Employer Insight session: Environment Agency 

Ruth Pengelly (RP): Hi, everybody, and thank you very much for attending this session today. And thank you for the introduction as well.

RP:  So I’m going to just do a quick introduction, really, about the Environment Agency and careers in water, as everybody here today is from either water quality or water resources in the Environment Agency.

RP: So just to give a bit of context, really. So, as I say, we’ll go through the EA and water and kind of the different careers. Then we’re going to get straight into the panel discussion, which is the real reason you’re all here.

RP: So, I’ll only speak for about five minutes, and then there will be time, hopefully, for some extra Q&As at the end as well.

RP: So, in terms of what the Environment Agency is, hopefully everyone’s heard of it. We are a non-departmental public body.

RP: So a lot of people think we’re civil service. We’re not technically civil service, but we are part of the Defra group, so we do have a lot of influence and a role in the processes of the government and the nation.

RP: And we do as well advise a lot to the government, and we’re sponsored by Defra. We’ve been around years. And before that, we were called the National Rivers Authority. But we do a lot more than rivers, which I’m about to explain.

RP: So, as I said, we’re from water quality and resources today, so you can see the little tap icon. That’s us. As you can see, we’re just one part of the Environment Agency and what it does. It does lots of things.

RP: Anything to do with wildlife conservation, with treatment of contaminated land, rivers, waste, fish, everything. Flooding is a big one, obviously.

RP: That’s probably the one most people think of, but we do lots of different things in the EA. We even do nuclear stuff as well, and it’s all interlinked, really. And there’s a lot of crossover, and it’s a very interesting place to work because of that.

RP: So, as I said, we are specifically from water resources and water quality today, so I thought I’d give a very quick overview of that. When you think of water resources, I’m sure you’re thinking of lakes and rivers and things, which is obviously correct.

RP: But in the Environment Agency, we are a specific area of work. We work closely with lots of different stakeholders like farmers and water companies, energy companies, and it’s to basically manage water in England as a natural resource and also look after wildlife and the biodiversity in water as well, at the same time as making sure everyone gets what they need.

RP: So we do plan for and manage and regulate that water that’s being taken out of the environment and making sure it’s sustainable. And as part of that, we’ll be influencing policies, legislation, planning.

RP: It’s all about how we as a nation use water and how we plan as well for a resilient future. And in terms of work of water companies and water resources, that’s about managing water resource plans, and how they’re going to approach things in the future as well.

RP: So water quality, then. I’m more the water resources side, so bear with me. Water quality is not my bread and butter. But, as I understand it, it is an area of work all about managing, improving water quality, and water quality planning is a big part of that.

RP: And that’s all about identifying environmental, economic, and social requirements, setting standards, and desired outcomes of water quality, monitoring actual water quality on the ground to make– why they are or they aren’t considering options, and then making decisions to help improve or maintain water quality if it’s good.

RP:  And water quality planners are always striving for improvement, so it’s quite a nuanced and complex area of work, and it’s kind of in a constant cycle of improving things.

RP:  So, I did want to talk a little bit about how to get into water careers in the Environment Agency.

RP: We have lots of different ways to get in. There are internships, industry placements, apprenticeships. But I do imagine at your stage, you’re probably more interested joining the EA as a permanent standard role.

RP: You can obviously just apply to a role that you think you’d be good at and your skills lend you towards.

RP: You can find vacancies on our job portal and career site. I’m going to show QR codes in a moment, which will link to that.

RP: And our panel will be talking more about general careers, water careers.

RP: But I did want to just talk briefly about the Water Resources Graduate Training scheme. You might be interested in this.

RP: We have had postdocs join us. So, people with PhDs have come onto this scheme, so it’s possibly something that might interest you. This is a subset of our wider Environment Science Graduate Training scheme, and it’s a four-year programme.

RP: You can potentially rotate around different water resources teams, so you can expand on your skills, gain experience, look at different aspects of water resources. It does depend a bit on the role, kind of where you end up. And it can help you decide what you want to do in the long run.

RP: And after two years, you do have the choice to either continue on the scheme or you can move into a different role, apply and move into a different role in the EA. And there’s development and learners’ part of this, that % of time spent on that. You obviously are paid, so you earn whilst you learn.

RP: And you can also achieve chartership with a professional body, and usually that’s CIWEM, so the Chartered Institution of Water, Environment, and Management on this specific scheme.

RP: And if you are interested in this, job adverts tend to be between December and January. So, have a think and have a look if you are interested later in the year. And then those are just some QR codes.

RP: Just in interest of time, we want to be moving on to the panel session. So, if you don’t manage to catch this before I stop sharing my slides, we are going to share these slides around after. So that’s it from me.

RP: Hopefully, that’s just provided a little bit of context, and I will now pass over to Alison, who’s going to do some intros and host the panel.

Alison Turner (AT): Thank you, Ruth. Hello, everyone. Glad you can be with us today. I’ll try and keep this short because we want to keep time for the questions.

AT: So quick introduction to myself. So, I’ll be chairing this panel. My name’s Alison Turner. I’m a training, skills, and resilience advisor within water quality planning at the Environment Agency.

AT: And my background is environmental science, specifically geochemistry. I did a PhD a little while ago now, but that was focused on geochemistry and GIS-based risk assessment of metal impacted catchments, investigating environmental contamination and risks to water in the wider environment.

AT: Today’s session is about exploring how research skills can translate into impactful careers outside academia.

AT: I’ve very recently just made the jump from academia to the Environment Agency, and I’m enjoying it. And I’m really delighted to be joined by a really excellent and diverse panel.

AT: So, what I’ll do is I’ll ask each panellist to very briefly introduce themselves, tell us their current role, and the theme of their PhD. So I’ll go round. I’ll start with Hebe, if I may.

Hebe Carmichael (HC): Yeah. Hi, everyone. So I’m Hebe, and I’m a chemical evidence advisor within the chief scientist group.

HC: So, my role is mainly focused on analysing monitoring data, particularly at the moment looking at PFAS, kind of looking at trends and patterns within water environments for PFAS.

HC: And I completed my PhD in, from University of Exeter, and that was kind of looking at invested in the combined effects of multiple stressors on freshwater microbial communities.

AT: Okay. Thank you, Hebe. Let’s move on to Saman, please.

Saman Hashemi (SH): Yeah. Hi, everyone. My name is Saman Hashemi, and I am a water resources modeler in the National Water Resources modelling team at the Environment Agency.

SH: And yeah, just quickly, my work focuses on using modelling and evidence to support strategic planning and decision making in water resources.

SH:  And my academic background is in geography and river engineering, and I did my PhD in University of Leeds. And my research has focused on flow processes like designing flow releases from reservoirs to protect river ecology, considering the hydraulic and geomorphology.

AT: Thank you. Tabitha?

Tabitha Olney (TO): Yeah. Thank you. Hi, I’m Tabitha. I’m in the same team as Saman. So I’m also a water resources modeler in the National Water Resources modelling team at the Environment Agency. And I actually had a bit of a different background.

TO:  So I did my PhD in physics. Quantum physics is looking basically at ways to enhance measurements of really small things using lasers. And yeah, I’ve moved on from that and I’m now in water, and I’m really enjoying it.

AT: Thank you. And finally, Tom. Last but not least.

Tom Coekin (TC): Hi, everybody. Yeah, my name’s Tom Coekin. I am a technical specialist in water quality for the West Midlands area team. So I work alongside the water company to help them understand what they need to do to improve their treatment works, to improve in time, rivers as well.

TC: I’m also the bathing waters lead for the West Midlands. So I look after the three specific parts of the rivers, in the West Midlands for designated bathing. And with that comes sort of bacteriological information as well within that.

TC: My PhD, I completed that at University of Nottingham. It was in biochemistry and chemistry, looking at the use of spider silk as potential wound dressings, and sort of uses within that as well. So quite different as well.

AT: Thank you, Tom. Yeah, thank you everyone. So quite a diverse spread there.

AT: So, let’s move straight on to our first discussion question. So, the first question is, how has your PhD contributed to your effectiveness in your current role? Would anyone from the panel like to take that one up firstly?

HC: I can go if you like?

AT: Yeah.

HC: Mine’s quite specific. So, in my role, I do a lot of data analysis, specifically using models called generalized additive mixed models.

HC: My PhD was kind of using these all the time, so I kind of became quite specialist in those, and kind of translated straight over to what my role is now, doing data analysis. So in that way, it’s very, very related.

HC: But I think in terms of just general skills, my PhD was using a lot of coding and R, so a lot of problem-solving and working with large data sets, which has translated directly over.

HC: But now rather than using nice clean lab data, I’m looking at messy monitoring data and kind of using the skills from my PhD and enhancing them to kind of, yeah, look at similar things, but almost more complex in my current role. So yeah, lots of problem solving still. Lots of analysis. Yeah. And very, very useful.

AT: Thank you. Has anyone else got a second perspective they want to share on that question?

TC: Yeah, I’m happy to sort of add onto that really. As Hebe’s mentioned, there’s sort of something I’ve found is the gap in data that we have in the Environment Agency when we’re sort of trying to… You’d love to have more data than you have, and that’s the case in academia as well.

TC: But actually, some of the skills, in the PhD where you’re not just interpreting the data that you do have, but you’re also trying to understand the gaps that you have. That’s become massively important, coming into water quality and looking at single monitoring points every month and then working out what’s happening between those monitoring points as well.

TC: And the data that we don’t have is just as valuable as well as the stuff we do have.

TC: I had a little gap between coming out of my PhD and going into the Environment Agency, about two years of different work. And as I came into the Environment Agency, it wasn’t specifically sort of connected to the PhD, but it was those other, as they’re sometimes called, softer transferable skills, the sort of the communication side of things, how to communicate complex data, how to communicate topics that people need to understand both within the agency, but also to members of the public.

TC: And that’s come in a lot with the bathing waters lead role that I have now. I talk to the public, MPs, water companies on topics that people probably haven’t touched since A level, or perhaps not even that, when it comes to sort of bacteria and human health and those sort of things.

TC: So being able to explain data, being able to present good graphical representations is absolutely vital, I think, across the agency. And so that’s where I found a lot of overlap between the PhDs and that sort of thing.

AT: Thank you. Tabitha, Sam, do you have anything to add to that? Or we can move on to the next question, if not.

SH: Yeah. I can quickly add just… to say, yeah, so I think my PhD especially helped me become comfortable working across different type of tasks. So, for example, the research involved literature review, like data analysis, modelling, field working, writing, or stakeholder discussions.

SH: So, I think this really translates well into my current role and because the role is also varied, so some days we are very technical, we are doing lots of model preparation and result analysis. But in some days, we have more meetings and explaining this result and uncertainty to different people.

AT: Thank you. Anything from you, Tabitha, on that question?

TO: I think a lot of it, what I’ve sort of experienced, has been covered by everyone else. But yeah, even though it was a very different PhD topic, it was sort of the other transferable skills that have allowed me to sort of really flourish in this role. Yeah, like what the others have said.

AT: Okay, cool. All right; I think we’ve covered question one. So, I’ll move on to question two.

AT:  So, this question is, why is the Environment Agency a strong employer for candidates with research backgrounds? Maybe Tabitha, we’ll start with you this time. Would that be okay?

TO: Yeah, I don’t mind starting with that. So, I guess, for me, I had some preconceptions about the Environment Agency. You don’t necessarily think there’s loads of technical roles there, or sort of, I didn’t really know what they were doing, to be honest. I didn’t know much about it.

TO: But I didn’t necessarily think that there would be something that I would enjoy doing in the Environment Agency, particularly because I hadn’t come from sort of a water environment background.

TO:  But actually, there’s so many different teams like our team where we do sort of modelling, and it’s very technical. And that’s the stuff that I really enjoy doing. And I also care about the environment. I’m worried about climate change. It feels nice to sort of be taking a step in that direction, take some more control in that.

TO: And yeah, I think having sort of a research background in physics and having all this data analysis and sort of the ability to break down quite scary, massive, complicated systems and problems into something that’s a lot more manageable and sort of bite-size and go, “Okay, well, there is all this stuff going on as well, but actually the crux of the problem is this, and I can address this with this simple thing.”

TO:  And I think that’s something that’s been really helpful in my job. Sort of when you’re looking at lots of different climate futures and what’s going to happen with our water resources. Will we have enough water? It can get very complicated, and you can get sort of sidetracked by, oh, worrying about loads of different possibilities.

TO: But I’m sort of able to drill down into, this is what’s important. This is what’s actually affecting the outcome or the result. And yeah, I think it’s then really helpful to sort of help make decisions and sort of inform people who are making decisions around these are the numbers we’re confident in.

TO: We have to make certain assumptions, but we’re confident that we’ve sort of come to the right decision and conclusion.

AT: Thank you. Anyone else on that question? Why is the Environment Agency a strong employer for candidates with research backgrounds? Offer that one out.

TC: Yeah. I have to add a little bit to that.

TC: I think one of the parts, as Tabitha sort of mentioned, and I’ve discovered more as I’ve got settled into the Environment Agency as well, and especially in the new roles, is the sort of wanting to be data driven.

TC:  It’s a key term that we get used and get said all the time, data driven. And there’s many reasons for that, including the way you use funds, the way that you can’t… There’s not enough money to cover everything.

TC: So, you’ve got to choose where you’re going to spend your money and where… That’s for the Environment Agency, but it’s also across the government. It’s across the water companies. It’s we’re all thinking about how to budget appropriately.

TC: And one of the ways, and the best way to do that, is to be data driven. And so, PhD encourages the way of thinking in that way, how to prioritize, how to think about the data you do have.

TC: I think in research backgrounds particularly, like the how do you make the decision between option A and B when both have benefits, but they’ve also got drawbacks potentially, and that sort of thing. Which means that you then, you’re taking that knowledge of how to sort of take those risks and analysis forward, and it impacts everywhere.

TC:  Whether that’s in the monitoring and the data analysis, all the way through to how do I communicate to someone who doesn’t know these topics? Well, actually, what are they wanting to know? What can they do with that information?

TC: So, I think there’s a lot of that, that is really encouraged and- … is a very sought-after skill in the Environment Agency. And I think, yeah, research backgrounds really play into that because you’ve got to find the data, you’ve got to research it to then make a conclusion. And that’s encouraged in the EA as well, I’d say.

AT: Thank you, Tom. Hebe, Saman, anything to add to that?

HC: Yeah. I’d also say that as a PhD student or postdoc, you’re quite into learning new things and kind of intrigued by that. And I think that in my role, and I think probably a lot of roles, they really encourage you to up your skills and learn new things.

HC: For example, in my role, I’m not a chemist at all. But I was given the time to read lots of literature and go on training courses.

HC:  And I think the Environment Agency really prioritizes your learning as well to make sure you’re fit for the role. Which I think fits the research background, because, well, I enjoy learning new things, and I think that helps. So yeah, I think what everyone else said as well is very much true. So yeah.

AT: Thank you. Saman, have you got anything to add to that question?

SH: Yeah, maybe just very similar to what the rest of the panel said. Yeah, especially about many of the challenges that we work on are complex and evidence led.

SH: Like, for example, we are dealing with climate change, drought resilience, environmental protection, and the research trained people or PhD people bring useful skills to that.

SH: Also, just wanted to mention that the EA also offers real world impact. The work can influence policy, environmental protection, strategic planning, and investment decisions. So, I think it’s a really good place or a strong place for people who want to use research skills in applied context or public service context.

AT: Thank you.

TC: Can I just add to that as well?

AT: Yeah. Just briefly. Of course. We’re actually ahead of time. I believe.

TC: Yeah. I was just thinking as the others have been speaking as well, I think one of the other things that works really well in parallel with PhD and therefore into the EA is we’ve mentioned problem-solving, but not just having the knowledge behind it, but how to approach a problem as well.

TC: The ability to come across something that just seems, at the beginning, impossible to work out an answer to. But actually, being able to cut it down into smaller chunks and go, “Okay. Let’s just answer this part. Let’s just find an answer for this bit.”

TC: And I think that’s the same for a research project as well. You start with an absolutely unknowable, large question and go, “We don’t know the answer to this yet.” But you learn, and as part of the research background, you learn how to break that down into smaller, manageable questions, manageable chunks. And over time you create an entire thesis, and you’ve created something that’s much greater than the sum of its parts.

TC: And I think the EA runs on similar things, things like climate crisis and other things, it’s like there is no just a solution. But you work out how to start it one step at a time.

TC: And overall, you’ve come forward with a much greater solution as a result of that. I think that’s key to lots of these big questions at the moment.

AT: Thank you. I’m going to move on to question three now, which is a much more practical question for those who are thinking about potentially applying for an Environment Agency role.

AT:  So, the question is, what advice would you give to someone preparing for an Environment Agency interview or entering the environmental sector? Who would like to kick us off with that one?

TO: I don’t mind starting.

AT: Okay.

TO: So, I guess specifically for the Environment Agency and also just across government, I think it’s just really important to look up how you should structure your answers.

TO: So, there’s this thing called the STAR method, and it’s basically just a way that you present what you’re saying. So, it’s sort of what’s the situation? What’s the task that you did? What actions did you take? And what was the result?

TO: And I think sticking to that in every single example that you have to give is really key. It makes it easy for the person reading your application to go, “Okay, so what’s the context? What were they doing? What did they actually do, and what was the result?”

TO: And I think with the result as well, always try and have something tangible, and even in your PhD you can have tangible results. Even if it’s just like, “So I did this work, I got a paper.” That’s the tangible result. “It was in a high impact journal. It has helped with my university research record.”

TO: Things like that. Make it tangible. Make it so the person reading your application cares that this thing happened at all.

TO:  So, you want to give them the situation and also give them a result that actually matters. I think that’s a really important thing, and its sort of a way to come across impressive and good. So that would be my advice is make sure you structure your answers in a good, clear way.

TO: And there’s a lot of examples online. You can look up the STAR method and see examples and get more information on that as well. So I’d recommend doing that.

AT: Someone else like to pick up that question? Any more advice?

HC: Yeah, I’ll just add to that as well.

HC: I think on the kind of guidance that you’re given when you apply, I would also recommend the, it’s called the Capability Dictionary. And so for each question that you’re given, it then tells you what capabilities they’re looking for.

HC: And to be honest, I kind of used that almost like a marking scheme to try and get as many of those in as possible.

HC: And I think in some cases I even used … two examples, so it might feel wrong to use two within your answer, but just so you can tick off all of those, well, as many as you can within an answer. I think that helps quite a lot as well, while sticking to the STAR approach.

HC: I think another thing I’d also say is don’t be afraid to apply for different grades of roles. So, go for the higher roles if you feel that you’re suitable, but also I’d say don’t be scared to go for the ones where you think maybe you’re potentially overqualified, or you can maybe do more.

HC: Because I personally did that, and I think people often move up quicker and can move over and get internal roles as well a lot easier. So yeah, I think apply for all sorts of roles that look interesting to you, even if you think it might be a step down from your postdoc or whatever it is.

TC: Happy to add a little bit more as well.

AT: Yeah, please go ahead, Tom.

TC:  So, I’m living this at the moment, not for myself, but my partner is looking to apply to the EA and has just come out or is completing a master’s at the moment. So, it’s not quite PhD, but it’s a similar sort of coming out of academia and stuff.

TC: So we are going through this at the moment. There’s a strength to it, but also it’s predictable when it comes to the EA applications. It’s a bit of a dance. You know they are looking for almost word to word, as Hebe’s mentioned, like the competency dictionary, capability dictionary.

TC: It is almost a mark scheme. You need to get those words in your response, either word for word or that they can easily go, “That is that. That is that. That is that.”

TC: The SMART… Sorry, STAR examples are a really good way of doing that because you can show the different breakdowns of those different competencies.

TC: Can I be slightly controversial and say use the… So if we’re being realistic, people are using AI all the time. It is being used in applications. It is being used to help sift applications. Not always in the EA, but AI is around.

TC:  I have used AI in the past, not to write applications, but to give yourself almost as if you’re submitting your application and saying, “Okay, here’s a competency dictionary. Am I hitting these marks? Where are my weakest? Where could I give more to help respond to these things?” Because it knows how to look at that.

TC: It’s not about you’ve got to use your own examples. You’ve got to write the truth. You’ve got to write what you have done. But you’re missing out, I think, I would say, if you don’t consider that as a tool to just analyse what you have done and say, “Actually, am I hitting these things?” And it can be really valuable for that, especially in the STAR sense parts of things.

TC: You can write it and say, “Help me to explain this anecdote or this example in a really strong STAR methodology.” And it’s very good at bringing the different parts out as well.

TC: And the other thing I think that makes you stand out is self-reflection in your response, if you can, where you can. What would you do differently? What would you learn from this?

TC:  Because one of the things about these applications is they’re relatively predictable in the sense that you get sent the capability dictionary. So, everyone will be trying to apply with the same things against each other.

TC: So how do you stand out? Your examples may stand out, and that’s great, but actually, something that people don’t tend to do as often is give that self-reflection and show, “Actually, I have learnt from this example, and I would do it the same again, but I would particularly send it this way,” or, “Perhaps I would take it a different…” And that makes you stand out.

TC: I think that’s a really valuable thing to consider. You normally have the words to, so…

AT: Thank you, Tom. Anyone anything else to add on that? Salma?

SH: Yeah. I just wanted to add, maybe it’s important to just add and show that you can collaborate and how you communicate with people or approach the problem.

SH: Because the EA is a people-based organization, and much of our work involves internal teams and external partners and groups. So yeah, I would advise to show this.

SH: For example, if the role is technical, they want to know how you would personally do if you got just stuck on something, for example. So usually, everyone says, “We did that.” For example, “We did this as a team.”

SH: But it’s better to just say, “I did this,” so if I’ve got the problem, so it was my approach to it. So yeah, I found it very useful.

AT: Mm-hmm. Seeing as we have a little bit of time, I might actually just add something as well, having very recently gone through this process.

AT: One of the surprising things about it is that there’s no CV. So, you can’t just rely on someone to just flick through your CV and see how wonderful you are, particularly when you’ve collected degrees and letters after your name, which often is the case when you’re at this level.

AT: It really has to shine through in a very structured application process, which the other panel members have spoken about.

AT: And the other thing I found quite interesting, and I always struggle with these application processes, is as a scientist, I’ve been coached and taught and worked myself into always writing third person, past tense, passive voice, and that’s completely the wrong way to get a job.

AT: You actually need to be really selfish. And to pick up Tom’s point, I used AI because what I do is I write as I would write, and then I ask AI to basically put … bring me to the fore because sometimes I like to reflect on what the team did, and I like to be a very collegiate person.

AT: But unfortunately, when it comes down to individual interviews, it’s looking for it’s your particular impact that is important. And when you’re in a competitive process, and the market ebbs and flows, but at the moment, there’s quite a lot of people out there trying to get jobs.

AT:  It’s very competitive, and it is really brutal that if you could be the best candidate in the world, but if you haven’t written something that exemplifies your qualities and is in the correct style, you won’t get through the first sift, and that can be really disheartening. 

AT: And some people then feel really negative, and they don’t want to apply again. So, yeah, just be aware that there is a process. It’s very structured. You’ve got to play the game correctly to get the right result.

AT: And don’t be put off if you don’t get through. 

AT: Like usual, at whatever level you’re at now, things are very competitive, so you do just have to have that sense of resilience that, yeah, maybe this wasn’t the right fit, but there will be other opportunities. So that’s my reflection having gone through the process recently.

TC: Can I just add as well?

AT: Yeah, sure.

TC: Be specific about things as well. And this is not just for the EA, I think this is generally, but we can often, as you’ve said there, Alison, we don’t necessarily put ourselves to the front, but we also don’t necessarily…

TC: I’ve done this before where I’ve sort of been slightly more general about the, “Oh, I built this model,” but not actually explained why that is significant or what that model is doing because it’s great to have Power BI knowledge, but actually, what was it about Power BI you used?

TC: Give those specifics that show that you know your competency, and they demonstrate your competency more than just, “I know what Power BI is,” but actually, “I can code in it. I can write in the…” Be specific on those.

TC: And yeah, as you’ve said, Allison, don’t give up after one or two. I had nine different applications to the EA. And I could see my progression.

TC:  I started getting interviews, and then eventually I found the right one. And then as Hebe said, once you’re in it, it’s much easier to move around. But it’s the getting in is really tricky or is the hardest part, I would say.

AT: Right. Some great tips and advice there. So, we’re running a little bit ahead of time, so I might just go to another question that was on the original list. Okay.

AT: Here’s one, a little bit left of field. So, what advice would you offer to those facing uncertainty at a career crossroads? So, if you’re thinking about making a jump, what advice can you give?

TO: So, I think I can, yeah, come in on this.

TO: So, I finished my PhD last year, and I did physics, and I sort of had done physics at undergrad, master’s, did a PhD, and I was sort of very adamant that I wanted to… I was like, “I’ve learned all this physics. I’ve got all of this specific sort of subject knowledge.”

TO:  And I think for a long time I struggled with, well, I didn’t really like academia. It wasn’t for me. And I was kind of like, “Well, I don’t want to have wasted learning all of this really specific physics knowledge and sort of not use it.” And that was something I was really sort of struggling with.

TO: I was like, “I want to find a role where I can still use some ridiculously niche quantum physics,” but I also wanted to have real world impact, and sort of it wasn’t… I didn’t have sort of a realistic expectation of what I could actually do.

TO: And I sort of just had to not let go of sort of my physics knowledge, but I realized that the things that I liked about my degree wasn’t actually the specific physics and the specific learning these specific equations.

TO: It was more the problem solving. It was dealing with sort of answering difficult questions in a simple way and being able to present results and communicating results and talking about things. And I was like, “Oh, actually, that’s what I like.”

TO: And I think you have to almost let go of, I don’t think I’d say pride, but just I had to accept that I wasn’t going to keep doing some niche quantum physics if I wanted to sort of do a job that I enjoyed.

TO: And I realized the things that I liked about my PhD weren’t necessarily the actual subject. It was other aspects of it, and that’s what allowed me to look outside of academia.

TO:  It did feel like a big deal to sort of be like, “Oh, I’m going to move on from that now.” But I think because I chose things, sort of realized that actually what I enjoyed about it, I could have in jobs outside of academia.

TO: I feel so much better now. I’m much happier now than I sort of was a year or so ago when I was still doing my PhD.

TO: So yeah, I think it’s just you have to realize, are you wanting to stay in academia because you feel like you’ve put in so much time and sort of know all this really niche stuff, or is it actually you like all these other aspects, and can you find that elsewhere? So that would be my… That’s my attempt at some inspirational advice, I’d say.

AT: Thank you, Tabitha. Anyone else?

HC: Yeah. I think I’d also agree in terms of you’ve got to work out what it is you like about your PhD in academia and because yeah, I’ve kind of changed subject as well, but it is the problem solving and all the nitty-gritty stuff, which I still get, but it’s not my same subject.

HC: But for me, I really didn’t know if I wanted to leave academia. I really, really enjoyed it. And it was a really hard decision actually for me to leave, with lots of people saying, “Oh, if once you’ve left, you can’t go back,” and all this, and it really stresses you out.

HC:  So, I ended up asking lots of people, both staying in academia or who have left academia and gone back, or people outside, and just chatting to them and asking what their honest opinions are.

HC: And also, I read a few books as well. One of them was Leaving Academia by Dr Emma Williams, which I can recommend.

HC: And kind of just writing pros and cons of each and working out for you what is best.

HC: So, in the end, for me, it came down to more security and not having to constantly move around the country for different postdocs. And that, for me, outweighed the being top of your game in your very specific research area.

HC: But I think, yeah, really taking the time to think what is important for me is important, and yeah, recommend doing that.

HC: And also, I’d like to say, now I’ve left, I realised you definitely can go back to academia, and I’m still involved with research, and you can go to lots of conferences and still write papers and things in my role now. So don’t feel like once you’ve left, you can’t go back, because you definitely can. Yeah.

AT: Great. Thank you. Saman or Tom?

TC: Yeah. I had a slightly different, I would almost call it escape, from academia. I couldn’t wait to get out of it. I went into unemployment. It took me two years.

TC:  So, I was doing jobs in between for a couple of years and then came to the EA after that. And my initial– as I say, I applied a number of times to the Environment Agency, partly to find slightly more sort of permanent work, really, in my background.

TC: I’d been moving around every six months or so. Over COVID, particularly difficult time to move around and that sort of thing.

TC:  And initially, it wasn’t really the transferable skills or anything like that. I thought, “Actually, I just want to get something where I can talk to people and do work, just see what the Environment Agency can offer.”

TC: And then it was once in, the realization that actually all those transferable skills that I just don’t think about when it comes to PhDs and academia that I’ve learnt without realizing, actually came to the forefront.

TC:  I didn’t apply thinking, “This is the thing I want to go and use. These are the skills I want to use.” It was actually once you’re here, you realize how much you have to offer, I think.

TC: And it’s only been recently, really, with the bathing waters work that I’ve taken on in the last couple of years, where I’ve actually started using my PhD knowledge, the actual academic part of it, the biological and microbiology side of things, more than anything else.

TC: Throughout it all it’s been the transferable stuff that’s actually really pushed things forward.

TC: And that helped in the work before as well. I worked in a coffee shop. I was a business manager for a coffee shop. And again, it’s that sort of transferable skills of problem solving each day and trying to communicate and advertise and all these things that I wouldn’t have expected myself to be doing.

TC: But you find yourself, that’s today’s task. And just to pick up on something that Hebe mentioned in the last question about the different levels of going for applying for. Absolutely, I think look at the ones that you could just get into and then work your way up.

TC: But I’d also encourage you to go higher than you might think, because one, you don’t necessarily know how much they’d want you, and therefore they would train you into those things.

TC: But also, I think it’s actually quite a good habit of going for something you’re not % ready to do, because it’s a good habit to get into jobs where they will train you. If you can only do % of what the job role offers or requires of you, that is good. I think that is something that you should look to be learning with whoever it is, whether it’s the EA or somewhere else.

TC:  And I think I definitely looked at levels and thought, “I can’t possibly go for that.” And I didn’t necessarily get those roles, but actually being ambitious with yourself, selling yourself, actually, that you are an academic, that is a valuable skill in itself.

TC: The ability to learn is hugely important. And you will find actually things sit, and you’ll absorb knowledge like anything.

TC: Especially from coming from academia, you absorb knowledge really quickly. And people will look to you very quickly and say, “Actually, you’re able to communicate this stuff really well.”

TO: Just going to come in on that.

TO: So, I think with thinking and sort of applying for roles that you think you won’t get or feel higher up, I think it’s really important to remember, at least in my experience and a lot of my friends that did PhDs, you really feel down on yourself, and you sort of undersell and underplay how much experience and how much skills and how actually suitable you are for all of these roles.

TO: Because you sort of– I don’t know, I feel like the PhD, it just makes you feel very like, I didn’t have the best experience, so maybe that’s coming through.

TO: But you sort of feel quite negative about yourself and maybe think that I wouldn’t be able to get that role because I’ve only been doing a PhD. I don’t have any other experience that can do it.

TO: But I think a PhD is a job. It’s probably harder than a lot of jobs. It’s certainly mentally, for me, it was a lot harder than doing another job because it’s never ending, and it’s sort of like there’s no end to it. There’s always more work you can be doing.

TO: So yeah, I think don’t think, “Oh, I could only get an entry level job because this is my first proper job,” or whatever. You definitely can go for higher up jobs.

TO: So, I have friends that didn’t do PhDs, went straight into industry, and I’m now at a similar level to them, when obviously for a long time I was doing a PhD, so it felt like I was sort of on a very different path.

TO: But yeah, you can come in at the level that you always would’ve been without the PhD, I’d say.

TO: And don’t think that you can’t, because it was definitely like a mental thing for me, was thinking that I wasn’t qualified enough because I’d only got a PhD. But yeah, it’s like a job, but harder.

AT: Thank you. I’d like to use the rest of the time, if I may, to move over to the questions that the audience have put in the chat.

AT: One little thing I will just say, because I’ve got chair, so I can do it, is whatever you do, I think our confidence and our approaches to whether we try and level up or when we try and maybe work our way up, is coloured by our experience, isn’t it?

AT: And we’ve all got different experiences of PhDs and working environments. The one thing I’ll say is that when you do a PhD, you are the expert in your field. You do pretty much everything. And while that’s a good thing, it can turn into a bad thing in that you just become very driven that you have to do everything yourself, and that’s totally not the way in the Environment Agency.

AT: It’s a massive organization, and you have to almost unpick some of that training if you’re going to be successful.

AT: So, my bit of advice is do not expect to hit the ground running. It’s a very complicated organization. It’s huge. It takes a long time to understand the nuts and bolts and how it works before you actually will be effective.

AT: It’s very unusual for people to actually come in and do exactly what they were doing in their PhD, and then be able to just translate that into impact straight away. So yeah, that’s my last note on it.

AT:  You have to exert a little bit of patience to find the fit and to be effective.

AT: I’ve seen there’s a couple of questions in here. So, we’ve got a question that asks what aspects of your day-to-day work would most surprise an academic researcher?

AT: Have a volunteer to take that one up, please.

TC: I-

TO: My joke answer– Oh, sorry. I was going to make a joke.

TC: That’s all right.

TO: So, if you’ve got an answer, I was just going to say-

TC: No, you go first …

TO: Finishing at 5pm. That was my joke. I can come up with a more serious answer, but yeah, you go, Tom.

TC: Well, I’ve seen the other question as well, actually, just in the Q&A chat, which is about the research data sets and environment type differences between the data sets. And to be honest, the answer’s almost the same on that.

TC: And I’m happy to be very honest here, show you behind the curtain a little bit. You will be, I think, shocked at the lack of data that big decisions get made on. And that’s not to say that they’re poorly made decisions or poorly made answers. But it’s just the reality of you don’t have the money or the facility or the resource to get everywhere all the time.

TC: And we sort of talked earlier about how research data sets, you still have to sort of analyse them and predict them, and there’s all that sort of statistical analysis and that sort of thing. Times that by, when you get here. You are looking at gaps more than you are looking at numbers. And that is part of the reality.

TC: It took me a while to realize and to understand that, at best, a lot of the time, we are taking a sample once a month. And that sample is someone has dipped a bucket in the river. A scientific bucket, but a bucket in the water. That is a second of time captured, and there might be something on the other side of the river, there might be something coming down seconds later, or you missed it by seconds. You’ve got one moment of time in there, and you are taking that once a month.

TC: So, your entire year is based off seconds of information. And that sounds like nothing, and yet I’d be going, “Oh, that’s great, because sometimes I get four seconds a year.” But the way we then take the decisions we make, the way we take our analysis, takes that into account and is a conservative understanding because we know we can’t get to everywhere all the time.

TC: And I think that’s quite a big shock compared to coming out of data high rich environments, and you wouldn’t be allowed a conclusion in your thesis unless you had significant data results and that sort of thing.

TC: The other thing that was quite a shock is the number of acronyms. I see all the nods of everyone who knows it. I talked about sort of being an information sponge and you just pick it up.

TC: You will feel absolutely swamped by acronyms. You will not know them to begin with. And suddenly, you will find you’re speaking a different language about four or five months in, and you are using those acronyms without even realizing you actually learned them.

TC: And I’ve been very careful not to use those acronyms today. But actually, perhaps you won’t be shocked because it’s a governmental… Not government, but it’s that sort of world. But actually, there are so many acronyms that are the same acronyms and have different words sometimes. But yeah, that’s quite a big shock as well, I think.

TO: Yeah, when I started, I made a list. I was sort of keeping a list of all the acronyms, and it just kept growing. I kept being like, “That must be all of them.” And then there was just like another one and another one.

TO: And then, yeah, I was like, “I’m never going to use them.” And obviously you do, because who can be bothered to say loads of long words? So they do just drop into your sort of daily vocabulary. But yeah, it is crazy how many acronyms there are.

AT: Thank you. So yeah, thank you. So that was a question from Fiona there that you also answered there. So, thanks, Tom.

AT: Another question’s dropped in. I wonder if someone else might want to pick this up. From Deborah: “Are there opportunities for people with a social science background or interests?”

AT: Anyone want to pick that one up for me?

TC: I can, unless anyone else wants to say anything. There are aspects of the business that are more social science oriented or focused.

TC: There is a team, I think they are a national team, but they have area representatives about equality and equitability around the schemes.

TC: So, we talked about using money and having to prioritize because there’s not enough money for everything. Well, actually, what you can find very quickly is that your prioritization has bias. And so actually there is a real piece of work around making sure that where we are spending money, we are representing the people groups and different indices of deprivation and fairly.

TC: There is a natural difference between the different types of water treatment you get in a river, depending on different indices of deprivation, because lots of treatment works are outside of cities where the land is potentially a bit more rural, but actually the land price is higher.

TC: Inside a city, potentially you’ve got lots of combined sewer overflows, which don’t have the highest level of treatment, but they’re just getting rid of the system. And so you can end up with people who are living very close to the poverty line, whose biggest concern isn’t whether the river is any good nick or not, and they’re actually just trying to get food on the table.

TC:  So, they don’t have the time, or they don’t need to worry about whether the river is in high quality near them. That doesn’t mean that’s any less of an importance than someone who lives further out, has more concern around their river because they can afford to care about the river.

TC: And so, we need to make sure we are representing those who don’t have the voice, and there’s a huge amount of work in that, and that’s working alongside the local authorities.

TC:  And I think that’s a really important role that sometimes doesn’t get the limelight, doesn’t get the spotlight quite as much as the water quality in its own right or flood risk in its own right and that sort of thing. And it’s really important to be there.

AT: I wonder if the person could clarify, are they looking to stay within the social science sphere? Because I think we’ve spoken a lot about transferable skills and just how many skills you come with any kind of postgraduate qualifications.

AT: And if you want to stay within social science, this is quite a generic thing, but stakeholder engagement is a thread that runs through every aspect of the Environment Agency.

AT: So, the answer, I think, is a definite yes.

AT: But a lot of roles where you are a specialist in something by training, you might sometimes have to try a few hats on before you find the perfect fit. Because I think sometimes the job roles as advertised are a little bit cryptic. I found them that way.

AT: And I guess part of that is because they want to invite lots of different people to go for the roles, but sometimes you’re thinking, “Well, I don’t know whether this is singing to me or not.”

AT: But you can try and as I said before, once you’re in, if what you’ve applied for, what you’ve got a job in, isn’t quite right for you, you might find something that is.

AT: So, I think there’s definitely opportunities for social science backgrounds, whether you want to stick with that or whether you want to move into other areas.

AT: Anyone else on the panel got any other comments on those questions? We’ve still got a little bit of time, so if anyone has been listening to this and has more questions, please pop it in the chat.

AT: Ruth, have we got any more questions at all?

RP: Yeah, we’ve got a couple.

RP: We’ve got a follow-up to Fiona’s question, the first one that came through about moving from research databases to set, sorry, to operational environmental data. So there’s just a follow-up saying, “For someone coming from a chemistry background, what technical skills or scientific approaches are most valuable in environmental roles?”

AT: Who would like to pick that one up?

AT: I’m looking at Saman here a little bit because she hasn’t answered one for a while. But don’t feel pressured.

AT: Could you just repeat that for me, Ruth, please?

RP: Yeah, no worries. For someone coming from a chemistry background, what technical skills or scientific approaches are most valuable in environmental roles?

AT: Okay. So maybe it might be more for a water quality person, but whoever would like to answer that, please go for it.

HC: I work in chemicals now. I was not a chemist to start with, but I’d say that within the Environment Agency, there’s a lot of work on chemistry in general, so not exactly transferring specifically to environmental.

HC: But there’s departments within, say, for example, the chemical assessment unit. It’s quite specific, but my team, whilst we’re evidence synthesis, a large part of our role is looking at chemicals within the environment.

HC: But I think you’ll have so many transferable skills from whatever subject. If you’re working with data and chemistry, you’ll be able to problem solve and things.

HC: So, I think, I don’t know if it’s specific as such, but I think you’ll be able to transfer a lot of those skills over, even if you’re not going for one of the specific chemistry roles as such. Yeah. I don’t know if that helps much, but yeah.

TC: There are chemical leads for each area as well. So, a lot of the chemistry tends to be run from a national role, I would want to say. So, there’s a chemical leads team. But within each area, there is often a designated chemical lead who will be that liaison with the national team.

TC:  So, I’m the chemicals leads member for, or officer, for the West Midlands. I have a chemistry background but it was a while ago, and actually I don’t remember that much about it.

TC: So, it’s not so much a sort of area. There’s not much thing to do on the day by day from a chemistry perspective.

TC: But what it does come into is being, I think as Alison said, really the water quality. There is a lot of, how is this going to behave in the river itself? How is ecology going to behave because there is a high pH, or because the hardness of the water is changing because of an incident?

TC: And so, it’s almost like chemistry applied rather than chemistry itself. So, I’ve never had to look at the equations of why something reacts with something, but there is an element of understanding, when you have a pollution incident, why milk is such a bad thing to spill into a waterway.

TC: Because the biological oxygen demand that is caught, like dropping oxygen because the milk is used by the bacteria. That drops the oxygen out, and then suddenly the fish have no oxygen in the water.

TC: A very simplified example, but it’s those sort of like, oh, what’s the actual impact of what’s going on, which if you’ve got that understanding, helps to then advise and helps to assess where to go next.

TC:  And actually, it’s also when we mention about having no data or lack of data, having that background knowledge allows you to make better informed choices in the lack of information to confirm your hunches. It’s also quite helpful as well, I’d say. I’m not sure if that quite answers the question, but…

SH: Yeah, I just wanted to add, so I don’t have the chemistry background, but as Tom said, I remember that we had a person in AU team, in National Appraisal Unit, that I think he had PhD in chemistry, and I remember they were working on the water quality data and something like the effect of the water quality components and chemistry on fish. I was not working with them, but I think there are lots of people with chemistry that working with the water quality and effecting on fish things.

AT: Yeah, I’ll chip in.

AT: Speaking as a chemist Yeah. I’m actually in a training role because I really enjoyed sort of teaching and learning and development.

AT: But if you have a chemistry background and you can understand the overall processes that are happening in the environment, when particularly you’ve got limited data, it’s a really good way to stop making a really bad decision in that you understand the kind of general sense of what’s likely to happen because you have that deeper understanding.

AT: So, I think chemistry’s always been a very versatile subject to go into other areas, and often those who have chemistry knowledge are quite in demand to explain what’s going on to those who don’t have a chemistry background, with some of the subtleties of things like speciation and fate and transport of contaminants.

AT: So yeah, I think there’s plenty of opportunities for those, but you don’t necessarily have to be a technical person, as proven.

AT: You can find lots of different roles within the EA. Yeah.

AT: We’d just like to say a massive thank you to our panel members who’ve given up their lunch breaks and their valuable time to participate in that. I thought we’ve had some really good perspectives, but hopefully we’ll do another one of these soon.

RP: Yeah. Thank you very much everybody, and well done hosting as well, Alison. And I’m not from a PhD background, but found it fascinating, so it was a window into that world. So yeah.

RP: Thank you very much, everybody, for coming and talking today, and thanks everyone for attending as well.