This article received a lot of attention when it was first published. For example, Sverige’s vetenskapsradio first interviewed me on the findings. Then TT picked it up, meaning that the story was in every newspaper, from national to local newspapers. Before being interviewed by a national news program, Rapport.
Now, a year or so later, I have finally had the time to make my first video. I’ve always wanted to promote my research through videos, but haven’t had the time. I’m highly critical of the final product, both of the video and the content, but it was my first attempt and it was a fun learning experience.
In fact, as a researcher, it’s hard to see your work lose it’s nuance. I thought enough nuance was lost when publishing it, as word counts affected how many details I could say. But trying to make a 5 minute video left very little room for nuance.
What I attempted to do was to show four examples–one from each arena within the child health field: prenatal, labor & birth, postnatal, and child health centers. I wanted to show two positive examples of ways midwives and nurses support fathers and two examples where support could be improved. However the two examples of improved support are more on the organizational/managerial level, rather than critiques of midwives’/nurses’ attitudes and support given to fathers.
Perhaps future videos will be made to provide a more nuanced understanding of the support fathers receive in the different child health arenas. Until then, I have my first overview video.
So it’s September 2017, and I’m just now getting around to my 2016 yearly review 🙂 I guess being off on parental leave all year certainly takes its toll on free-time and how I allocate that time.
Luckily, I made screenshots on January 1st of various markers to better record my early review.
To see what I’ve accomplished this year, I want to go back and see what I did last year for comparison purposes. Luckily I can click on this link to remind myself. Marking my first full year as a postdoc, 2016 was a great year!
My single biggest research accomplishment was that I secured my very first research grant! I applied for a gender-focused research grant through Stockholm’s Läns Landsting (County Council). The grant is for 500,000 SEK for two years (250,000 SEK per year). So while not a huge grant, it was very exciting to receive my first grant. And this grant allows me to continue my father research.
In 2017, Stockholm county will implement a new father-only visit when the child is three-to-five months old. I received the grant, along with co-applicant, Dr. Malin Bergström, to evaluate the implementation, as well as the familial outcomes of this community-based intervention.
While I had some temporary postdoc positions in 2015 with Child Health and Parenting (CHAP) at Uppsala University and at the Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS) at Stockholm University, in 2016, I started a 100% position in Child and Adolescent Public Health Epidemiology Group, Department of Public Health at Karolinska Institute under Dr. Finn Rasmussen. However, wanting to continue my research with Dr. Malin Bergström at CHESS on fathers in the Swedish child health field, I negotiated an 80-20 split.
Finn hired me to run a Job Seeking intervention for young (18-24) high school dropouts who were currently seeking employment, among other register-based research. This project took a dramatic turn before I even started–instead of working with Arbetsförmedlingen, we would now need to run the project ourselves, meaning we would make the program online. Similarly, we needed to device a whole new manual, as some collaborators from Finland, with their School2Work program, fell through.
So I started working on this project from scratch throughout the year, in collaboration with Finn and Dr. Ata Ghaderi.
Publications were still ongoing however. In 2016, I had five publications:
Technically, #2 came out in December of 2015, and therefore I reported it last year. In addition, #4 is a Swedish report, not a peer-review article. So I had three new peer-review articles published in 2016; two of which were meta-sythenses. While many postdocs may have more publications in a year, I was quite proud for two reasons: 1) it takes a PhD student four years to publish 3 papers and one manuscript, so having recently received my PhD the year before, I liked the idea of doing a “PhD” in one year and 2) I just had my first child in January 2016, and so it was a hectic year with a nice parenting learning curve on top of juggling full time work and commuting from Uppsala to Stockholm daily.
I took a course on how to conduct Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, but quickly learned that most studies completed in the child health field are qualitative in nature. Therefore, I independently learned about meta-syntheses and meta-ethnographies, and then completed two articles using these methods. I was very proud of these articles because 1) I learned a method and completed it on my own (for one of the articles) and 2) I was able to contribute a larger voice to how parents are and are not supported in the Nordic and Swedish child health fields, respectively.
It wasn’t only me who was proud–apparently other researchers were also proud. For example, Dr. Hugo Lagercrantz, the editor of Acta Paediatrica, wrote about my findings in his “highlights in this issue”. Having published in Acta Paediatrica a couple of times before this, it was cool to see my research being highlighted.
But, then they invited Dr. Sven Bremberg to write an editorial on why we should “Support fathers in the child health field“, where he springboarded his editorial based off of my article. That was super cool! To see a well-known researcher highlighting why your research is important and necessary. Boom!
Sweden also wanted to get in on the conversation!
While I had had a few interviews before, I had my 15 minutes of fame after publishing these back-to-back literature reviews, although much more notoriety and focus was on fathers, rather than same-sex mothers, sadly.
Initially vetenskapsradio (science radio–sort of the Swedish NPR radio station) interviewed me, paying particular attention to my findings on the ways fathers are treated throughout the Swedish child health field. It was a really pleasant experience, even though I desperately struggled to say one or two sentences in Swedish.
After that news story broke, I not only had friends calling, texting, and Facebooking messages to me saying they heard me on the radio (I didn’t even know people listened to vetenskapsradio), but also TT, a news reporting agency similar to the Associated Press, picked up the story and re-reported it (without talking to me). This meant that the story was in basically every Swedish paper, from national papers to small local ones.
By the afternoon, I had received a phone call from Rapport; I was going to be on the national evening news. That was exciting!
And then my day long fame had ended….until I met a father at a park three weeks later, and he recognized me from the news report. That was a cool feeling!
My citations also significantly grew. In 2015, I had 74 citations, while at the start of January 2016, I had 118, according to my ScholarGoogle page. My h-index increased from 5 to a 6, while my i10-index increased from 2-5.
ResearchGate numbers also grew. In 2015, I had 1066 reads and in 2016 I had 2310. ResearchGate however has far fewer reads than the publications website and the number of citations ResearchGate finds is considerably lower than ScholarGoogle or even PubMed. Moreover, they keep changing their metrics, so it’s hard to compare year to year, but my ResearchGate score went from a 16.87 to 20.02.
I have also been able to do a bit of teaching, although not nearly enough. For example, I have given lectures in 1) Sexual and Reproductive Health I (a course for midwives in Women’s and Children’s Health), where I talked about the importance of involving fathers in the child health field and 2) How to Conduct a Literature Review and Meta-analysis mainly for PhD students/postdocs in Public Health, where I talked about conducting a meta-synthesis.
I was however also invited to give a talk at “Mödra- och barnhälsovårdens gemensamma studieeftermiddag” where again, I discussed fathers in the Swedish child health field.
Lastly, I helped to write a debate article that was printed in Svenska Dagbladet, a major Swedish newspaper on supporting fathers.
While I never heard from the public on this issue, I did upset a colleague by participating in this debate article. I guess you just can’t please everyone.
Swedish child health centers have historically been a place for new mothers and children. We assessed 31 child health centers’ waiting rooms to see the extent to which they included images of mothers, fathers, and children. 75% did not include fathers…at all. Read the full article here.
Background: Sweden is trying to create a gender equal country and around 97% of all families in Sweden visit the child health centers for routine check-ups, vaccinations, to monitor their child’s growth and development, and to receive parenting advice, either for their specific child’s problems or via parenting groups.
Study Design:Prior to the study, we defined what constituted a mother, father, and/or child environment (or any combination thereof).
I then visited and took pictures of 31 child health centers throughout Sweden. I visited centers in rich and poor neighborhoods, urban and rural areas, and private and public child health centers.
Pictures were taken of everything in their waiting room, magazine titles were written down, and all pamphlets that could be handed out to parents were collected.
I then met up with two co-researchers, where we independently viewed the waiting room via the pictures and samples to determine if that space included the mother, father, and/or child.
The waiting room was determined to be mother, father, and/or child centered as long as at least 25% of the space consisted of that individual; leaving the last 25% to be aimed at any or all of these types of individuals (neutral items [e.g. abstract art, pictures of nature] did not count for or against any individual family member).
The messages on the bulletin boards were broken down using manifest and latent analysis using semiotic visual analysis.
The magazine readership was sought out
31 Child Health Centers
12 = Mother-Child Centered
8 = Family-Centered
6 = Child-Centered
2 = Women-Centered
3 = Neutral
The most common waiting room had lots of items for mothers (e.g. images of mothers, magazines that mothers typically read) and toys and books for children, as well as images of children, but very little or nothing for fathers.
In fact, only one category, family-centered, included fathers, while the rest were composed of mothers and/or children.
We also observed parents, mothers and fathers, visiting the child health centers to see what they did while in the waiting room–read books, talk on their cell phone, interact with their child, talk with each other….just sit in their chair.
Mothers’ behavior did not change between environments, but fathers were more likely to play with their child and read the brochures/pamphlets if they were in a non-women centered environment (e.g. either family centered or child centered).
Conclusions: People are affected by their environments–people read in libraries, party at concerts, act posh at fine dining establishments. They don’t typically do the reverse (read at concerts and party in libraries).
The child health centers are no different. Their built environment sends messages on who’s welcomed and how they should act.
To further promote involved fathering in child health, the child health centers should rebuild their environments to be more inclusive of fathers.
To help ensure an inclusive waiting room (for all types of people), we created (in Swedish) a checklist they can use!!!
Click here or on the picture to see the full checklist.
We published a qualitative article in Acta Paediatrica on how Swedish child health nurses felt about fathers coming into the child health centers. While child health nurses accepted and welcomed fathers, they did little to invite, include, or further support fathers (click here to read the full article).
I interviewed 17 child health nurses from various places in Sweden: north, south, east, west; urban and rural; experienced and inexperienced; young and old. All child health nurses were women–Not uncommon since there are only a handful of men that are child health nurses in the whole country.
While child health nurses are experts on children’s health and believe that fathers are attending the child health centers more than ever; they seem to be attending in spite of rather than because of support they receive from the child health nurses.
Child health nurses say that they value mothers to a much greater extent than fathers and provide more support to mothers.
However, child health nurses are in various stages of providing more support to fathers: while some have never thought about actively involving fathers, others have tried to, but feel their hands are tied when it comes to making changes, while others have even tried to make changes (e.g. discuss with their boss about having evening and weekend hours, magazines for fathers, pictures emphasizing fathers). However, no child health nurses that were interviewed had yet made any real changes.
Conclusion: If we want mothers and fathers to be equal parents, fathers will need to be accepted and encouraged to participate, just like mothers.
The Swedish child health centers provide great child development advice, host parenting groups, are seen as parenting experts, and are appreciated throughout Sweden.
For example, their services benefit parents…mothers.
The extra support mothers receive aides mothers in continuing to raise their child, at least as far as their child’s health in concerned, since she is the parenting expert because she receives the most support and is the most welcome at the child health centers.
Changing routine practices at the child health centers to further promote and support fathers will aid Sweden’s goal of becoming a gender equal country.
A couple of hours after my PhD Defense, I was famous.
My PhD dissertation could now be found on academic bookshelves everywhere (Swedish university libraries are found).
Going to my PhD party felt like I had made it through a marriage ceremony, and now got to finally enjoy myself; except for the fact that I’m too exhausted to fully enjoy myself.
Booze are needed. Lots and lots of booze.
It doesn’t hurt to add in loads of friends, colleagues, supervisors, and family to cheer you on.
Speeches start with the big hitters–the supervisors….and my partner.
Food is ever important for lifting your spirits.
And if that doesn’t work, then you should start singing.
Flowers (and gifts) aren’t bad either; they always brighten your day!
To really wake everyone up, my colleagues put on quite a show, highlighting my journey of learning and blending in with Swedish culture and Swedish research.
Once their speech was complete, I received their gifts.
Which was promptly followed up by the comical conspirators The Wellanders! Led by Linus and Fredrik, they proceeded to barrage and embarrass me with typical high school hijinks that I of course didn’t get to participate in when I was 18, and therefore, I get to now relive those moments, in order to feel truly like a graduating Swede….complete with embarrassing baby photos.
I know some truly gifted, loving, and inspiration people!
Sweden is a lot different than the USA when you have to defend your PhD dissertation (PhD avhandling). For example, there is a lot more pomp and circumstance surrounding the event.
You get your PhD Dissertation book in the mail weeks in advance (after all, you need to mail them to your PhD committee and opponent [more on them in a minute]).
Your defense is publically announced weeks before your actual defense and anyone may attend your defense (either as friend or foe).
It always helps to go to your defense room, pre-defense, to practice your speech, be challenged by your supervisors (and other colleagues).
Sarah flew over to
provide some great advice!
And make sure all of the equipment (lights, shades, microphone, powerpoint, etc) all work and that you know how to work them.
When the day of my defense finally happened, I had to decorate it with my research posters.
After everyone arrives, the opponent, committee members, supervisors, and the PhD student are announced via a chairperson.
After the announcements are made, and your dissertation book is passed out, you now make a 30 minute speech about your research; telling a story of where the field is, why your research is needed, the strengths and limitations to your research, how your research contributes to the field, and future needed research.
Another difference from the USA: you have an opponent. An opponent is a professional within your field who is not connected to you or anyone that you’ve worked with (e.g. your supervisors) within the past five years. They are there to critically challenge your dissertation.
While professors in public health have a reputation for seeing how your work fits in a larger framework, psychologists have reputations for picking apart the methodology and statistics you use. My opponent met that stereotype.
Beyond the opponent, you also have to face a battering ram of committee members. This consists of three professors who also have not worked with you or your advisors for the past five years. The PhD student typically meets these committee members at their half-time: when they are half-way completed with their PhD and need to defend their progress thus far, while also receiving support and advice on how to strengthen their dissertation and future research projects.
Hours later–After you’ve faced down your opponent and the three committee members, then anyone from the audience is allowed to challenge your work. This is most tedious, because you’re exhausted from defending, and it’s much harder to prepare for audience members, since they could bring up pretty much any topic.
Thankfully, I didn’t have any audience questions.
At this point, everyone came up to congratulate me on my “job well done” while they committee, opponent, and my supervisors (Anna and Dr. Raziye Salari) went into a private room to discuss the defense. After 10-20 minutes, my supervisors are dismissed and the committee decides your fate.
A pre-party starts, with champagne and snacks while we await the verdict.
Preparing the dissertation, as well as preparing to defend took nearly half a year, starting at the tail-end of 2014, and on through until April 29th, 2015…the magical defense day. You can read more information about the artwork, the spikning, the final product (aka the defense), and the party.
While working on my dissertation, I had two other main projects: 1) to mentor a medical student in how to conduct research and 2) to plan and execute the itinerary for my former master’s advisor, Dr. Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan. After receiving a travel grant, we flew her over from the USA to Sweden to have her provide lectures to different groups of researchers, individually work with various PhD Students, and to have her promote her research to different researchers.
It was a highlight of my year to be able to give a little something back to my former advisor…even if preparing for my PhD defense was a full-time job.
The most unfortunate thing after graduating was having to leave the country for an unknown period of time, while I waited for my visa to change from a student visa to a visiting researcher visa. But at least I was employable!
I had two job offers: one as a postdoc at the Child Health and Parenting (CHAP) Research Group in Women’s and Children’s Health at Uppsala University (AKA- the same research group I earned my PhD from) (60%) and a researcher position via St. Goran’s Hospital & Women’s and Children’s Health at Karolinska Institutet (40%). In the latter position, I started working with Dr. Malin Bergström.
Malin was the first person to ever approach me at a conference and utter the words “I’ve read your work.” That simple sentence led us down a path to our current projects (and obviously made me feel super cool!).
While my postdoc position at CHAP was to continue finishing up current projects, I was to start a very natural progression of analyzing data on Swedish child health nurses’ current attitudes toward father involvement at the child health centers, and to start helping to develop an evaluation protocol for a new program the nurses were providing to families of three-year-olds with Malin (as well as Dr. Emma Fransson & Dr. Anders Hjern via CHESS, Stockholm University).
Article 1 is my fourth and final article that completes my PhD dissertation! It is the first article to explore gender differences between parents (e.g. mothers and fathers) in relation to why they participate in a parent support program (e.g. Triple P Positive Parenting Program).
Of those researchers on ResearchGate, this article was the most read article from Women’s and Children’s Health (for that week). It felt cool to see that people were interested in my research, especially since there are so many researchers doing really highly quality research.
Article 2 was also in my PhD dissertation. This was the first article I ever collected data on, and the first article I ever tried to get published. The fact that I have since had five other publications before this one though is a tribute to the valuable lessons I learned from this first research project: how to collect data, how to write an article for publication, and the most valuable lesson–learning the importance of developing a strong methodology. But now it’s finally published! 🙂
Wellander, L., Wells, M.B., & Feldman, I. (2015). Does prevention pay?: Health and economic impact of preventive interventions for school children aimed to improve mental health. Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics, 18(S1).
*The actual citation writes Inna Feldman’s name as “Jima Feldman”.
This article is published in a supplementary edition of the journal since it is a conference abstract (the conference took place in Venice, Italy and was run by the aforementioned journal).
My citations greatly increased this year according to ScholarGoogle from 19 in 2014 to 34 in 2015.
I have also learned some valuable lessons about citations:
Self-citations definitely happen
My dissertation alone vastly boosted my alleged citations
Your research network cites your work
Maintain healthy relationships to get more citations
Masters and doctoral students will cite you
Apparently established researchers are mainly only following lesson number 2 (above); even if your research would fit in perfectly with their own
Use conferences and send personal emails to promote your work
People will cite you if they 1) know that your research exists and 2) if you take a few minutes to introduce yourself
I haven’t had too many citations from professional researchers who either my colleagues or myself do not already know. Hopefully this will be a nut that gets cracked as I build my resume, produce more, and establish a bigger name for myself…either that or networking is just as important in garnering citations, as it is in getting employed.
My PhD dissertation has been viewed and downloaded quite a bit (relative to others).
ResearchGate also states that my articles (as a group) have been “read” (a combination of viewed and downloaded) over 1000 times. It’s hard to compare from 2014, since they changed their terminology. For example last year, I had 816 views and 969 downloads.
These numbers though must pale in comparison to downloaded articles from the actual journal (imagine that, a professional organization does better than my personal website 😉
For example, in just looking at my Early Childhood Research Quarterly article, over a 9-month period, this one article was viewed 655 times.
I was also invited to speak at the 6th Annual Conference: Focus on Fatherhood for around 100 child health nurses in Kista, Stockholm, Sweden. I gave a presentation called “Father Involvement is Important: Ways to Decrease Paternal Barriers.”
This blog has increased traffic quite a bit as well. While my blog received 15,000 views in 2014, my views significantly increased to 25,000 in 2015. The most common views are by far the posts related to different questionnaires and scales (e.g. not my personal work).
I find this interesting because it tells me that 1) people want to look up questionnaires and scales to learn more about them and 2) there aren’t many websites that promote questionnaires and scales.
I wrote about the different questionnaires and scales (e.g. research tools) that I use in my own research–not so much to inform others, but just to remind myself what that tool could be used for. However, it seems that people crave more knowledge about particular tools. So far though, I have taken little responsibility in updating and adding to the tool-related posts–since they aren’t my tools that I’ve developed.
Even so, my website often comes up as the number one hit on Google. People who have invested interests in these tools could benefit from promoting them to a greater extent….and other researcher would also benefit from their knowledge.
Researchers always question if they have done enough throughout the year. Writing about a few of my highlights puts my accomplishments in perspective.
And I haven’t even written about the “soft” accomplishments–like learning new methodologies and statistics, mentoring PhD students, leading seminars, teaching, and presenting at conferences.
Keeping in mind what I have accomplished all year helps raise my self-esteem and lowers my self-deprecating thoughts of not doing enough.