Skip to content


International Women’s Day 2013: Some thoughts on gender, water and sanitation

March 8th marks International Women’s Day, when we celebrate the achievements of women worldwide in various realms (economic, political, social). Women have had a very strong and positive impact on my own research agenda. I’m the son of a political science professor (my Mom is a specialist in federalism and intergovernmental relations), I collaborate with many female scholars, I have taught hundreds of incredibly bright young women and I continue to mentor and supervise female students.

One topic in which several of my undergraduate students wrote papers and I never had the time to delve into in depth has been the interrelationships between gender, water and sanitation. I’m also good friends with the founders of Vancouver-based social enterprise LunaPads, (Suzanne Siemens and Madeleine Shaw), who advocate for and support charities like One4Her. Through the conversations with my students, the founders of LunaPad and my friend and colleague Janni Aragon (who does research on gender and public policy) I’ve become more aware of the negative impact of lack of proper sanitation and access to water on women, which is pretty substantial.

Women and children carry water

Photo credit: (c) Ray Witlin/World Bank. Used with permission per CC license

Surveys from 45 developing countries show that women and children bear the primary responsibility for water collection in the majority of households. This is time not spent working at an income-generating job, caring for family members, or attending school. In just one day, it is estimated that more than 152 million hours of women and girls’ time is consumed for the most basic of human needs — collecting water for domestic use. [Source: Water.org]

Time spent collecting water is not the only negative effect of lack of access on women, but also distance travelled to fetch it.

On average women and children travel 10-15 kilometers per day collecting water and carrying up to 20 kilos or 15 litres per trip. Some 30% of women in Egypt walk over 1 hour a day to meet water needs. In some parts of Africa, women and children spend 8 hours a day collecting water [Source: Gender & Water Network]

The special need of girls and women during the time of menstruation must be taken into account (photo by Marni Sommer)

Photo credit: Sustainable Sanitation Alliance

Young girls often have to miss school during their menstrual periods, and lack of safe sanitation facilities has a strong deleterious effect, also potentially putting them in harm’s way and increasing their probability of facing violence.

In Kenya in Kibera, women on average walk 300 meters from their homes to use pit latrines making access dangerous for them and their children at night (Source: Amnesty International, 2010 – Water and Sanitation Programme)

Given my interest in vulnerable communities, I am keen to continue studying water and sanitation through a gender lens, and to help increase women’s access to proper sanitation facilities and to clean water. On International Women’s Day, I urge you to keep in mind the links between gender, water and sanitation, and to remember that lack of access to water and sanitation can potentially have a much more negative effect on women than on men. Think about it.

Posted in bridging academia and practice, sanitation, wastewater.

Tagged with , .


Dr. Kathryn Harrison (UBC Political Science) at #CIDE on the comparative politics of carbon pricing

I had the pleasure to host Dr. Kathryn Harrison (Professor, Department of Political Science at The University of British Columbia) at both campuses of CIDE, Santa Fe in Mexico City and Region Centro in Aguascalientes. Kathy has been a former professor, mentor, and then (when I became a faculty member at UBC Political Science), a fellow colleague, and someone whose work has inspired me to work in the comparative public policy field. Full disclosure: I love Kathy’s work and I have co-authored papers with her too, and I’m going to continue doing so in the near future on the comparative politics of carbon pricing in Mexico.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison at CIDE Santa Fe

Kathy came to visit from Vancouver (Canada) to Mexico City and Aguascalientes (Mexico) as an invited seminar presenter within the framework of the Permanent Seminar “New Frontiers in Environmental Policy Research“, which is a seminar series that I host every month since last September (2012). She presented a paper (with slight variations for each audience) on the comparative politics of carbon pricing in Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Kathy Harrison Visit Feb 28 Mar 1 - 2013 007

I found the paper fascinating and Kathy’s presentations incredibly insightful, and at both locations, we had excellent attendance and wonderful questions. I am particularly proud of how my colleagues at CIDE Region Centro asked questions that were intellectually challenging and stimulating for Kathy, and that those questions also helped me frame where my own research is located. Mexico is still in the very, very early stages of establishing carbon pricing schemes and thus there is fertile ground on undertaking this kind of research.

What I find also very interesting (and do note, I’m not a specialist in climate politics at all) is that, from what Kathy shared with us, once a carbon tax is implemented, it’s hard to get rid of it. You could almost see it from a path dependency perspective.

Dr. Kathryn Harrison at CIDE Santa Fe

Overall, it was a pleasure to have Kathy visit and share her scholarship with my colleagues, CIDE students, research assistants and members from the public. I think it was a great experience overall, especially to my students and research assistants as participating in a seminar of this calibre enables them to experience the broad variety of scholarship that is available in the field of environmental policy.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , , .


Improving your academic writing: My top 10 tips

The topic of academic writing has been popular in the blogosphere and Twittersphere in the past couple of weeks. I think it all came from Stephen Walt’s Foreign Policy piece “On Writing Well“. Several fellow academics responded to Walt’s scathing critique of our scholarly writing (read Stephen Saideman, Jay Ulfelder, Dan Drezner, Marc Bellemare, Thomas Pepinsky, Greg Weeks, and I’m sure a few more that I missed. Yes, I also know that I linked to political science and public policy professors. There are two reasons for this. First, because they were the ones who responded to Walt’s critique and commented on it. Second, because I am largely trained as a public policy/political science scholar. I taught at a department of political science for 6 years and now I teach at one of public administration. My training comes largely from that academic field.

The above said, I have also written on this blog why I read widely, and across disciplines (I do the same on Twitter – I follow folks who are political scientists, educators, anthropologists, geographers, sociologists, computer scientists and mathematicians): because it broadens my learning spectrum, improves my writing skills, and enables me to write for very different audiences.

My research output in the past couple of months

You’ll see: I write differently if I am submitting a paper to Policy Sciences (a public policy journal) than if I am sending it to Water International (an area journal focusing on water). I write differently for a human geography audience than I do for a political science one. That was the very first piece of advice my PhD advisor gave me on writing: write for your audience. And that is, I think, an element that was missing in Walt’s piece: we write for specific audiences. I write differently a policy advice report than I do a public policy scholarly paper. The audiences are different, as are the goals of each piece of writing.

I can’t claim to say that everything I have learned from academic writing came from my own experiences. I have been mentored and have learned from my former PhD advisor, from my former doctoral committee, other faculty members, and from other folks I read. So while not attributing them to each person who taught me each, here are my top tips on academic writing. This is what I do to improve my own writing and may be of value for those of you seeking to improve yours.

1. Be disciplined and write every day.
Every morning, I wake up anywhere between 4:45am and 5:30am, I start a pot of coffee, make my bed, turn on my laptop and start writing. I have been writing for 2 hours every single day of the week (Saturdays and Sundays included) for the past little while and it has done wonders for my writing. I added 85 single spaced pages to my book, and produced 120 single-spaced pages in the past couple of months or so. I’d say that’s good productivity.

I had my carpenter build a paper holder for my office :)

2. Give yourself the best tools to write.
I grew up in an academic household, and thus my childhood bedroom also has a full-blown home office (complete with desktop computer and printer, and wireless internet). Because I travel to my parents’ city every single weekend to visit them, I know that I have the right setup to write. I also need to make sure that I have the tools to write anywhere I go, so I try to pack with me everything I need, including a paper holder. Recently, I bought a new computer chair for my home office at my parents’ place. I need to make sure that every piece of furniture I have enables my writing. Same goes for hardware and software. It was incredibly frustrating to have to switch computers because I only had EndNote in one of them (I now use Mendeley as a reference manager).

Home office at my Mom's

3. Write as you would speak (aka read aloud what you just wrote).
I remember that the first time one of my professors told me this I felt offended. I thought I wrote well! But as I have learned through time, if I write as I speak, my writing becomes clearer.

4. Have other people read your pieces to provide you with feedback.
This is a hard piece of advice to follow, as my writing often gets torn to pieces. It always comes out stronger, though. I learned (in this case, from my former PhD advisor) to take the feedback that people gave me to improve my writing. If I am not writing clearly, I need to work on how to write crisp, short, punchy, effective sentences.

5. Read a lot, and read across different disciplines.
My PhD itself is interdisciplinary, and the theoretical and analytical frameworks that I built for my doctoral dissertation borrowed from literature in anthropology, sociology, planning, human geography, chemical engineering. I’m a multi-methods guy, and I have done everything from institutional ethnography to GIS to social network analysis to structural equation modeling. I’m always on the lookout for innovative research methods. To this end, I read a lot (which of course takes a lot of time, I recognize) and I read across a variety of disciplines. Reading does improve your writing, as it enables you to see how other folks frame their thoughts and communicate them.

Recent book acquisitions April & May 2013 CIDE Region Centro library

6. Write for your audience.
Your writing style will vary if you write on a blog (like this one) to communicate to a broader audience than if your audience is policy-makers who need brief, concise analytical summaries of the literature and calls-to-action. You will be writing differently for your doctoral committee or for a political science journal than for an anthropology one. But always try to write clearly.

7. Write without interruptions
This is hard in today’s academic lifestyle: we are required to do more (because many administrative tasks like grant management, budget creation and day-to-day expense-tracking are being offloaded on to us). We also need to prepare lectures, write slides, design curricula, participate in committees, advise students, provide them with feedback on their writing. To counter this, I write in the morning (very early), and later in the afternoon/evening or late at night. I always make sure that nobody interrupts me (although when I’m visiting my parents doing this is sometimes hard as this is the only time we get to chat. When this is the case, I make sure to write late at night or very early in the morning so that I can hang out with them the rest of the day.

How I write an academic paper

8. Take care of yourself.
This is a very obvious one, but one that many academics fail to take into account. How does taking a break from writing (and from academic life) every so often help you write better? You can refresh your mind by exercising and taking care of your health and body. Your writing will improve if your health improves as well (and of course, if you devote time to it!)

9. Practice your writing. Write a lot.
And by write a lot, I don’t mean answer dozens of emails. Write lots of generative text, so that you can in turn shift around, rewrite, re-order and re-read your sentences and find ways to make them stronger. Recently, as the text of a book chapter that included lots of theory and lots of empirical research started growing longer than the length I had allowed, I realized that I could split it into one theoretical book chapter, and 2 empirical journal articles. I started with just one document, and I split enough text into three drafts that I now have the foundations of 3 pieces instead of just one. I do not feel that any of the writing I did was wasted at all.

Handwriting

10. When stuck, write by hand.
This piece of advice comes from someone who is a fan of online collaborative tools. I clip documents on Evernote all the time, upload PDFs to Mendeley for later reading and inserting citations into my writing and use Dropbox to share research with my collaborators, students and research assistants. So you may be surprised when you read that when I am stuck (and sometimes, even not when I am stuck but when I am writing a paper or an article) I write by hand. I particularly write by hand when I am creating new ideas or line-editing or when I need to fill gaps in my arguments.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , .


Dr. Kimberly Nolan García (DEI, CIDE Santa Fé) at CIDE Región Centro on North American labour politics

Dr. Kimberly Nolan García, my friend and colleague from the International Studies Division at CIDE (in the Santa Fé campus) came to CIDE Región Centro to visit, promote the undergraduate degree at CIDE Santa Fé here in Aguascalientes (we have a dual degree in Political Science and International Relations at CIDE Santa Fé, whereas our undergraduate degree here is on Government and Public Finance).

Dr. Kim Nolan (International Studies, CIDE Santa Fe) explaining her research

Kim also gave a couple of talks. I fully recognize how hard it is to do a talk for undergraduate levels, so kudos to her for making something that is somewhat foreign (labour rights in the context of North American politics) to students so easy to digest.

I found Kim’s talk really interesting because we do study similar stuff. I have looked at how environmental non-governmental organizations use the Citizen Submission on Enforcement Matters mechanism of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), whereas Kim has looked at the transnational dimensions of labour rights organizations and the use of a similar mechanism within the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC). An interesting paper that you may find useful from Kim is linked here.

In a similar fashion to what I and my coauthors found in Pacheco-Vega, Fox and Weibust (2010), Kim also finds that there is at least one country where the mechanism is not being used to a larger extent. In labour, as Nolan García demonstrates, it is Canada, whereas in environment, it is in the United States of America. Another interesting discussion worth having is the fact that in environment, CSEM is used to denounce countries’ national environmental law violations, whereas in the labour agreement, the mechanism is used to denounce violations against individuals’ rights (which, as can be seen, generates a much larger dataset than in the case of CSEM).

Overall, a very interesting talk worth discussing further.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .


Why do I study water? The sheer size of the problem, that’s why.

I had lunch with my Dad two weekends ago (my Dad is a lawyer and he has taught law as well, so his background is also academic) and he started asking me why had I chosen the academic path that I have in the past few years. Dad seemed especially fascinated by my interest in wastewater. After all, I started my professional life even before I finished my undergraduate degree in chemical engineering, as a research assistant undertaking bench-scale experiments on aerobic wastewater treatment processes. I have been fascinated by pollution and solving contamination problems since I was very young. I always wanted to clean up our world.

Chefs Across The Water in Salt Spring Island

As time has gone by and I have matured as a scholar, I have searched for, and found ways to make my research more accessible to the general public. Beyond publishing in open-access journals and sharing tidbits of my research on my scholarly blog and on my social media outlets (being a public intellectual as much as I can), I also give talks that are intended for the average civilian. One of those talks, which I titled “Saving the world, one drop at a time” uses statistics (usually taken from the World Water Assessment Programme or from the UN-Water site, or from the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme, although I just came across Water.org‘s very accessible site) to provide a snapshot of just the sheer size of the problem. Obviously, I admit that I do this to scare people into action.

The sheer size of the water and sanitation problem should scare us all. It is just bewildering to me how in some regions more people can have access to a mobile phone than access to a toilet. Over a billion people engage in open defecation. Even worse, according to the JMP (full 2012 report in PDF):

Open defecation rates have decreased from 25% in 1990 to 15% in 2010. Worldwide, 1.1 billion people practise open defecation, a decline of 271 million since 1990.

River overflow 5

Lack of water access and low levels of sanitation also have a negative impact on women and children.

In just one day, it is estimated that more than 152 million hours of women and girls’ time is consumed for the most basic of human needs — collecting water for domestic use

[Water.org}

Salt Spring Island and Chefs Across The Water

While my scholarship may not have the highest impact on how water is governed worldwide, at least I’m working towards bettering our understanding of water governance, in hopes that at least *some* communities can have access to improved water and sanitation. Even if I can improve the lives of a few people, at least my research has had *some* degree of impact.

Posted in academia, bridging academia and practice, water governance, water policy, water stress.


Working with research assistants: My approach and philosophy

One of the reasons my scholarly productivity went up (literally, through the roof) during a previous stage of my academic career was the fact that I had not one, but two amazing research assistants. Whatever I needed done (assemble datasets, create tables, format journal article manuscripts, organize my academic life), they were there. Right now, I have a small army of 6 research assistants (I brought back to my team someone who I had worked with during my postdoctoral years), and while two of them work 50% of their time for me and 50% of their time for another professor (both colleagues of mine), I do consider them all part of my research team (my research students being the other part). They’ve been incredibly helpful in boosting my productivity and helping me with some very tedious administrative tasks (including photocopying, printing, data-entry and assemblage of my SNI submission).

There are very good reasons to be a research assistant, particularly at a prestigious institution like CIDE. In addition to learning about how to conduct research on-the-job, obtaining a very solid letter of recommendation from a respected scholar, being a research assistant pays off because it provides the apprentice with the experience of being one of the building blocks of a solid scholarly programme.

Whenever I have worked with research assistants, I have tried to motivate them and boost their morale because to me, their work is incredibly valuable. They are not only “dataset-assembling-machines”. They’re human beings with excellent brains, who are hard-working and committed to my success. Given the fact that in my RA team I have 5 males and 1 woman, I came up with the metaphor of The Avengers, and had a friend of my cousin design and create small figures that represent my research assistants as The Avengers.

The Avengers

The metaphor works well, because even if I see myself as a superhero, I wouldn’t be able to succeed without their help (hence the Avengers metaphor – they are stronger as a team, whereas one alone is not as powerful). Admittedly, I’m a very challenging professor to work as a research assistant for. I work in a very broad variety of fields, and I work really long hours, at a very fast pace. But I know that I can count on my research assistants to have my back.

My philosophy for working with research assistants can be summarized as follows: all I ask of my RAs is

1) Commitment – The first thing I need from a research assistant is that they can be trusted and that they are committed to helping me. I need to know that they will be there when I need them, even if the work sometimes requires them to stay a bit longer, work a bit after work, or come in on a weekend or on a holiday. I need to know that they have my back and that they’re watching it.

2) Hard work and high quality of work – I need to know that my RAs will take the same approach that I take to my research. While I am a bit of a perfectionist, I don’t expect perfection from my RAs. But I do expect that they will take time to proofread their work, to check for consistency in datasets, to upload clean references to Mendeley, and to be careful and exercise proper etiquette in how they deal with other professors and students.

3) Independence – I strongly believe that the best thing one can do to train and mentor RAs is to show them how to undertake independent work, to walk with them through the process, to teach them the first steps on how to use a particular software or tool, and then let them work themselves out. I am not a micro-manager. I never was when I was a research lab manager, and I never will be. I fully believe in my own mantra: I tell people “THIS needs to happen” and I let them make it happen. I strongly believe this approach really enhances the RA experience.

4) Mutual respect and a team approach to work – This is incredibly important to me (that my RAs respect each other and that they work together as a team). I don’t play favorites with any of my RAs (nor did I do it with my students). I’ve always believed in self-organization (I wouldn’t study self-organizing water governance units if I didn’t!) so often times, I just tell my students what I need done and they self-organize on who can help me do what. This approach enables them to learn better collaborative ways of working together, and it frees my time (and my brain) to focus on my research.

A couple of interesting posts I found while writing this piece – on working with undergraduate RAs in a lab setting, and on working with RAs as translators. Of course, I’d appreciate additional tips on how to work with research assistants if you think of something that you think I missed on this note.

Posted in academia, research.

Tagged with , .


Maturing as a scholar, long-term thinking and the research trajectory

I had my carpenter build a paper holder for my office :)Recently, I was asked on Twitter about what I meant by a research trajectory (I discussed my research interests and the plans I had for my future investigations in a previous blog post). For context, I have been thinking about maturing as a scholar and research trajectories for the past few months. For example, I recently had to assemble my submission to the National Researchers System (Sistema Nacional de Investigadores) in Mexico. My brother and I recently reviewed his research interests’ statement (he’s also a professor) and I explained to him how I wrote mine. Last November, I also had to produce a research plan for the next 3 years. And my research assistants just asked me how I knew where I was going (as a scholar).

I have noticed how I have matured as a scholar, not only in the PhD-to-professor process kind-of-maturing (where you need to demonstrate that you can think differently from your PhD advisor, when you are ready to undertake independent thinking and analyzing), but also in how I examine problems and what kind of scholarship I apply. I have also noticed how other senior scholars have shifted their thinking.

Dr. Elinor Ostrom. Photo credit US Embassy in Sweden.

Let me explain with an example. Ten years ago, when I first met Elinor Ostrom and Vincent Ostrom, they had already been thinking for a very long time about issues of collective action for resource governance, multi-level governance and self-organization in local communities for water management. I first learned about institutions from the Ostroms, and what they taught me did shape how I think now about resource governance. I know that the Ostroms’ thinking around institutions and polycentric governance itself evolved through the years. And it took me a good 2-3 years after my PhD to really think hard and find out what exactly is the core of my theoretical and analytical processes. It is NOT that I am obsessed with the Ostroms and their scholarship (though admittedly, I admired them as academics and loved them as people). What happens is that at the very core of my work for the past 10, 15 years, I have been studying cooperation and conflict. In completely different areas, but if you examine with a critical eye what I investigate, at the very core, I am interested in cooperation amongst agents. I always have, and I probably always will.

As Jo VanEvery put it in a comment on my post,

That is a great description. The thing about cooperation between agents connects what otherwise might look like a very diverse research agenda into something much more coherent. You have particular empirical interests right now (water, especially) but you have successfully identified the core that would remain even if that particular focus changed.

While the kind of research I focus on has evolved, and I have shifted from a main interest in strategic alliances (during my MBA) to clusterization and industrial agglomeration (during my PhD) to networked governance of natural resources (as a professor), I have always maintained an interest in cooperation. And my scholarly findings have shown under what circumstances cooperation exists. That kind of maturing, knowing exactly what kind of questions I want to answer in the future, I think is crucial for any researcher.

I set out to design my research trajectory not only because well, I do want tenure (and this suggestion by Karen Kelsky on how to design a research trajectory applies mostly to PhD students and on-the-tenure-track professors), but more importantly because I want to ensure that where I am in 3 to 6 years (analytically speaking) is further from where I am right now. I have long known that I eschew popular research in favor of cutting-edge, non-mainstream scholarship, and I intend to stay on that course.

Deep Cove Park (North Vancouver)Academic fields also evolve, and other scholars mature as well, and their thinking becomes more refined, as my trusted former PhD advisor always said. I remember when I was in 3rd year of my PhD and he said to me that I would some day re-read my previous work and think how far I have come and how evolved my thinking is, and he was entirely right. One of my fields (water policy) also has evolved. Eight years ago, few people in Mexico wrote about water governance, and this past year, the popularity of the term exploded. I was challenging the validity of governing by research councils since 2007, and now even respected scholars who previously defended the policy now have questioned whether it is a valid one. I think this demonstrates that the field itself matures, and that scholars reshape their own thinking as they learn from others.

Political science is a great example of an evolving field. Lately, I have seen more political scientists use social network analysis in their research (a tool that has been used in sociology for decades). Economists and geographers now can straddle two fields (geographical economics and economic geography). That is also why I encourage my students (and fellow researchers) to read widely and across academic fields.

That is what I love about being an academic: that I get to think hard about tough issues that require policy action, and that I get to do so and get paid for it.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with .


Discard Studies and the social science of garbage: Some preliminary reflections

useless waste basketsFor the longest time, I have been fascinated with waste, although for some reason that is not 100% clear to me, I haven’t devoted much time to studying the scholarship around sustainable consumption. I’m currently engaged in a number of projects around the socio-political dynamics of informal recycling (waste picking) and as a result, I have been writing a summary, overview piece on the social science of garbage. The goal of this piece is to integrate what we know about how waste is perceived, analyzed and understood, from a social science (and humanities) perspective. While I have found many studies that touch on various aspects of discarded materials, I have just recently begun to think about them from the perspective posed by Robin Nagle, Eric Friedman and Max Liboiron on their blog, Discard Studies.

The new multidisciplinary field of discard studies considers definitions of, attitudes toward, behaviors around, and materialities of waste, broadly defined. This blog is meant as an online gathering place for scholars, activists, environmentalists, students, artists, planners, and anyone else whose work touches on themes relevant to the study of discard.

From the perspective of an interdisciplinary scholar like myself, discard studies as an all-encompassing field of research has, as the authors propose, great potential. As I have written before, I approach problems from an interdisciplinary perspective, using analytical frameworks that borrow from a variety of social sciences (anthropology, geography, sociology and of course, political science and policy studies). My research interests are centered around networked governance, but I study governing from an integrative, multidisciplinary perspective.

Discard studies as a field in its own right has rich potential, drawing upon but going beyond approaches to waste undertaken in disciplines of cultural anthropology, economics, sociology, archaeology, geography, history, and environmental studies, to name a few.

A growing number of researchers from all of these disciplines are asking questions about waste, not just as an ecological problem, but as a process, as a category of rejected material goods, as a mentality, as a judgment, as an infrastructural and economic challenge, as a political risk, a site for power struggles and as a source of creativity.

useless waste baskets (2)My first degree was in chemical engineering, and I started working in waste management (solid, hazardous and liquid waste) even before I completed my undergraduate degree. I remember reading George Tchobanoglous’ books and the Metcalf and Eddy masterpiece of wastewater engineering but what I noticed in both sets of books was a distinct lack of exploration of the human dimensions of garbage governance. We still know very little about attitudinal change, policy instruments to reduce pollution control (my first scholarly love, I should admit!), political dynamics of interaction between informal recyclers and their governments (a topic I’m currently studying). However, there are numerous studies on the anthropology of garbage, particularly as it relates to the archaeology of garbage. Archaeologists find the study of previous generations’ material waste particularly informative in describing previous civilizations/eras.

Discard Studies offers a substantially large selection of articles, journals and book suggestions, many of which I have ordered for acquisition by our CIDE Region Centro library. I have also looked at Academia.Edu’s groups on Anthropology of Waste, Sociology of Waste,

In the human geography literature, I’m very familiar with Anna Davies’ work on the geographies of garbage governance. And Carl Zimring‘s edited Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste (one I should have contributed to, and missed out on!) is a great resource.

At the end of the day, I’m interested in examining waste governance from a multidisciplinary perspective (I’ve done extensive research on wastewater governance), particularly focused on explaining divergences in governance structures (I am a comparativist, after all!) and waste policy outcomes. In my preliminary research I have found substantial variation in how solid waste is governed at the sub-national levels and I’m currently seeking to expand this work across Latin American countries. It will be very interesting to try and compare how each country’s populations behaves when faced with increasingly packed landfills and growing amounts of garbage to be dealt with. I remain fascinated with the social science of garbage.

Posted in geography, governance, public policy theories, waste.

Tagged with , .


On discipline, focus and writing every day in academic writing: My 2013 goals

When I set out to write my Research Plan for 2013 and my Research Trajectory for 2013-2016, I decided to write down one word that would establish my goals for the year. This year, the word was FOCUS. I decided that, no matter how many obstacles I face and regardless of how many different scholarly topics interest me, I was going to focus on what I had set out in my 2013 Research Plan.

Discipline

Photo credit: crypto on Flickr

One of the biggest challenges I often face is to be disciplined and focused in my academic writing. Because I have so many (and broad) scholarly interests, and given my extroverted and vivacious personality (a factor that I think is often overlooked when writing about productivity in academic settings), it’s often challenging to remain focused on what I need to achieve. I get excited about so many things. Admittedly, I work really hard and I’m very fast at what I do. But still, academic writing requires reflection and in-depth thinking. So I vowed this year to be more disciplined and focused.

Three productivity tips I’m implementing this year in full force (I’ve been working at them for the last little while, but this year they are the top priority) are:

1) writing every day
2) doing more distributed work
3) maintaining focus

Writing every day

Academic writing (working from home)

I regularly read 3 academic productivity blogs, each of them written by Tanya Golash-Boza, Jo Van Every and Karen Kelsky. Because so much of my academic life and success has hinged on being productive, I enjoy their productivity tips. Tanya suggests that you can be productive by writing 2 hours a day, and I can certainly attest to the truth of that suggestion. I don’t write for 2 hours straight, however. As Jo indicates, you should write the way it suits you, not the way everyone tells you to. Karen suggests that you should channel your inner rage and motivate you (in this case, to write).

So here is what I do: I wake up every morning, and before doing anything else, I prepare a pot of coffee and I start writing. I have daily meetings with my writing (I book time that nobody else has access to, where I just sit down and write). Because nobody has asked me (YET) to meet at 5:45am, usually my writing comes out at around this time. I spend anywhere between 30 minutes and 2 hours doing what is called “generative writing” (putting ideas down on paper/word processing file, drafting new sections of a paper, revising sections, reformatting and adding ideas, editing sentences, etc.) Anything that makes me feel that I am advancing my own research.

If I can’t write for 2 hours straight, I set out to write for at least 4 blocks of 30 minutes each EVERY DAY. No day goes by when I don’t write for at least 4 blocks of 30 minutes each. If I have to be at my office at CIDE in the morning, I book 4 slots where I just write without interruption. No email, no phone calls, nothing. I used to have an open-door policy, which I no longer have. I have found that closing the door, while everyone knows I’m inside my office, makes people realize that I might be busy writing or doing research, so they think twice before knocking. If I’m travelling, I usually wake up 2 hours earlier so that I can devote time to writing.

Doing more distributed work

Dropbox

Photo credit: David King on Flickr

This is a topic that merits its own blog post, but in general, my goal here is to do more work remotely and to distribute workloads effectively. On the topic of distributed (as in, remote) work: I love coming into my office every day, that’s how I get to engage in excellent discussions with my colleagues, my research assistants and my students. But ever since I discovered the distributed work features of Mendeley and Dropbox, I’m more inclined to spend time away from the office doing work. I have a lovely home office at my parents’ place and one at my own house in Aguascalientes, so I can always work from home whenever I want.

On the other hand (distributed work as in allocating workloads), I also have been empowering my research assistants to take the initiative and push their own boundaries of comfort. I think the world of my students and my research assistants, and I’m not a micro-manager. I set out to tell my RAs what needs to happen and I give them the freedom to pursue avenues and strategies that allow them to accomplish what I need accomplished. I think this is part of distributed work (distributing workloads in such a way that I don’t micromanage but I get things done). Also, hiring the best people always helps.

Focus

Focus

Photo credit: Mark Hunter on Flickr

Most people would look at my scholarly interests and think that I write about and research a very broad variety of topics and that this would be counter-intuitive if I’m trying to maintain focus. I’d respond that this is not the case. By maintaining focus, I mean that I just do what I am supposed to do, instead of adding things to my pile continuously. I can’t even begin to tell you how many calls for papers, invitations to submit to edited volumes, etc. I receive on an every day basis. I look at them longingly and I think “wow, this would be a really neat project“. And then I file them in my “Cool Things I Would Love To Research Whenever I Have Time (Which Is Pretty Much Never)”.

I’ve survived the siren-like lure of engaging in scholarship on water use in agriculture. I just can’t deviate from my line of research. I’ve been invited to do more research on climate policy. I have been told that I should analyze airshed governance. And my response is “sorry, but I already have a research trajectory and none of those topics are within my plans for the next 6 years“.

Any invitation I’ve accepted (or extended) to engage in new scholarly pursuits is perfectly aligned with my research trajectory for the next 6 years. Yes, I’m going to start doing more work on water conflict. But I’ve already studied conflicts for water in transboundary water governance, so doing it at the sub-national scale is a natural extension of my work. Admittedly, I’m going to do some work on environmental injustice and global geographies of e-waste. But I’m already doing work on informal recycling, therefore e-waste is a natural extension. Sure, I suggested a colleague that we should look at work on policy diffusion. But I’ve already done extensive work on policy transfer and policy learning in North America. This new project would be a natural extension of what I already do.

By focus I mean, I am not going to deviate from my scholarly goals and my research trajectory, even if the topic is interesting.

So this is my plan for 2013, and I’m writing it on my blog to keep me accountable.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with , , .


On self-care in an academic environment

Me with bracesI got braces for the first time in my life last month. You may wonder “how does getting braces relate to Dr. Raul Pacheco-Vega’s academic life?“. There’s a very simple response to that: In 2013, I decided to become the first priority in my life, both professional and personal. Out of context, undergoing teeth surgery (two wisdom teeth and a broken tooth removed) and getting braces may seem like just part of everyday life. But within the context of my (incredibly busy) academic life, the braces are a symbol of self-care, something we academics seem to forget a tad too often (anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, I think forgetting to take care of oneself IS a generalized practice in academic circles).

While I had all the intention to complete my book, and I did read and I did do a limited amount of work, this past December I spent the majority of the month recuperating from teeth surgery and learning to live (and eat) with my braces. I could have not made a better decision, I think (other than, of course, coming back to Mexico and joining CIDE Region Centro, which I think was a fantastic decision for my own growth) than finally getting my teeth straightened.

Travelling by False Creek Ferries across the water

Back in Vancouver, my morning routine included waking up at 4:45am and doing some work, heading to the gym, exercising for an hour, working a 10-12 hour day and in the evening doing artistic stuff. On weekends, I would do some work but my priority was my personal life and volleyball. Yes, I used to work and continue to work long days, but those were balanced. I am aiming to do the same here in Aguascalientes. I’ve already lined up a couple of artistic pursuits, and I’m seeking a volleyball team to join.

This professor works with 3 computers (tablet, laptop, desktop). Nephews photos for motivation and inspiration :)As for my home and office environment, we have superb offices at CIDE Region Centro, but I also have built a home office in my house. I do that wherever I live because I know that by having a home office I can do some work without having to commute to the office. And in all of the above decisions, my first thought is: if I want to have a successful academic life, I need to find some balance and exercise a healthy amount of self-care.

I do ask my students (undergraduate and graduate) and research assistants how they are doing both in their professional and personal lives, not because I want to be nosy, but because I want them to exercise self-care. I do monitor their well-being not because I want to micro-manage. I prefer to have a healthy research team than an overburdened one. There are too many stories (a few too close to home and personal) of academics who have become so burdened by the pressures of their responsibilities that they have taken extreme measures.

While I’m not yet able to do what Tanya Golash-Boza suggests (only work 40 hours a week), one of my goals in 2013 is to ensure that, whether I work 40, 50 or 100 hours a week, those hours are balanced and that I am able to still be academically productive while remaining sane and being aware of the need for self-care. If there’s something I can recommend my fellow professors out there, and their graduate students is: always make sure to take care of yourselves.

Posted in academia.

Tagged with .