Excited to share our paper on our cross-national qualitative suicide study @CAMHnews! It took 5 years to publish! Here’s what I learned ( #academictwitter #academicchatter #researchlife #phdlife #phdchat #phdchatter #medtwitter #psychtwitter): (1/_) https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1771394

1. This paper could not have happened without the best mentorship. @juveriazaheer saw me and reflected my worth to me when I lost confidence repeatedly. She is also the senior author on this study and the best human. (2/_)

2. I am also so grateful to my PhD supervisor and mentor @KurdyakP who taught me to write concisely and clearly, always keeping in mind the cohesive story I am trying to communicate in a paper. (3/_)

3. He also taught me to view manuscript feedback as support rather than criticism. Every time the paper was rejected by a journal I was grateful for the feedback from editors, reviewers, and my amazing co-authors. The feedback made the article better and better. (4/_)

4. #Persistence really was key. This manuscript saw so many drafts and so many journal rejections. @LoriRoss_UofT taught me it’s ok to give myself a few days to feel my feelings after a #rejection before deciding how to proceed. (5/_)

5. Papers are rejected sometimes not because of the value of the paper’s findings, but because the paper does not fit with the current journal editor’s vision for the journal. Also #qualitative papers are still often not accepted by most #medicaljournals as of value. (6/_)

6. I learned so much from the #rejections. I became a much better academic writer (I think...). I was challenged again and again to start from square 1 and be clear to myself on why this paper is worth reading and then rewrite the paper to highlight its uniqueness. (7/_)

I reworked the methods to add rigour, including adding a formal lit search strategy. Feedback can be so helpful in that iterative (and sometimes shame-inducing) process of crystallizing a manuscript into a cohesive, clear, and important contribution. (8/_)

7. I’m so proud of this paper. We could find no previous lit reporting on lessons learned from a cross-national qualitative suicide research collaboration. Our paper presents why this rarely used research methodology offers tremendous opportunities not available elsewhere. (9/_)

...including 1) using a different cultural lens to understand differences and clarify similarities cross-culturally; 2) co-constructing knowledge through collaboration; 3) deconstructing one’s own assumptions; and 4) engaging in an empowering experience in collaboration. (10/_)

8. Working on this study made me reflect a lot on power dynamics and differentials in #research, such as the difference in power between our Canadian and Chinese research teams. Research team members from high-income countries like Canada often have inequitable advantages (11/_)

...including more funded time for clinicians to conduct research and reduced barriers to publishing in the language of many influential journals globally (i.e. English). It is the responsibility of the more advantaged team(s) to improve #equity. (12/_)

9. I also learned how I take research ethical standards for granted as being directly applicable in all countries. But ethical standards depend on context and should be carefully considered before being exported wholesale, especially from a more privileged research team. (13/_)

10. I will probably continue to fight #impostorsyndrome chronically. But it feels really good today to share not only this win, but also my journey there. Hope to offer some encouragement to those who are working to build as an early career scientist. We’ve got this! (14/_)

11. P.S. I need to name my brilliant co-authors and study team, who gave me this research opportunity, including @juveriazaheer, Paul Links, Wes Shera, Sam Law, Alan Fung, @dr_eynan, @tsangkatat, Xiaoqian Zhang, and Pozi Liu. Their expertise was invaluable. (15/15)