Reflections on a day of conference studentdom... #ehf2015

What it means to be a PhD student can be a tricky question to answer at the best of times. Add being an ergonomics/human factors student to the mix, and it’s a 50/50 split of ‘hu?!’ and gazed eyes. So imagine my delight when a full day of a conference was dedicated to our rather rare breed! That was what I experienced today at the Doctoral Consortium at the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors conference in Daventry, United Kingdom (#ehf2015 for anyone following on twitter).

So what were the nuggets of wisdom that came from the day? They were varied. Each talk provided a novel perspective within our broad occupational ‘church’. We had health care workers, civil servants, engineers, psychologists and industrial designers. Yet all had a strong flair for integrated ergonomics/human factors. What did my colleagues talk about? Here’s a quick rundown:

·       Anthea Bennett (Institute of Naval Medicine) is considering safety culture within the military. Her work has thrown up many considerations, including the role that strong organisational commitment and loyalty can play in the health behaviours of workers.

·       Katie Buckley (me) (La Trobe University) discussed how a participatory ergonomics approach was utilised with elite sports coaches to consider vocal ergonomics factors.

·       Julie Waldron (Nottingham University) is contemplating patterns of behaviour in outdoor spaces. She used both covert observations and interviews to contemplate how architecture and outdoor spaces may assist people to be healthier and happier.

·       Adrian Marinescu (Nottingham University) contemplated how mental workload and stress maybe objectively measured through non-invasive measure. This included attempting thermal imaging of face movements, for use in aviation research.

·       Federica Massi (University of Milan) talked about WMSD considerations for dairy farmers in Italy. Through a multi-disciplinary, multi-method research approach (ultrasound, symptoms questionnaire, nerve conduction and Borg scale), she has considered if this protocol could be utilised within industry.  

·       Lucy Gilbert (Coventry University) considered the downside of automaticity, when errors can have major health consequences. Through consulting radiotherapists, she highlighted how changes in expected protocol may avoid the risk of attention over/underload.

·       Pedro Huertas-Leyva (University of Florence) highlighted how developing training strategies for motorbike riders may enhance safety.

·       Milena Kukova (Coventry University) while early in her PhD, shared how decision making about car design may be considered by industry.

·       Raphael Lamas (Nottingham University) had a rather novel approach to communication between drivers when traveling on the road. He used a range of data collection methods, including asking experts to brainstorm what they would like across driving situations.

·       Eline Kolk (Coventry University) shared her knowledge of the right way to dig. She discussed how the discover-define-develop-deliver approach to design may also be used when designing implements for older adults when they are gardening.

·       Natalie Cooper (University of Liverpool) share the effects of multisensory cues on how people feel during virtual reality simulation. Apparently even saxophone noise is preferable to silence in making us feel better during task completion.

·       Tugra Erol (Coventry University) provided insights into comfort and discomfort in seating. It seems that colour makes a difference in how firm we think a seat is, along with our emotional reaction to its luxury.

We rounded off the afternoon with some words of wisdom from the facilitators. A couple of take home messages stood out for me. One was the importance of publishing and presenting during a PhD.  Not only does publishing and presenting increase the visibility of your topic, but it also provides valuable peer feedback during the doctoral process. Another was that rejection of papers is actually a valuable (if painful) learning opportunity. We also discussed the importance of considering why a journal exists when you are pitching your work. Editors will look at your content (specifically the reference list) to see if the narrative you are sharing about your work fits with the preferences of the journal. It seems it pays to address this when writing. The final take-home confirmed just how diverse, and yet relevant, we can be within ergonomics/human factors. With such a wide variety of students and topics, it would be easy to feel ‘lost in the crowd’. Yet within the scope of the consortium, we all seemed to fit.

An exciting conference ahead, so time for this tired Aussie to sign out! Looking forward to the insights to come (and sharing the VOTG message in 'just a minute' poster presentation - see below).