When Should We Talk About Research? Reflections on departmental seminars

Creating an inclusive research culture means thinking not just about what we discuss, but how and when we come together to do it. One of the challenges of academic life is deciding when to hold research seminars. These are important events for sharing our ideas, and hearing from researchers based in other institutions. I've worked at lots of different universities which have all had different approaches to this, and it seems to be an area where there is a lot of discussion around what is the most equitable way to organise these. Many places now offer a Teams/remote option as standard, which is brilliant, but often it's not just about listening to the seminar itself, but the opportunity to meet the speaker, and have more in depth and informal discussions after the main event. 

A key debate is whether these events should be scheduled at lunchtime, or at the end of the day, and if the latter, how late is too late? A lunchtime slot can feel efficient, but often leaves me rushing back to emails or feeling like I need to leave early to prepare for the next meeting. It is rare that we have more than an hour spare over lunch, and that gives very little time for discussion at the end of the talk.

Early evening seminars, 3 - 4 or 4 -5pm, are my personal preference, even though childcare logistics make them tricky. This works because my partner and I can share school pickup duties, and I can make sure that I am available on seminar days. For this to work, it’s really important to have a regular fixed timeslot with an advance schedule to allow people to make these arrangements. There’s something about the end of the day that feels more relaxed, more open to discussion, I don't feel rushed to go to the next thing. When I was at Newcastle, the university is right in the town centre, so heading for a chat at the pub afterwards  was part of the event. This creates the sort of informal moments where you can discuss ideas, and things really start to take shape. At least, that’s how it works for me.

But I know my preference comes with challenges for others. Pubs can be lively and sociable, but also overwhelming. Background noise and poor acoustics can make it difficult for people with hearing or sensory processing differences to participate (as someone with SPD, I am very aware of this and always push for venues that don’t have too much background noise). While some find these settings energising, others may feel excluded or uncomfortable. We’re not all the same! Conversely, even though I prefer the after-work slot with a pub discussion, anything that starts later than 5 is usually too late for me, as it ends up extending the event too far into the evening and I hate travelling home really late (not to mention, I now have to factor in train timetables).

In the Archaeology department at Durham, we’re fortunate to have the capacity to offer a range of formats for research events, which helps accommodate different preferences and needs. There is a weekly coffee morning, lunchtime research group sessions, and end of day seminars. But I know that’s harder to do in smaller departments or institutions with fewer resources. And even with flexibility, there’s rarely a perfect solution that works for everyone. I found myself lamenting this week being unable to attend a particular seminar that was scheduled on a different weekday to the usual slot, and having to accept I just Can’t Do Everything.

I’ve recently joined Durham’s Research Culture Committee as the Social Sciences Faculty representative, and I’m actively engaging with these questions, trying to be a voice for promoting positive, inclusive research culture. It’s a difficult area, full of competing needs and constraints, but it is important to think actively about how we support each other as researchers. So how do we decide what’s an acceptable compromise with scheduling these sorts of events? Maybe it starts with recognising that no single format will be ideal for all, and that a positive research culture is one that values choice and dialogue. I’m keen to hear other perspectives on this!