is something new here. Maybe in certain cases, you do some actual experimentation, take some measurements, or you can use some data that are available. So, you are trying to make a proper point. We cannot do exactly what, let us say, somebody in the industry is doing, but then they are doing something much more close to real life, but we are doing something more in the research side. So, they are different in that way.
Päivi Jokinen [00:40:58]: So, empirical work might mean sitting stuck with the theoretical mathematical problem, right? Like you said earlier.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:41:04]: Yeah. Some problems are there and then that takes a lot of time because you try to solve it. It does not give you a reasonable solution. You have to change this and change that. It can go on like that for months even.
Magda Karjalainen [00:41:19]: Then also that it is different from very qualitative research, where the way of articulating your research process might somehow be a part of how you communicate the result. So, in that sense, our supervisors are working in very different fields of research, as well. In terms of time, it is very interesting how you said that sometimes when you are doing research that actually might be leading to very big and important innovations, you cannot always predict time and you cannot always also predict time how it will turn out. That is part of the scientific process to come up with something actually new, as your department and your faculty is very famous for doing in our university. So, now we have this new three year PhD pilot. What do you think of the time frame for that and the pressure to graduate faster and faster? How do you then guide your own researchers to navigate the path at the moment and how does the future seem to you in that sense?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:43:01]: Well, what I heard was for this doctoral pilot, they measured the time and then they thought, okay, the average duration is seven years when they want to reduce it. Then maybe they say three years, but then it may eventually be like four or four and a half in a real situation. So this three year, I think is mostly practiced in UK, as far as I know. Even from bachelor to PhD, you can go in three years, but then there is no real requirement of publications, maybe. Here we normally ask them to have a couple of journal publications. This alone can easily go to three years because a journal cannot be written just like that. You need to spend one year or something like that to get to that point. Then getting it published can take another half year or so. So, already three years gone just to have two papers, but then you need to build your background. So, I think three years is a little bit unrealistic if you think about it honestly and keep the same quality. I think it is not that possible. You have to compromise in something, either quality or time. What we were discussing was, okay, we hire them as project researchers, let them work one year, and then admit them to the doctoral program. Then they already know something at the stage of publication or something, so that we can finish it in three years. But still, then there is this writing process too. So, when you finish three years, you need three or four months also for writing. So, it takes all the time away. And then there is also the coursework requirement, which is has been reduced from 40 to 30. So, these are challenges. If you think honestly about North America, it is also four or five years because there you also need to take a certain set of courses. I am normally in favor of keeping the coursework requirement because I do not think you need to give choices here. There are certain things you have to know because we are training people not for a specific area only. Once they finish, they should be able to pick other new things. So, that means they need to know a little bit beyond their niche area. So, that is what is coming from, let us say, your coursework because coursework is a little bit more distributed. Then you have to know these things. If you are going into teaching you need to know a little bit because PhD is not an end to itself, right? So, it is the beginning of your career in that direction. So, you need to have sufficient background built, because once you finish, maybe there is no time to take courses or things like that. Of course, things are changing quite a bit now, but I think it is better to have these things in place. So, this three-year is a little bit, in my opinion, ambitious, considering the same yardsticks for quality, such as journals and coursework, and like that. Also, time goes by very fast.
Magda Karjalainen [00:46:31]: When you are trying to come up with something new and scientifically relevant.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:46:36]: Yeah. It can stress students unnecessarily if you put too much pressure and say okay, come up with two publications, finish them, write them, and do everything within three years. It is a bit of a challenge in my opinion.
Päivi Jokinen [00:46:50]: So, as I am listening to you, I am seeing all these social media memes that say how to efficiently and quickly rewrite your PhD. How to speed up the process. How to make it all smooth and efficient. And of course, various AI tools come to my mind. Maybe we can talk about that a little bit.
Magda Karjalainen [00:47:11]: Yes, please. Professor Nandana, in your field of expertise, a lot is happening in terms of artificial intelligence at the moment. Also, our university will be publishing new guidelines for the use of AI in research soon. How does that work in your area? At the moment, are there any good practices that you have come up with your research group for the use of AI? Do you see some challenges there or do you think that could be helpful for future researchers to be more efficient or faster? What do you think will happen, as someone coming from telecommunication?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:48:09]: Right. Of course, it can help in quite many ways. For example, collection. You can ask it to give a collection of summarized research and also maybe some good tips in terms of writing, but you are eventually the author of your own work. AI can give you something useful and can give you also some garbage, as well. Sometimes it can solve very complicated problems. Sometimes it cannot even solve the most basic thing. I have seen it. Despite pointing at it or telling it to do it this way, it cannot do it. It is trained and searching by what is available already in the internet. For your actual research problem, it can provide material, but it cannot come up with a solution because it is your own thing and it takes time. Somebody else cannot solve it for you. If it is already solved, that is where it is coming from, right? So, it gets from what is there. It does not create anything new, in my opinion. It goes through all kinds of things, but you can take it as some sort of input to what you are going to do, but you have to rely on your skills to do what you need to do. In terms of your software coding, it can also help you a lot, but if you do not test it or you do not verify it, you could be in a lot of trouble because it can lead to nothing. So, these are the pitfalls in using AI.
Päivi Jokinen [00:50:04]: What about writing itself?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:50:06]: Yeah, writing. Maybe you can write a draft and ask it to improve. Maybe that is possible, but still then it is not your writing style. I think it is then different because you need to have your way of communicating. Somebody should be able to say, okay, this is the person, and I am familiar with his style. People can see that it is AI-generated. You need to have your own unique words and style of voice. It is important. It is like you are talking as a parent. It is not AI parenting your child.
Päivi Jokinen [00:50:54]: I am happy that you mentioned this because I even myself have this kind of image, and I think others people may have this kind of idea, that in those more technical fields, where there are very specific ways of talking and very specific jargon and technical language, there is no such thing as your unique individual writer's voice, in comparison to some social sciences or in humanities. I think you mentioned this here.
Magda Karjalainen [00:51:25]: Yes, a unique style.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:51:27]: That is why I mentioned earlier about that metaphor. You come up with all these things by going through things yourself, so that you can use them.
Päivi Jokinen [00:51:36]: How do you support the formation of that voice and style as a supervisor with your researchers?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:51:46]: I normally let them come up with their own writing style, and then I guide it. I am not going to destroy it. I give suggestions. I say you can put it better like this or summarize it better like that. Even when I was a doctoral student myself, it is my job to get it into the writing. Of course, I get my supervisor's help, but at the end of the day, I am the one. It is my name on the document. I am the author of that. So, I encourage it in that way. So we help, but it has to be their thing because different students have different things. If I put it into my words, then it is not them. This means that they have to put in a lot of effort. That is why I am not very confident about the three-year period because you are somebody, not for three years, but for 30 or 40 years into the future. So, you need to take time. It cannot be something instant. It takes normally four to five years. That is important in my opinion.
Magda Karjalainen [00:53:10]: And that is, again, experienced speaking, as you say that you are helping somebody 30 to 40 years in the future. So, from your perspective, you can see how the efforts put into the PhD supervision project contributes a long time into the future even. So, that is such a beautiful way of phrasing what this kind of education is about and what its value is for the world. I am also thinking for the planet. Back to AI and the idea of how you develop critical thinking. For example, when you mentioned using AI for summarizing some former research. Many of us do find it a time consuming and hard part of doing research when we have to read all the former research and find the gaps. Maybe you cannot even see the result when you read a lot of things. It takes time and it does not show anywhere. It is just a cognitive process in a way when you are absorbing all that knowledge. What do you think is the personal role of a researcher when using AI to go through former research, thinking of maybe literature review? How do you know that AI noticed all the critical points in the former papers? How do you know how good the quality of its analysis is? How do you assess then how good the quality is that AI can offer you when doing these summaries? How would you be teaching that?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:55:11]: Yeah, I think it is always a guideline. It is not an absolute thing. You need to really go into the details yourself. You cannot come up with a solution through AI. I do not believe that. If there is something to be solved, it is not there. So, if it is not in the internet, AI cannot do it because it is always taking it from what is already available. So, it can be really wrong. So, you have to be able to go to the source and see. You can get some guideline. If it is a summary, then you can form your general opinion, but then you need to dig into the details. That is how I see it. People use it for coding in the sense because it can give you code samples, but then you need to test it to whether it works properly. So, it is a tool that in my opinion. It is not an end to itself in terms of solution.
Magda Karjalainen [00:56:26]: Sure. There have been predictions that AI will be speeding up research processes and writing processes in the upcoming years. So, we will see about that. How about in your own research story or your journey, what has difficult for you? What has been the most challenging part of being a scientific writer for yourself?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:56:54]: The main point is to get your idea published somehow. I think that is the most challenging. No matter how experienced you are, if it is new, it is new to you and to anybody else, as well. It still takes the same amount of effort. It is the same as anything new in my opinion.
Päivi Jokinen [00:57:19]: How do you deal with rejections?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:57:23]: Well, mostly now it is with my students. So, I tell them, you do not need to worry about that. I do not really care about rejections anymore. I think I have seen enough in my lifetime. I also know that this can be published eventually. So, you have to persevere in that and get help as needed from one of your peers.
Päivi Jokinen [00:57:53]: Is there anything in your work as a supervisor now or over the years that you you are not very happy about, that you would like to change, or maybe develop in some way? Turning a little bit of a self-reflective eye.
Magda Karjalainen [00:58:15]: Yeah. Maybe sometimes for a researcher, something turns out to be this umpikuja. What is that? A dead end. You cannot always tell. Does that happen?
Nandana Rajatheva [00:58:25]: Yeah. Sometimes we go into something and see that there is no solution to these things because maybe your initial assumptions were wrong or maybe it is too complicated. You have to do something that can be solved within a given amount of time. You do not have infinite time to solve something. So, if you have to change, you have to change. There is not much choice in it. There are people working in certain areas, so you cannot just be stuck into some unknown thing. It is not like in mathematics or physics, where there may be a lot of time. In our case, we have to be sensitive to how much time one has. So, if you follow through one path and it does not work, then you have to change and maybe take a U-turn or something and come up with something that can be solved in a reasonable time. So, that is the real challenge. I think it is easy to come up with a problem that cannot be solved. So, the trick is to see something that can be solved. So, it is the most challenging thing.
Päivi Jokinen [00:59:38]: I guess that is a big role of a supervisor to point out the moments when to take a U-turn or when to leave this. Also, to find that courage also to leave i and take a different path.
Nandana Rajatheva [00:59:50]: Yes.
Magda Karjalainen [00:59:52]: What about in your research group? I think you have mentioned that you have some very good practices in your own research group for how the group supports you. From a very practical perspective, how could you advise some beginner supervisors in their own work? What kind of good practices could a research group have and how can you support writing and the progress of writing in a group?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:00:21]: Like I said, the critical thing is to do something new and to get it published. So, if you present to other peers in your group, then they can also challenge you. Why do you not think of it like this or that? I think it is important to present it in a group. In the same way, it is important to present it in a conference and meet with others. So, it is a similar thing in a sense. So, if you are a new supervisor, it is good to discuss with others. Everybody is competing, so maybe they are working on the same problem in different research groups. So, that must be taken into account, but within your own group, you have good students, which is why you selected them to be your doctoral students. In their own right, they can see it differently. As a supervisor, you do not have everything. Others may have better ideas, but as a supervisor, you may have a better idea of how to guide them in the process, but in terms of a problem or solution, as a new doctoral student, they have a lot of ideas too. I remember myself starting as an assistant professor, a lot of things were happening in the world, and I wanted them to try these new things. So, I think a lot of ideas are there as a new supervisor. Then you need to put them into a test and ask other people's opinion to get it verified and put into the writing process. Normally, new people have a lot of energy. They spend a lot of time pushing students sometimes too hard. So, you have to somehow be aware of how much stress you are causing to these new young students.
Päivi Jokinen [01:02:22]: So, from a very practical perspective, again, do you have weekly meetings of your research group? Is there some established practice?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:02:30]: Individual students, I normally have weekly one-to-one meetings. Normally every two weeks or something in a group, or it could also be weekly meetings. It depends different research groups.
Magda Karjalainen [01:02:48]: And how do you then allocate your time for supervision?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:02:53]: For example, I have teaching and some project works, but I can always find an hour or half an hour to discuss with them. Of course, I tell them if there is something they need to discuss, they can let me know, and then we can come up with the time to discuss it and you know see the way forward. So, it is helpful to meet and talk in person. We had the online experience during [?? 01:03:27]. I had these night meetings, but it is always good to meet in person.
Magda Karjalainen [01:03:36]: How long do you think your working weeks are? Because you also travel and you have also been learning a lot of Finnish and then you are developing the double degree programs, which are super successful and all of this. So, does that mean working 24/7?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:03:54]: No, no, it is not like that. I take my time, but I do not have a fixed schedule because I am traveling. So, it is a bit more flexible than others, I think. It is a normal amount of work, but in terms of this administrative work, I have a lot of experience. So, that can cut the time. I like to know what my students are doing, so I always have time when they need time.
Magda Karjalainen [01:04:29]: Yes. You had such a wonderful web page with some of your history, as well. Maybe we can link it to the podcast if you allow. So, it is apparent that your career has produced so many graduates and such high quality research. Obviously the way you allocate your time also works very well since everything has been working out very beautifully. So, it is wonderful to think from the perspective of somebody being your supervisee that they get such an experienced supervisor who will take care of their path throughout the hardships and the ups and downs of what the process is like for someone more junior in the academic world.
Nandana Rajatheva [01:05:33]: Yes, but the advantage of being a junior is that you have a lot of ideas. So, it is always good to have that kind of a person in your group because as a senior person, maybe you see more administrative things, you spend time on those things, but then you do not have a lot of time to come up with new ideas. So, you need to have this kind of combination. I think it is better like that, so that then you have quality output.
Päivi Jokinen [01:06:06]: That is a really good point generally about doctoral education and what it should be. You, as a mentor, bringing those new, fresh minds into the world and working together.
Magda Karjalainen [01:06:21]: I am also thinking about the future. The world is facing enormous challenges at the moment. At the moment, things are quite hard for the world. So, if you look into the future and into doctoral supervision and also thinking of your field where a lot of new innovations are taking place all the time that will be leading the world also, so how would you advise the younger or more beginning scholars with your experience? How could you give some legacy to those who are taking the steps on that path towards solving the problems of the challenging future?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:07:18]: These challenging problems are quite well known. For example, this climate change or the energy consumption, carbon footprint, things like that. So, these are the bigger problems. Then you can formulate the research problem to address this. How energy efficient your solution is. Whether it can be useful for people to access it better because although we are highly developed, four billion are still not connected properly. So, what are the solutions there? When you look at these grand challenges and then you can see how you fit it into that. I think as a young person, you always have something new to think, as opposed to somebody more senior. There are these AI advancements happening. You can really let onto those things and then accelerate your work, in my opinion. You always have something to do. How much energy you put I think it then depends on that. I think as a young person, they have a lot of energy. I remember when I started, I always want to do a lot of things. So, channel it properly to solve something really good.
Magda Karjalainen [01:08:41]: That is what you have definitely been doing and it shows in all the results. Thinking about international experiences that you have and all the incredible work that you have done with, for example, the Sri Lanka cooperation and Thailand cooperation, India cooperation, how could you advise the beginning supervisors in their positions on how to consider international collaboration and the experiences of the expats who are traveling and coming a long way from home to the University of Oulu? You know what that is.
Nandana Rajatheva [01:09:26]: Yes, I think it is important. Everything depends on having good people in your group. We want to collaborate, so that we identify good people to come to Oulu as a doctoral student or as a postdoctoral fellow. Like I said, it is important to meet people. We cannot just expect them to come here. Being here in Northern Finland, you need to be marketing yourself, so that other people know what you are doing. If you have a lot of good people coming in and you also have local students, then that is a good combination. So, that is the thing I have been working on, so that the government also puts a lot of challenges in the way, like the tuition issue. So, you really need to have good people. Then you can challenge and come up with new solutions. You cannot do it just sitting here.
Päivi Jokinen [01:10:43]: I am guessing when you say good people, not meaning only people producing high quality research, but really good people in terms of collaborative skills and social skills?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:10:56]: Yes, yes. People skills are very important because eventually you are doing teamwork. Even if you go to a company, you are working in a team. So, this is important.
Magda Karjalainen [01:11:14]: Yes, well, of course, this collaboration with companies and industry in your field is also quite an important part of the work. Also Nokia, which has been part of the reason why you originally found Oulu. So, do you need to worry about losing your best researchers to the companies or do you feel like it is good collaboration always with the industry?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:11:50]: After all, we are like an engineering faculty. So, we produce engineers to the industry, that is number one. We are different to a basic sciences department or physics or mathematics. We are engineers, bottom line is that. So we have to, we have no choice. We have to work with the industry. Working with Nokia is not easy. They know we get the best students, so they like to recruit them. Half of my group actually disappeared in the last couple of years to Nokia, but I still asked them to somehow continue. So, a couple of them actually continued. One finished actually. He had defense on the tenth of May and then there is another one finishing. Once you are in industry, it is very difficult to finish. If you are a finishing student, it is fine, but if you have still some research to do, it is very difficult because there is a lot of work to be done. We have to also see once we finish, then they also will go to the industry. So, maybe they see it like that. So, we cannot hold the students. Let us say one of students finishes, we have to then also provide them some way to continue. If they want to go to industry, that is fine. We say, if you want to continue here, we try to provide a good environment. Maybe as a researcher, you might want to stay a couple of years here and then go to industry. So, we try to accommodate that because if you are in the industry, you are on a tight schedule doing a lot of things according to the company's needs, but as a new graduate, maybe you have your own ideas to do these new things. So, we have to facilitate that too. So, it is kind of a balanced situation.
Magda Karjalainen [01:13:54]: A subtle balance, it sounds. Also benefits will follow from all the cooperation, of course. I think many important things have come up during this conversation.
Päivi Jokinen [01:14:12]: If you could summarize with a few tips or brief points. Especially when thinking about advice for the beginning supervisors, what would be your main points to take?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:14:34]: I think the number one is to find good researchers because without dedicated researchers, you cannot do anything. That is number one. That is why we do all this collaborative work, operations internationally, so we know where we can find good students. We have a name in those places, so that they want to come here. I think that is number one. So, you start with that because quality of your researcher is really important. Like you said, it is not just solving the problem, but whether the person can, you know. So, we try to interview the person to see how that person is. We have to put in a lot of effort to get them from another place to come here. We provide incentives like scholarships. We establish research assistantships and all kinds of mechanisms. So, that is number one. Then once the person is here, you have to see how you nurture the person's talent and to really see what are the areas you provide good feedback to the person. In terms of the contract, these things must be also in place so that it is conducive to do productive research and then you come up with a good research area. I think that is number two. In my opinion, you need to be working in an area where you can make a difference. Some areas are difficult to publish, so it is a little bit of a tricky thing to see. So, research area is important. Having a good student. Having a good research area. Having a feedback system, so that it produces something of quality. I think these are the things.
Päivi Jokinen [01:16:43]: I think the phrase you just used might be a wonderful summary for the role of a supervisor to nurture the talent. I like that a lot.
Magda Karjalainen [01:16:54]: Yes. It is beautiful. Thank you for that. And thank you very much, Professor Nandana. It has been an incredible discussion as was expected to have somebody as brilliant as you as one of our interviewees in this podcast. It has been a very fruitful conversation. So, we wish you all the best in your future career, as well.
Päivi Jokinen [01:17:22]: We wish you a lot of good people around you and good researchers.
Magda Karjalainen [01:17:27]: To be brought to our University of Oulu.
Nandana Rajatheva [01:17:29]: Yes. Thank you very much for your invitation. I enjoyed the discussion. Hopefully you will continue this.
Magda Karjalainen [01:17:36]: Kiitos. Could you say again in Sinhala, thank you?
Nandana Rajatheva [01:17:41]: Stuti.
Magda Karjalainen [01:17:42]: Stuti.
Nandana Rajatheva [01:17:42]: Yes.
Magda Karjalainen [01:17:43]: Stuti. Stuti.
Nandana Rajatheva [01:17:45]: Yes.
Magda Karjalainen [01:17:45]: Kiitos. Kiitos.
[recording ends]