This International Women’s Day, FBMH invited high energy physicist and science communicator Dr. Claire Malone to draw on her own experiences in academia and the impact of time constraints and productivity culture within higher education.  

After Claire’s thought-provoking keynote talk, we welcomed questions from the audience. Below, are a few questions that we didn’t have time to ask. Claire has kindly given her opinions and thoughts.  

Do you have any advice for increasing representation without putting more pressure on marginalized groups of people? 

No one should feel obligated to take on diversity work—especially those already facing systemic barriers in their academic or professional lives. Representation work can be rewarding, but it should only be taken on if someone genuinely has the capacity and desire to do it. It’s entirely valid to say no, and institutions must respect and support that choice. 

Also keep in mind that, increasing representation is important—but it shouldn’t rely solely on individuals from marginalised groups. Institutions must take the lead by embedding inclusive practices into recruitment, teaching, mentoring, and public engagement. That means celebrating diverse pathways to success, supporting a broader range of role models, and ensuring that accessibility is a shared responsibility—not extra labour for a few. 

I also believe we need to encourage young people to pursue careers they’re passionate about, even if they don’t yet see someone like them in those spaces. You shouldn’t be limited by what’s already out there. Just because a space isn’t visibly diverse now doesn’t mean you don’t belong in it. Sometimes, becoming the first can help open the door for many more. 

Do you have any tips on how to force yourself to single-task instead of multi-task? I struggle with this because of my ADHD 

ADHD isn’t my area of expertise, but I can share what’s worked for me personally. I find it much easier to focus when I break big tasks down into smaller, more manageable steps. That way, I’m not overwhelmed by the whole thing—I can just focus on one piece at a time. 

I also use a simple reward system. Giving myself something small to look forward to—like a break, a small snack, or even just ticking something off a list—helps keep me motivated and anchored in the task. 

I’d also recommend speaking to the disability or student support team at your university. They may be able to offer tailored strategies or even adjustments that can make a big difference. 

Everyone’s brain works differently—it’s about finding what helps you focus without burning out. 

Can you share an example of a time where you were able to resist the culture of speed and this paid off or was rewarded? 

Yes—during my undergraduate degree, I was really struggling to keep pace with the course, despite working seven days a week. At first, I resisted the offer of extra time because I wanted to complete the course at the same rate as my peers. I thought accepting extra time would somehow diminish the value of my achievement. 

But eventually, I did accept the adjustment, and it made a huge difference. It gave me the space I needed not just to keep up, but to do well—without completely burning out in the process. I was finally able to build in some work-life balance, and the result was that I actually enjoyed learning again. 

In the end, resisting the culture of speed meant redefining what success looked like for me—and that decision paid off in ways that went far beyond grades. It gave me a more sustainable way to work and achieve my goals. 

How do we resolve taking more time to think more deeply with the increasing push for the use of AI to increase our productivity supposedly? 

The key is educating people to be AI literate—to understand both the strengths and limitations of these tools. AI can be incredibly helpful, but only when we use it with a clear strategy for which aspects of our creative or academic process we want it to enhance, and when we’re critical of the outputs it produces. If you ask AI to reference a fact you didn’t provide yourself, it’s essential to fact-check everything—because it will often produce something that sounds convincing but is completely wrong. 

The danger comes when we treat AI as a shortcut that replaces thinking, rather than something that supports and deepens it. 

For example, if you simply ask AI to answer an assignment question or write something for you, it will often generate a very generic, surface-level response. That doesn’t help you develop your own voice or ideas. But if you use it as a brainstorming companion—to explore possibilities, test the structure of an argument, or prompt your own reflection—it can actually enhance your depth of thought. In that sense, it can increase productivity without sacrificing depth. 

Ultimately, AI is a tool, not a substitute for having something meaningful to say. Deep thinking still matters. The value comes not from how fast the tool can work, but from how thoughtfully we choose to use it. 

Related