Academia Spotlight

Alexandra's Journey

It would be great if initially, you could give us a snapshot of your research background and how you got to your current position. What lead you to pursuing a position/career in academia?

I completed my undergraduate degree in Psychology at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. I then stayed on for a two-year Research Master’s in Cognitive Neuroscience - focusing on understanding processes such as cognition and perception using brain imaging methods.

During my master’s, I did a research internship that brought me to Cambridge for the first time. I spent ten months at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit — initially as a master’s student and then as a summer student in a different research group. I worked on vision and audition, using machine-learning based methods that were just emerging at the time and have since become very popular in the field.

I decided to stay in the UK and started a PhD at the University of Birmingham, studying the neural mechanism of audio-visual perception using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. After three intense years, I took a break and moved to Argentina, genuinely thinking I might leave academia. However, stepping away from it, I realised how much I missed it. I attended a conference on consciousness and cognition, and being back in that environment—talking to scientists, discussing ideas—made it clear to me that research was what I wanted to do.

I returned to Cambridge, where I completed my PhD part-time while also working part-time as a research assistant. That period was formative because I had the opportunity to work in an interdisciplinary team and develop expertise using Electroencephalography (EEG).

I then secured my first postdoc in Cambridge, working on visual perception using mobile EEG and augmented reality — exciting curiosity-driven, exploratory research.

As that contract was coming to an end, I again found myself questioning whether to stay in academia. I was curious about industry and wanted to understand what other paths might be available to someone with my background. I attended many career events organised by the university and the careers service—career fairs, panel discussions, networking events—to explore where outside of academia my skill-set might fit. That period of exploration was really about figuring out whether academia was a deliberate choice or just the default path. In the end, I realized I couldn't quite make the mental jump yet - I didn't see myself in an industry role.

Around that time, I saw the p2i In Action workshop, hosted by the p2i University of Innsbruck 2023 being advertised. I applied and got accepted. I had actually applied before- in 2020, shortly after starting my first postdoc. I had been accepted to attend p2i In Action - hosted in Paris, but unfortunately it was cancelled because of the pandemic. By the time I participated in the p2i in Action workshop in Innsbruck, I was nearing the end of my contract.

Attending that workshop became a turning point. Shortly afterwards, I applied for my current position—my second postdoc—back at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, where my Cambridge journey began. The focus of my work shifted quite significantly. I moved from curiosity-driven research—essentially asking, “Is this possible at all? “ - to working on brain imaging in Alzheimer’s disease with a much stronger emphasis on practical application and collaboration with industry partners.

What has been the biggest challenge you faced and how have you or how are you overcoming this challenge?

I would say that the biggest challenge for me is ongoing. For most of my research career - about 15 years - I approached research in a purely curiosity-driven way. Now, working in an environment where research is more goal-oriented, requires me to reshape how I think about why and how I approach research.

The shift in mindset has been from trying to explore every interesting question in the data to asking, “How can we make sure that our research actually addresses a real need?” This involves much more communication with industry, understanding constraints, timelines, and what counts as meaningful outcomes beyond academia.

What do you think is the mindset of innovators? Are there similarities between innovators in industry, entrepreneurs & academics?

At first glance, there are clear similarities. You identify a problem, think about how to study and/or solve it, and then you need to convince others to support you in finding a solution, or you may want to sell that solution. However, I think the amount of time spent on each of these steps varies enormously between academia and industry. That said, in recent years, there has been more of an alignment, with more people moving between academia and industry, which helps to equalise things to some extent.

I think successful academics are able to communicate the value of their research to a wide range of stakeholders and are successful in securing funding. More junior academics need to develop these skills and gain experience in securing funding from a variety of sources – learning to speak the language of funders and align their message to the funder’s impact priorities.

When you think back to the event/course you took part in, what stood out most?

What stood out was just how vitally important it is to be able to explain your research and why it matters in a way that anyone you’re speaking to can understand — and that achieving this can be quite challenging.

In my current work, I speak with fellow academics, but I also need to be able to communicate with clinicians, nurses, patients, caregivers, the general public and industry stakeholders. So you have to be able to convey your message to very different audiences.

I found the p2i In Action event enormously useful in highlighting that this is a real challenge because as researchers we sometimes underestimate the importance of tailoring a message. It introduced me to methods and processes that I need to engage with in order to deliver clear, accessible messages to different stakeholders.

What do you consider as key messages or takeaways from the p2i In Action event that have stuck with you?

The workshop helped me realise two major things.

First, during my first postdoc I applied for fellowships and wasn’t successful. The feedback often mentioned that I needed to be clearer about impact. At the time, I believed that doing high-quality, innovative research that would advance the field was impact in itself. But through the workshop, I began to understand that the concept of impact in academia is often very different from what funders, industry, or society expect. That was a significant learning moment for me— realising that the impact of my research needs to go beyond advancing our understanding of the brain and provide tangible value outside of academia.

The second realisation came from the conversations during the workshop. We spent long hours together, and as people became more open, we had very honest discussions. At one point, someone challenged me—very politely—by asking, “What are you actually trying to achieve with your work? What are you trying to cure?” I didn’t have a clear answer. That was quite thought provoking. It made me reflect on my motivation and whether I needed to rethink the broader purpose of my research.

Shortly after that, my current position was advertised. It was quite different from what I had been doing before, but I applied. Being exposed to entrepreneurial thinking and concepts around value, translation, and stakeholders really helped me prepare for the interview. I think it also helped the panel see that although I was trained as a cognitive neuroscientist, I was open to working with non-academic partners—people who have different priorities and who expect actionable results, relying on me to translate insights from complex methods into practical tools.

In many ways, that shift in mindset made the difference.

Are there any frameworks or tools that you learnt on the programme that you are still using as part of your role?

I will definitely return to the Research Canvas tool. I found it extremely useful as a framework to think about the various aspects of a research project that need to be considered beyond the technicalities of the research. I still keep it in my desk and will use it when planning my next research projects and preparing for grant or fellowship applications.

Sometimes I think that if the 2020 p2i event in Paris hadn’t been cancelled due to the pandemic, I might have already secured my own fellowship. Attending the p2i event in Innsbruck in 2023 made me realise that I hadn’t fully understood what research impact really meant.

We leant frameworks and concepts to identify and plan for impact in way businesses think about impact. These approaches are equally applicable in academia, but for me this was the first time I had encountered these concepts. I believe I would have greatly benefited from this type of training during my masters - or even as part of my undergraduate degree - because it would have helped to think the wider impact of research earlier on.

Did you engage in further entrepreneurial training programmes at your institute after participating in the p2i programme?

For now, I'm happy where I am, but I will definitely keep an eye on other programmes that can support me in achieving my goals. In the future, I see myself working at the intersection of research and industry—perhaps leaning more towards the applied side of research.

At Cambridge, there are plenty of opportunities to further explore and engage with industry and entrepreneurial programmes. Many of these are advertised via the weekly PdA newsletter, which is really helpful. I feel confident that when I'm ready to look for an opportunity, I will know where to find it.

Would you recommend engaging in entrepreneurial activities to other researchers? Can you explain why?

Yes, absolutely. That’s why I invited Dr Katia Smith-Litière, development consultant at the Postdoc Academy and p2i Network manager, to speak at our postdoc event at the MRC-Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit about the entrepreneurial mindset and tools such as the Research Canvas.

I think that anyone who wants to pursue a career in academia and apply for grants or a fellowship would benefit from this type of training. I also believe this entrepreneurial mindset and skills training should have a place in the undergraduate programs, because it provides fundamental knowledge for applying one’s skills in real-world contexts, regardless of career path.

The reality is that students in certain degrees, and researchers working on topics where the practical application is not immediately obvious, are more likely to overlook opportunities to explore industry, business, or start-up pathways. At a place like Cambridge, the sheer number of opportunities can feel overwhelming, and people naturally prioritise what seems most directly relevant to their work. However, even in fields where applications of entrepreneurial mindset and skills are less obvious—such as psychology and cognitive neuroscience—there is significant value to industry, whether through collaboration or future employment. For that reason, I believe it is important to actively engage with these kinds of opportunities.

What would you say to postdocs who want to pursue an academic career and perceive entrepreneurial activities as a shift away from their academic goals?

I’d say it’s not a distraction from an academic career — it can actually strengthen it, particularly when preparing fellowship or grant applications.

Funding decisions aren’t based on good science alone. You need to demonstrate that your research matters — that it aligns with funders’ priorities and addresses real societal challenges. Entrepreneurial training helps you to think in terms of stakeholders, including funders, partners, and end users, and to plan for impact from the start. It also provides you with the tools to communicate your work clearly to non-experts, which is crucial in most review panels.

After the p2i In Action workshop, I realised how much stronger my own proposals could have been. Researchers often have excellent scientific ideas, but what truly makes the difference is being able to convince people from different backgrounds that your project is important, timely, and that you’re the right person to deliver it. Looking back, this is where my applications came short. I did not fully understand how to communicate impact. I struggled to think beyond the gaps in knowledge that I felt needed addressing. Now I understand that it’s about demonstrating relevance, application, and long-term value — and that I need to actively seek feedback from different people to make that case compelling - not only for the expert reviewers but also the non-expert panel members.

And in some fields — like psychology or cognitive neuroscience — impact may not always be obvious. That makes taking the time to explore these skills even more important. If your impact isn’t self-evident, you have to be able to articulate it clearly and confidently.

How can researchers convince PI’s that participating in entrepreneurial activities is beneficial for the researcher, the research team and the PI?

Entrepreneurial training and activities can significantly support the career development of postdocs and PhD students, as well as a team’s long-term success. It therefore makes sense for PIs to support such activities.

As a signee of the Researcher Development Concordat, the university supports and provides professional development time for postdocs. And researchers who build broader skills and networks are often stronger when it comes to securing grants and collaborations.

From my own experience, once I began networking more intentionally, things really shifted. Last year I attended the largest international conference in my current research field. I identified people working in my specific area and organized a networking event to bring them together. As a result, new collaborations emerged, and we submitted a scientific session proposal to this year’s conference. I was also able to support a master’s student from my lab in applying to present their work. That kind of visibility helps not only me — it highlights our lab, our collaborators, and our funders. Everyone benefits.

Often, the PI leads most of the networking and communication, but these are skills everyone in academia should develop early. Speaking with researchers from different backgrounds – including industry partners - builds confidence and perspective. Over time, those conversations create relationships — and that’s often where new projects and opportunities emerge.

What are the top skills would you encourage a postdoc to develop, regardless of their career path?

I would encourage postdocs to focus on three key skills: networking, communication, and innovative thinking.

Networking matters no matter where you end up — academia, industry, policy, anywhere. Building networks helps you gain insights from different perspectives, helps to identify gaps and see how your work fits into the bigger picture. Genuine connections also opens doors to future opportunities.

Communication is just as important. Being able to clearly explain what you do and why it matters— to experts, non-experts, funders, or industry — makes you, your expertise and your research more impactful.

And innovative thinking ties it all together. It helps you spot gaps, unmet needs, or new angles where your expertise can make a difference. Combined with the right collaborators and stakeholders, this is often where meaningful opportunities emerge.

Is there any advice / parting pearls of wisdom you would give to postdocs who want to pursue a career in academia?

I don’t think there’s a really a single, definite moment when you decide, “Right, this is it, I’m pursuing academia.” There always remains an element of exploring. It’s important to stay open-minded because the environment and opportunities keep changing. If you fixate on one rigid path, you may miss interesting opportunities.

Be open to opportunities—or better yet, create them. That means being visible, which is something I’m still working on. Attend talks, join discussions, test ideas with others. Having a plan matters, but equally important is to just be in the right room, having conversations, and letting people know what interests you. When something comes up, you want someone to think, “Oh, I remember they’d be perfect for that”. Cambridge offers a lot of opportunities to meet people.

When you truly want something, you have to invest real energy. Even small steps—attending an event, joining a side project, starting a conversation—accumulate over time. It can be challenging alongside a heavy workload, but doing something occasionally is better than not at all.

And finally, even when you explore something and realise it’s not for you, that’s valuable clarity.

I would like to say that I truly appreciate the entrepreneurial mindset and skills training offered by PdA and through the p2i Network partners. It’s important work, and I will continue to seek out similar workshops and events. It’s always helpful to have a refresher from time to time —you always learn something new and meet interesting people.

Keep Up To Date

Sign up to the postdocs 2 innovators (p2i) app here to keep up to date on content, participate in future p2i events and network with likeminded international postdocs.

And don't forget to follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn: