For a faculty as large as Medicine and Health, it takes a lot to run an organised EMCR network. And yet, thanks to the efforts of its subcommittee, the network is robust and impressively structured, leaving little room for ambiguity about what’s on offer and more time and space for impact.

As part of the Researcher Development Hub’s new EMCR Networks Stories Series, we spoke to co-chairs Associate Professor Joshua Zadro and Dr Anna Janssen about how they bring their cohort together. This series will reach out to EMCR networks and committees across the University of Sydney to inspire researchers about the different ways to connect, collaborate and build peer-led development opportunities.

Where does the FMH EMCR Subcommittee sit in relation to other local EMCR groups?

Anna: We’re the overarching, faculty-level EMCR group. There are other EMCR groups at the school level, as well as ‘flagship’ and ‘impact’ centre EMCR committees, networks, and smaller research-group EMCR committees.

How is the committee structured and how are members recruited?

Josh: The committee has 12 members who represent different parts of the University and the faculty. We aim for broad representation, including from the Northern, Western, Central Sydney and Rural Health precincts, and we try to include representation from different schools within the faculty.

We recruit via an expression of interest process. We typically do call-outs at the end of each year and select members through a competitive process rather than hand-picking.

Approximately how many EMCRs do you support across FMH?

Josh: There are over 700 EMCRs in the faculty.

What does the committee do to support such a large and diverse cohort?

Josh: The purpose of our faculty-level EMCR committee is to facilitate research initiatives and schemes, improve communication and connection between EMCR groups, and support EMCR research development wherever we can.

Anna: A key part is representation across the faculty while keeping the committee small enough to get things done. We have monthly meetings where we discuss a program of events and other initiatives that could benefit EMCRs, and then we champion those initiatives.

We also have an important role interfacing with faculty leadership. We’re one of the main EMCR groups in the faculty that can advocate upwards to executives. We’re also working to strengthen our connections with EMCR groups across the faculty, so they can bring ideas and support needs to us more easily.

Why did you decide to take on leadership roles in the committee?

Josh: It’s a great opportunity to make an impact on the EMCR community and help shape what career development opportunities and initiatives are run. The committee also creates a pathway to raise EMCR issues at a faculty level, including opportunities to advocate for more support. As an EMCR, it felt important to contribute to supports that help with grants, CV building, leadership and collaborations, not only for me but for others as well.

Anna: I’ve been at the University for a long time, from PhD through EMCR and now moving toward mid-career. 

How do you decide which initiatives to run, and what does your process look like?

Josh: We’ve run a number of surveys over the last few years to understand what support EMCRs already have at the faculty, school and group levels, and what they want. We use that information to shape what we offer.

Anna: We also use a working party approach. Committee members can volunteer to take ownership of specific initiatives, work in small groups, liaise with their own networks for input, and report back to the wider committee. It creates leadership opportunities within the committee and helps ensure activities align with EMCR needs.

What are some key initiatives you have run?

Josh: One is our publication award scheme, which has been running for several years. It’s particularly valuable for people preparing grant applications and fellowships, where being able to demonstrate publication quality and impact matters. It can elevate CVs and also helps people practise communicating the impact of their research clearly and concisely.

Another is grant writing seminars. We invite researchers who have been successful in previous rounds to share practical tips on writing grants and communicating research proposals. We aim for breadth across research types, from lab science through to policy and implementation research.

Can you share an example of an initiative that directly responded to an EMCR need?

Josh: A strong example is the consumer micro-grant scheme. There’s a growing expectation that grant proposals demonstrate consumer involvement, particularly input from people who will be impacted by the research. But if you’re an EMCR without grant funding yet, it can be difficult to cover the cost of meaningful consumer involvement. That creates a cycle: proposals lack consumer input, and then don’t score as well because consumer involvement is a key part of the assessment.

We created a microgrant scheme and partnered with Health Consumers NSW. For awardees, Health Consumers NSW are organising consumers to work with researchers on early grant ideas and provide input that could strengthen the proposal. This directly addressed the funding barrier and supported stronger grant development.

How do you gather feedback and evolve?

Anna: We use periodic surveys, and we also collect feedback informally. Committee members attend events and talk to participants, and we bring insights from our broader networks back into committee discussions. It’s a mix of structured feedback and ongoing conversations across EMCR communities.

How do you meet and coordinate work across the committee?

Anna: We meet monthly in a hybrid format. We encourage face-to-face participation, but we have representatives from across the faculty, including the rural schools, so hybrid is essential. Working parties meet between committee meetings to progress their initiatives. We also use SharePoint to share resources, and we often coordinate document review via email between meetings. For example, each year we revisit and refine the publication award guidelines and processes based on what worked and what needs improvement.

Josh: One of the strengths of this committee is that members are active and engaged. 

Have you improved the way you communicate with other EMCR groups across the faculty?

Josh: Previously communication between the faculty committee and school/centre/research-group committees was quite informal. Last year Anna did significant work to map the EMCR committees across FMH. This year we’re trialling a more formal communication strategy so we can update other committees on what we’re working on, share action items, and encourage two-way dialogue. That helps us identify issues and suggestions we can elevate to faculty leadership when appropriate.

What is attendance like at events?

Josh: We typically see strong registrations, often around 70 to 100. Like many university events, some people can’t attend on the day. A standout for us was a grant writing seminar last year, with around 70 to 80 people attending in person, which is a strong turnout. We try to run events in person where possible because it creates more opportunities for networking and collaboration.

How do you promote your events?

Josh: Historically, we promoted events through channels like the FMH Research Bulletin and through our EMCR distribution list. From last year, we partnered with the FMH networks team, who support our communications. We provide the event text and they format and distribute it through University templates and channels. We also have in-kind support through networks team staff attending committee meetings and, at times, working party meetings.

Do you have funding and faculty support to deliver your initiatives?

Josh: Yes. We have an annual budget to support initiatives, which is a significant change from earlier years when events relied largely on volunteer effort without dedicated funding. We also benefit from strong professional support from the networks team, and from our secretary who coordinates logistics and resources such as SharePoint.

Anna: The funding and support came through advocacy and demonstrating value, including making a clear case for how a budget would be used. Having that support has made it much easier to deliver initiatives effectively.

Do you do anything to keep EMCRs engaged between events?

Josh: We’re careful not to overload people with emails, because there’s already a high volume of communication across the faculty. We do send notices to the mailing list when there’s a major opportunity or something particularly relevant.

We previously used Twitter, but activity declined after the platform changed. This year we created a communications officer role within the committee, so we can share events via faculty channels such as LinkedIn and explore other light-touch ways of keeping people connected.

What’s an example of something that worked better than expected, or required a creative workaround?

Anna: The publication award scheme surprised me early on. When it launched, I was initially sceptical about whether the logistics could be done equitably and within tight timeframes, including coordinating peer review and other award processes. But the working group pulled it together extremely well, and it has become a strong initiative that we continue to refine each year.

Josh: The consumer micro-grant scheme also required a workaround. We were working with a tight end-of-year timeline and the challenge of administering many small payments. A solution was to provide the full funding amount to Health Consumers NSW, who could then organise and fund consumer involvement directly. It simplified administration and ensured the support reached researchers quickly and appropriately.

What standout outcomes or impacts have you seen?

Josh: The turnout at the grant writing seminar was a highlight. It suggested the structure, speakers and approach aligned strongly with EMCR needs.

Anna: A consistent impact is community connection. Academic careers can be rewarding but also isolating, and it’s meaningful when an event or initiative helps people see they’re not alone, meet others navigating similar challenges, and connect in ways that can lead to collaboration.

What advice would you share with other EMCR committees or network organisers?

Josh: Be structured and clear. Having clear objectives, defined working groups and assigned responsibilities makes everything run more smoothly. It improves efficiency, avoids wasted time, and helps you deliver more activities that genuinely benefit your cohort.

Anna: Build in processes that let you periodically refresh membership. Create moments where people can recommit, new members can join, and those who need to step away can do so. That keeps committees active and sustainable over time.

Is there anything you’d like EMCRs in FMH to know?

Anna: If you’re in FMH and not on the EMCR mailing list, we encourage you to opt in.