Prof. Inta Mierina "The Idea Comes First: Excellence before the proposal"

In this episode, Prof. Inta Mieriņa, sociologist and ERC grantee from Latvia, shares her ERC journey and research on migration, social integration and migrant reception in Central and Eastern Europe.

She discusses the inspiration behind her project, the value of international mobility and networks, and offers practical advice on preparing for an ERC application and interview - from seeking critical feedback to being ambitious and persistent.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

0:00

To me, I guess the biggest challenge was not having seen any successful ERC grant proposal before submitting my own. This was the time when I really got hooked on the idea that I wanted to have a grant myself, because I saw how wonderful it is. I saw that this was one of the most productive times scientifically in my career, because you could just really focus on that one brilliant idea and dig deeper into this and just really explore and come up with these wonderful results. I think that the idea comes first, in the sense that sometimes people ask me, for example, how long does it take to develop an ERC proposal? And I’m like, well, you can’t say that, because it all stems from your previous work. That could be, like, I don’t know, 10 or 20 years, or even more, because you just work on these things constantly and then

you just come up with this idea: 0:51

“Hmm, why hasn’t nobody done this?” But I think really at the core of it is really having that vision, having that ambition that this is what you want to do, this is what you want to go for, and that you’re good enough. Because sometimes we feel like, I mean, well, maybe, you know, I don’t have that many groundbreaking publications and I'm not ready yet and so on. No, if you have that brilliant idea, just, you know, it’s important just to dare and to apply, and then you see what happens. Hello and welcome to EURAXESS SmartTalks. The EURAXESS SmartTalks podcast explores groundbreaking research funded by the European Research Council and its impact on global science. The ERC is a premier EU body that supports frontier research, pioneering ideas, and ambitious scientists across all disciplines. Through ERC funding, researchers push the boundaries of science, technology, and innovation, shaping the future of knowledge and discovery. In this episode, we will dive into how ERC grants empower scientists, facilitate international collaboration, and drive excellence in research. Hello. Dr. Inta Mierina is the director of the Center for Diaspora and Migration Research and a tenured professor at the University of Latvia. A specialist in political sociology, her research focuses on migration, diaspora studies, integration, and ethnic relations in Latvia. In 2024, she received an ERC Consolidator Grant for a project on immigrant reception in Central and Eastern Europe following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Her work has appeared in leading journals, and she is co-editor

of Latvian Emigrant Communities: 2:34

A Diaspora of Hope, Springer, 2019. She has held visiting positions at Yale, the University of Washington, and other top institutions, and is a recipient of the Fulbright Scholarship and the Little Felix Prize of the European Academy of Science. Hello, Inta. Thank you very much. Hello, nice to be here. Thank you for joining us. First of all, I would like to start with your reaction when you heard the news that you received the ERC grant. Honestly, like, the first reaction was really disbelief. I was almost expecting it to be another rejection because to me it was the first time being into the finals, being in the second round of the ERC grant competition, and three times I had not been successful. So it was the first time, and I received that message, and it comes relatively early. I think it came, like, in November. I expected it to come a little later. So I thought, yeah, yeah, it’s so early because it’s probably a rejection. And then I opened it and, like, I just can’t believe it. I was here at work, and my colleagues, like, I almost started screaming, because it’s just so unbelievable. And I guess it just shows that relly hard work pays off, because, yeah, that was a really long way for me, a really, really long and tough path to finally get to that point. You mentioned that it is the fourth time. So, what strategy do you believe took the successful route to the granting of this application? So, what have you changed in comparison to your previous time that you applied today, your secret? I think after every round of rejection that I received, I learned something. I think I learned more about what I shouldn’t do rather than what I should do. But it’s also really helpful. Like, for example, in the first rounds, one of the mistakes was trying to squeeze too much into this one project, and obviously then you end up with not having sufficiently explained certain things, right? And then there was another, in another round, there was just the problem that I didn’t have, like, clear enough hypothesis, like, what exactly are you trying to prove, and where is your theoretical contribution? So, I realized that that is an issue. So, every time I really realized how I should do some things differently. And of course I also read all of the reviews. And of course, you know, if you have, like, 15 or 17 experts, there are going to be a little bit contradictory. Like, somebody likes something, somebody doesn’t like something, right? But I think it’s important not to take this personally and not to take this as, like, “Oh, they’re just stupid and they don’t understand my great idea.” I really try to build on this, and some of the suggestions were really, really good, and I improved on those. And this proved to be, I guess, also a good thing to do. Like, for example, I switched one of the case study places, from Romania to Italy as a comparative case, which was one of the suggestions in the round before. So, yeah, things like this. And of course, it really, really help. And also what I realized is that with every time I was preparing, like, more seriously. But I guess that the whole process of preparing is something that we can talk about more. Yeah. And concerning that preparation process, what do you think was the most challenging aspect of your application for the ERC grant? And is there something that you wish you knew from the start, going into the application process, which you know now? Right. So to me, I guess the biggest challenge was not having seen any successful ERC grant proposals before submitting my own. And I think this is something that maybe people in other countries don’t appreciate, that they do have that knowledge base, that they do have somebody, who has shared their successful proposal with them. Like, for example, I know universities in Italy, for example, the Netherlands, or Finland, they have that knowledge base. They share these successful proposals between themselves, and it just gives you a much better idea of what should go in the proposal. Like, for example, do you describe work packages? To what extent do you elaborate on communication? To what extent do you elaborate on societal impact? Does it matter at all? I mean, things like this, that if you haven’t seen this proposal, you don’t really know. And the thing is that unlike the Horizon proposals, which I knew quite well, because I had been working as a European Commission evaluation expert of Horizon proposals, so which gave me a little bit of an advantage. But unlike the typical Horizon proposals, here the only evaluation criteria is excellence. So it’s really up to interpretation, like, what goes into excellence, right? And how much in detail do you describe methodology and things like this. So that know-how is what’s really, really important. And in my case, what really helped me is that in the final year, in the successful year round, my university also hired consultants for me. That was really useful because at least they were people who had seen lots and lots of proposals, and they could tell me that, no, this looks more like a typical Horizon proposal rather than an ERC. So things like that. But they really helped me prepare, which was important for somebody who hadn’t seen other successful proposals before. So I’m really self-made, I can say that for myself, right? That, yeah. For the next generation in your university, it will help a lot… From what I heard from you, it sounds like it’s much easier, in a sense, like with the Nobel Prize. I’m not saying that it’s only won by certain universities, but there are departments or awards that have a tradition of multiple people coming from them that have been awarded this award, and it’s, in a sense, the same with the ERC grant, if I understand, because with the knowledge of how successful previous applications were, it’s much easier to get a new grant. Absolutely. And I think also what worked to my advantage was that I used to work as a postdoc at an ERC Starting Grant at the University of Warsaw, about ten years ago. So that gave me an idea about how this grant could look like, right? For example, that I could have an advisory board, the type of kind of small team, right? Like, all of these things. Again, if you don’t really know if, you know, if you haven’t seen a successful proposal. So that really, really helped me, even though my boss at the time, she didn’t share her proposal with me. So it was just like what I saw. And also what was important was that during that time in Warsaw, this was a time when I really got hooked on the idea that I wanted to have that myself, because I saw how wonderful it is. I saw that this was one of the most productive times scientifically in my career, because you could just really focus on that one brilliant idea and dig deeper into this and just really explore and come up with these wonderful results, which is a rare privilege in our really fluid and busy times, when we have to work on so many projects, so many different things. So this gives you that advantage of really focusing on this one idea. And you said that at that point your boss didn’t share the application. How are your colleagues asking you to share yours now? Yeah, they are. And actually I would be happy to do that, because I know how much that could have meant to me. And also maybe it’s also a little bit of a regional thing, because we are a small country. We don’t have that many resources. We don’t have that know-how, as I mentioned. So I think it’s really, really important to support each other. And maybe not just, like, other Latvians, but also Lithuanians or Estonians, or, you know, whoever. Like… Serbian if possible. Yeah. Right. I mean, there’s a huge, huge difference if you come from a large institution that has all of that know-how, that has all of that support base, or if you come from, you know, Latvia or Lithuania or Serbia. You don’t have that much support. So we need to support each other. You have touched upon different funding schemes, and I know that you know Horizon Europe pretty well and the structure, etc. What do you think makes the basic difference between these different funding? Like, what makes ERC so special? And maybe what would be also your advice for someone who wants to apply? What to try first, not to, for example, target already, like, from the start, to ERC, but something, some levels of, you know, understanding how Horizon works, and then, as a logical step, going into ERC. The first thing, I think, is to start early, in a sense that, in my case as well, I started with the Starting Grant proposal, right? Not that long after I finished my PhD. And then, even if you don’t get the grant, you get really good feedback, and you start to understand better, how to put this thing together better next time, right? So not to delay too much, because again, there are certain time limits. For example, seven years for Consolidator, twelve years. So it’s always better not to delay too much. And also, what is different for ERC grants is that it’s really about this brilliant idea, and it's about scientific exellence. Like, in Horizon proposals, often times I see now, we are focusing a lot also on societal impact and communication, and, you know, all of these different things. You need to describe a lot of this, like management structures and all of these. Some people already, like, work on this, but basically you just have to tick the boxes. For example, I don’t know, the gender dimension and the diversity and so on. But basically, you know, it’s just really having the right formula and knowing what you should write about and how to put this together. In a way, I think that Horizon grants, typical Horizon grants, are a little bit easier to write if you really follow the recommendations. But the ERC grants, it’s really, it’s more fluid. It’s more flexible. It’s more innovative. It’s more exciting in a way as well? And, yeah, I think it’s a brilliant grant scheme, honestly. Of course, you have to see, you know, what is the project that you want to work on, because there are some projects where you need a larger team, where you need some international collaborators, and obviously that’s not the scheme for you then, and you probably need something else, right? But if you are fine with yourself and a little, like, team of support, for example postdocs, brilliant. That’s absolutely brilliant. And I think it gives you a good push also for the excellence in a broader research as well. Like, ERC is more about excellence, real excellence in research. And I would say maybe this, for example, second pillar grants that are mostly on collaboration, because when we say their excellence, it’s basically state of the art, what we are explaining, that we know about state of the art, what is happening, literature review, etc. And then we go beyond that in our consortium project. And ERC is then mostly for those, like, scientific ideas, real science, yeah, hard science, so to say. Okay, and… And talking about the scientific idea, in what way did receiving the ERC grant help shape your priorities and the direction of your study? Well, I think that the idea comes first, in the sense that, well, sometimes people ask me, for example, how long does it take to develop an ERC proposal? And I’m like, well, you can’t really say that, because it all stems from your previous work. That could be, like, I don’t know, ten or twenty years or even more, because you just work on these things constantly, and then you just come up with this idea: “Why hasn’t anybody done this?” Or, “What if we look at this thing differently?” Right? So you come up with this idea, and then you typically, at least how it works, and then you seek for the grant scheme that would fit that idea. But in my case, again, it wasn’t that I just, like, sat down, like, “Oh, I’m writing an ERC proposal now,” even though I really wanted to get the grant specifically. But it’s not like I just, “Hmm, I’m going to write like for six months or whatever.” It’s more that I was working. I’m a person who has a lot of collaborators in different countries, from different disciplines, and I think this is really what helped in my case, because sometimes it’s just that when you know the literature from one field, you sort of understand that,“Hmm, this could actually be applied in that other field.” Or why don’t we look differently at this, like, from the perspective of that other discipline? This is what brings innovation, which is essential for an ERC grant, right? Because you have to come up with, like, that groundbreaking idea, like something that really pushes the boundaries of knowledge. And this interdisciplinarity is what really helps. And so, I would suggest, really, you know, how to be successful with ERC grants: just really try to read a lot, work a lot, and just if the right idea comes, that is the basis of everything. And how do you balance the administrative demands of an ERC grant with actual research? I think this is the question that also is of utmost importance for many. Well, my grant is just starting, so it’s possible that I will run into more problems as time goes by. But so far, well, the good thing is that I have a lot of experience in managing projects, which, again, I guess was one of the things that convinced the evaluators that I’m the right person to do that, because I had the right expertise, both methodologically and also in terms of managerial skills and things like that. So, yeah, I have a lot of managerial experience, so I will rely on this. And also, what is important is that because this is Latvia and this is such a rare case for tem to get an ERC grant, my university has been extremely supportive, and they really do everything to try to help and to ease my tasks in different ways. So, it’s been really a tremendous support from the University of Latvia. Regarding the ERC funding system, what would you change? To be honest, I’m quite happy with the system as it is. I really have a very high opinion of the expert evaluators of the grant scheme. They are really, really smart and top people in the field, which is really wonderful. The only thing that maybe I could suggest to improve a little bit is to have more clear guidelines about what goes into the proposal. Because if it’s so open and flexible as just excellence, it just gives a little bit more advantage to those who have that know-how, instead of those who don’t. Because they always struggle with, as I did, what exactly should go in there. So that would be the only thing, I think. And what was actually your motivation to apply with this idea on immigration and immigrant reception in Central and Eastern Europe? Right. The first thing was that, working in the area of migrant integration and attitudes towards migrants, I saw that the situation oftentimes is developing in such ways that it shows that the existing way we used to think about attitudes towards migrants, it really sometimes falls apart, and it’s a little bit outdated and it doesn’t really work in all cases and situations that we are facing these days. Like, for example, as you know, we have these really challenging situations with the large influx of Ukrainian migrants. And in my case, for example, what got me curious, really curious, was that Eastern and Central European countries have been painted as these really xenophobic, anti-migrant regions of Europe, especially following the 2015 and 2016 refugee crisis. And then 2022 comes, and we have those large, large waves of immigrants from Ukraine, and Central and Eastern European countries opened their doors really widely, and the society organized to such an extent that it was actually amazing to see. People opened their homes, they donated money, they donated clothes, they brought these shipments to Ukraine and things like this. It was absolutely amazing. So it really contrasted with that narrative of Eastern and Central Europeans being xenophobic. And then if you look at, for example— and it didn’t get maybe that much attention, because— and I’ve seen a few papers about this, for example, from Western scholars, who didn’t pay much attention to this, because they would just simply brush it off as, “Well, that’s just racism, right? Like, why these people are treated differently than Middle Easterners, for example. That’s just because people are racist towards Middle Easterners. Maybe they have more cultural closeness with Ukrainians.” But, like, having worked in other fields, such as, for example, memory politics, such as, for example, international relations and security politics, right, what I see is that the reason for this is actually much, much more complex and much, much more interesting. Such as, for example, really having that sense of common enemy, that you really kind of stand on one side of the field versus the other one. Such as, for example, the collective memory. Like, here in Latvia, for example, people still talk about the Second World War and about what Russians did at that time, you know, to our families and all these horrific things, which they now see on the TV screen, what’s happening in Ukraine. So there’s also this fight for democracy and freedom, which is, again, something that the Baltic countries know all too well. So there’s so many things, ideological as well, political ideology. So there’s really so much that we can explore and understand better using this case as an example. Maybe that would also help us understand other cases of migrant perception that have not been based on, for example, the same race or the same religion, but where we really saw that outpour of solidarity, which you would otherwise not expect. So this is really a rare case, and that’s why the project is called Lessons from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine. This is a rare case for us to learn, to really learn something more about ourselves. And, for example, in my case, I found it really useful to talk about Dovilė Budrytė’s concept of vicarious identification, which basically means that instead of the studies that have so far focused— and, for example, mostly attitudes towards migrants studies have focused on divisions and prejudice and racism, on xenophobia, like what divides people—so what I want to do, I want to focus on what brings people together in these unusual circumstances. Like, what makes us think about those other groups of people as our own people, to include them in a category of us instead of them, and really to be willing to sacrifice, to be willing to help them even at the cost of ourselves. So that is really the central question that I’m asking. And also, of course, the other thing that I find interesting and I bring forward is that, having worked in this field of attitudes towards migration, I oftentimes feel that there’s way too many generalizations. Like, you know, people like migrants, people don’t like migrants. People like Ukrainians, they don’t like the Lithuanians. But again, when you see the survey data, you see that the attitudes are much, much more nuanced. For example, the attitudes will be very different if you’re talking about a woman from Ukraine or a man of fighting age, right? Or if it’s somebody coming from the eastern part of Ukraine, or if it’s somebody coming from the western part of Ukraine that is maybe not under such big threat as the eastern regions, right? So also ethnicity. Like, for example, maybe somebody who is Ukrainian, or maybe a Roma person coming from Ukraine. So again, these are really important nuances that we need to understand. So really, what I want to show is that our attitudes towards migrants really depend— that’s my hypothesis, right?—on the narratives that we build around them. In a sense that we build this beautiful picture of how the refugee should look like, you know, supporting Ukraine and so patriotic and, you know, being so grateful for the support and so on. And if the actual migrant that you see doesn’t fit that picture, then that becomes a problem. Like, for example, among Ukrainians, well, sometimes you do meet some Putin supporters as well. So it doesn’t really fit the picture again. So it’s just really, really diverse and really interesting, I think. And we should really, as researchers, be much more careful when we talk about this. Can I ask you one question about—and sorry for shaping it like that— but for someone who is, for example, from another discipline, or for someone who is from a lay audience that doesn’t know about how social science works, etc., could you, on a basic level, explain? Because we’ve heard all these arguments, for example, why do we need five years to study something like that? If you can hang out with the surveys and gather the information and then analyze it. So can you please briefly, if it is possible, explain why social science works like that? Why you need five years for such kind of project, taking into consideration that this is a real timely matter right now, because we have a situation right now. Maybe tomorrow it will change. And then how all this data that we get from your project, how can we flexibly implement it? First of all, in scientific research, the demands are a little bit different than, for example, in something like market research or things like that. We have really tough requirements, for example, regarding research ethics, especially in social sciences. And that takes a lot of time, a lot of work, to make sure that we are treating everybody the way that we should be treating our respondents, that, you know, we have that informed consent, that we figure out really carefully how the data is going to be stored and collected. And there’s, like, so, so much nuance in that. Just that alone takes months to get done correctly, right? Then you have, in my case, I will have fieldwork in four different countries, which is Latvia, Poland, Hungary and Italy, right, as a comparative case. So again, you need to have a research company to do the quantitative fieldwork for you. That means tenders and having a tender internationally. And again, that takes a long time if you want to do this correctly, and so on. So, organizing a team, right? That’s another step, right? You have to hire the right people. That takes time. So of course, in my case, I am very interested in trying to put all these things together as quickly as possible and to conduct my fieldwork as quickly as possible because, as you rightly said, the situation is developing. So, we are really eager to capture the picture as it is right now. But at the same time, in my methodology, I also account for the fact that we’ll be able to look retrospectively at what has happened by, for example, analyzing political speeches, by analyzing media content and, for example, using the framing method and machine learning methods, like trying to understand how specific groups of migrants have been framed in these different countries, both in the media as well as in the parliament when we talk about reception of migrants. So we will be able to have that retrospective look as well. And of course, after the fieldwork is done, then the analysis starts. So we need some time, obviously, to come up with publications. If it’s a book, again, it takes a long time. The process of revision takes a long time. So it’s much more different than it is in market research. And I know this because actually my career started in market research. And afterwards, when I switched to academic research and scientific research, that was so strange to me. Like, what, you can have a year for a study or two years? What did you do, like… For publishing, three years? Right. Because, like, for us, it was like every month you get something new. So I think that’s the specifics. But then, at least, you know, that’s the thing. You know, my ideal in my scientific work—you might find it strange— but I really adore, like, Richard Feynman, the famous physicist, Nobel Prize recipient. And he had these lectures, online lectures, about where he shares his understanding of the world and teaching and things like this. And one of the things that he said, that always stuck in my mind, was that, when we’re talking about research—well, he was a bit critical of social sciences and humanities, and he’s like, “Well, that’s not real research what they’re doing really, because, like, how can they know for sure that this is true? You know, people are with subjectivity and blah, blah, blah.” And the thing that he said was, “I know what it means to know something.” Like, you’re really so sure about your research that you know that this is how things are. And, you know, in my research, I’ve always strived for that feeling that when you write that paper, that you’re so sure about these results, that you can say, “Yeah, I know that this is how things work.” And only when you do these things thoroughly, like all the robustness tests, and really understanding the methodology and choosing the right methods and right paths to achieve the result, only then can you say that this is how it works. And, you know, in my career, I have had at least—I’ve been lucky, maybe— but, you know, I like doing things really thoroughly like this. And at least in a few of my top papers, I’ve had really, like, this sense of satisfaction that you really feel that, yeah, this is really how things are. And I can really justify this with, like, all of the background information, methods, everything.

Another argument would be: 30:35

so we understand how things are, and so what? Well, so what? I mean, I think, like these studies, there’s a lot of pressure on us sociologists and social scientists in general to produce something that is applicable. Yes, exactly. That is applicable to the everyday, like to solving everyday problems. And in my opinion, and in my research as well, of course it will have that societal impact, which is nice, but it’s not a requirement. And I think this is really good because, well, first of all, as scientists, I think this is crucial: that we remain neutral as observers, that we should not take any side politically. That either I support migration or maybe I oppose migration— it doesn’t matter. I try to be as objective as a researcher as possible, and we are just trying to understand the world, right? And if it can help, that’s wonderful. So this is an added bonus, right? Because I think fundamentally, as social scientists, as a sociologist, we need to remember that our science is still, first of all, a critical science. We need to critically evaluate the world. We should really be aware of the fact that we should not become just an instrument in the hands of politicians, who are just, you know, helping them to make the right decision, right? This is not what the scientist should be doing. We should really be critically evaluating the world around us and trying to better understand it. And that’s sort of my idea as well. From a critical perspective, how would you perceive or hope that your research would influence policy on migration in Europe? Well, one thing that I intend to produce as part of this research is so-called communication guidelines, which is basically— I will try to understand what kind of narratives are those that are associated with more open attitudes towards migrants, in the sense that, you know, as I said, this is basically what makes people perceive those other groups as us and to help them even at the expense of themselves, right? So we will have those communication guidelines. So this is something that either politicians or NGOs or journalists will be able to use if the goal is to reduce that prejudice, if the goal is really to try to induce more humane and more positive thinking about migration, which is oftentimes a problem in countries like ours. So that’s one thing, I guess, that is practical. Do you think of including citizen science in your research in order to develop such outputs? Yes, absolutely. So the project will start with a so-called launching event, where we also have one, where we invite different stakeholders to share their views and to share their understanding of what the problems are, of how we should look at things. So basically, gather their input at the very early stages and then keep connected with them throughout the process of our study. Absolutely, it’s actually necessary. And it’s not just because it makes our research more grounded, but it also helps with achieving a higher impact. Because if those people have been there throughout the project— NGOs, policymakers, teachers, educators, journalists, and so on—they’ll be more aware of the project and more willing to also follow the recommendations and comments. And since we’re in Latvia, maybe you want the next one, but… No, no. How do you see the current situation considering diaspora in Latvia? In Latvia? In Latvia, yes, sorry, I phrased it wrongly. The emigration rates have been slowing down a little bit, and return migration has increased, which is a nice thing. And finally, following the Ukrainian immigration in 2022, Latvia has achieved a positive net migration rate, which is a big thing for us because, again, Latvia, same as many other European countries, is depopulating. And obviously, that is a big problem for us. So again, this is something, another thing that maybe was on my mind when I was thinking about this project idea was that many countries, including, for example, Poland and Hungary and Romania, considering the fact that they are depopulating and that they understand that this is going to be a problem in the future, so on one hand they are anti-refugee, anti-sort of— not really willing to take in many refugees from the Middle East and so on—but at the same time they have developed specific policies to attract labor force. This is why also with my research—and we’ve shown this actually in some other research as well—that the attitudes are nuanced. The attitudes are nuanced, and we can talk about this topic and we can find some middle ground. Because, of course, you know, this is in general, like, I think that the topics that are most controversial are some of the most interesting ones to study. Yes. That’s always the case. But I think that in general— and there was a recent paper about this from a journal, from German scholars, which studied attitudes towards migrants— so basically, even though this topic is controversial, there’s only a small minority of people who could be saying, like,“We cannot accept any migrants at all, completely close the borders, like don’t let anybody in, like whatever happens.” That’s a really tiny minority. And on the other end, you have those who would be running to the borders and just saving everybody regardless of anything, like really that sort of position. But in the middle of that are people who actually understand and who would be willing to talk about a policy that would be acceptable to the majority of people, that is humane, but that also takes into account that there are certain rules that people need to follow and that there are certain regulations and certain limitations. So I think that the majority of people will be willing to talk about these things if we have an honest debate about it. But again, we are going into the political debates. As I said, as scholars, we are mostly focused on just trying to understand and better understand these attitudes. And then that can serve as a starting point for these debates that I mentioned. Yeah, exactly. I thought that probably also bringing the results of your study to policymakers is of utmost importance. It’s not only regarding Latvia. I mean, to extrapolate these results into the broader context of Europe, the European Union, it makes it significant as well. So, well… Which is a little bit maybe tricky with social science, because we are on the edge. In math, probably there are almost no certain matters that are so critical and so important to the broader expansion of knowledge into society, also to a lay audience, etc. Because everyone has their opinion about migrants. Not everyone has their opinion about math in such a respect. So it’s very… I would like to see how you balance… This societal pressure, you mean. Yes, yes, as well. Well, the thing is that in Latvia, besides the fact that many were happy for me, and of course it was all over the media as well—just the second grant, second ERC grant in Latvia, so it’s a big success for the country. On the other hand, some of the comments that we saw on social media and so on were like,“What is there to study? Everything is clear. Like, everything is just so clear.” But the funny thing is that everybody has an opinion, and everybody thinks that their opinion is the right one. So if you ask them, “So what is it then? How do you explain this then?” They would give you an opinion, right? Then you ask some other people, and they would also give their explanation. Well, obviously, that’s the situation. And they actually have given you different, conflicting opinions. Like, for example, as I mentioned, among Western scholars, what they say oftentimes is, like, the obvious explanation is that this is pure racism, right? Among people here, oftentimes what you hear is,“Well, obviously, that is because in Ukraine there’s real war happening, but in the Middle East it’s just that they are seeking economic benefits. There’s no real war happening,” or something like that. So again, people think that this is obvious, but it’s not obvious at all. And there’s been so many cases in my own career, and certainly not just limited to ordinary people. It’s also true of us as scholars. Sometimes we just think that,“Oh, this is obvious, right? This is, like, really obvious.” And then you start digging into this, and you realize that, no, actually, I was wrong. And I can give you several examples of that. But our own research has really, like, broken those initial assumptions.

Just giving a small example: 40:29

my PhD was on social capital and political participation, and one of the core assumptions in social capital research, by Robert Putnam, is that basically, in order to build trust, people need to take part in associations— that trust is built in associations. People get together. Similarly, in relation to migrants, there’s this really strong thesis that is sort of accepted in migration research that people are prejudiced towards migrants because they haven’t seen them. They haven’t really met them, and then they have that prejudice, right? And when they actually see them and meet them, then that prejudice breaks down. But actually, what we find in our research is that, talking about these associations, for example, if you look at the Central and Eastern European countries, and specifically in the ‘90s, or even after that, political parties—oftentimes young people join with this idealistic thought that, you know,“Wow, you know, this is going to be great. I’m going to do these beautiful things.” And then actually reality sets in, and actually how the associations happen, how these associations work, that they really need to work for this funding, that they have to take into consideration the interests of the donors, and blah, blah, blah. So basically, what can happen is that this can actually reduce the trust. And again, with migrants as well. If you meet the wrong kind of migrants, it can actually reduce the trust. So, it’s just not so obvious as we sometimes think, right? And this is interesting because most of the social sciences, the top literature, has been developed in Western European countries and follows that understanding of people that come from those countries. And then you move to other contexts, such as, for example, Central and Eastern European countries, and these assumptions break down. And if you move even further down, move, for example, to Southeast Asia, and try to apply the concept of social capital, for example, which is a completely different world. So, this is why it’s so important to have this comparative research. Thank you for this explanation. It’s a great example. It makes it at least understandable how it works and how it doesn’t work as well. Taking into account your research mobility—you worked at Yale, at Washington University—how do you see this research mobility affecting your research in immigration? Right. I think the United States was a big influence for me because, like, having seen and having talked to scholars at Yale, I mean, you really see that you’re almost like in a center of the scientific world, where you have these top people that you’ve only read their works, and then they are, like, in front of you. And then you have all these UN representatives and top journalists, like from The New York Times, and so on, just coming in and talking in seminars, and it’s just absolutely amazing. So, on the other hand, what I also saw was that even in those centers of knowledge, it also imposes a certain limitation. In a sense that, for example, for them, they were only interested in the very, very topical things right now, what is happening. As a scholar from Europe, I think that it’s worth that we really study our region as well, and there’s a lot that we can add to the knowledge globally by really immersing ourselves into our region, into our experiences— historical ones and social ones and so on, political ones— not just focusing on those massive things that are really talked about in the whole world. But again, what also impacted me was the general way of thinking about migration as well, is that basically you can really have this ambitious thought. You can really think about different regions. You can talk about, like, not just focus on your narrow region, but you can really try to seek for similarities. You can try to seek for different cases all over the world, all over history, right? And you can be ambitious in your methodological idea. You can be ambitious. You will always find support if you really know what you want to do and if you have that ambitious idea. And Americans, they are really like that. They’re really trying to help you and support you if you have that ambitious, great idea. And I think this is really what the ERC grant is also about: to try to push that frontier in knowledge, right? And I think that this is important for European science to be competitive. And do you think that your soft skills in communicating with absolutely different people from different, maybe also scientific disciplines— definitely you are not communicating only with political science or those who study migration and immigration, etc.— so do you think that it helped you in respect that when you get this knowledge, when you understand what you know, and then when you have this ambitious idea of yours, do you think that these soft skills really help? And since when do you need to acquire this? Because sometimes in academia we actually lack them. We are working on our subject, and why do we need other people on that, apart from reading, research, studying, etc.? So what would be your advice for early-career researchers? How to start? Where to start? Well, I can give you my perspective, because I think it’s an interesting case in point. Because being from a small country like Latvia, I realized really early during my doctoral studies that there are very few people in my country that are interested in the topic that I’m interested in. So really, there were not that many people who would be able to help me with this. There were not many—in my case, I was interested, for example, in social capital, I was interested in comparative analysis methods, I was interested in political socialization, things like this. And basically there were no seminars about this constantly taking place as they did in Denmark or the Netherlands and so on, right? So I was on my own. So if I wanted to learn, the only thing was to go out, to go abroad. And I did. I did go to as many conferences and seminars and workshops and summer schools abroad as I could, because this was the only place where I could meet people who were interested in the same things. And that’s how I built these networks. Because if I only stayed within my country, I would never grow. I would just never grow. And I think sometimes, like, thinking about Poland, for example, sometimes there was an opposite problem. I worked there for almost five years. Sometimes there were people who mostly worked just in Poland and just did not really communicate, maybe among the older generation, probably. The younger generation is really, really strong. But again, if you only communicate and work with people in your country, you’re really limiting your growth. Because these days, science is international. And as I said, sometimes it gives you so much more. Many new ideas, innovative ideas, only come from that comparison. Because living in your own country, well, you don’t know what is a lot, what is little, what is normal, what is great, what is wonderful, because you don’t have that point of comparison, right? So, yeah, it’s absolutely essential. And also, talking specifically about the ERC proposal, in my case, and for others as well, when you are preparing for an interview, it’s important for you to have that mock panel, right? And I worked on this really, really carefully. I studied the profiles of the experts involved in previous years. I had a little portfolio for each of them, really, like, what are their research topics, where are they from, and what kind of disciplines? So I really wanted to build my mock panel so that it would reflect those competences in those countries. So what really helped me was that I knew people who would fit that profile, because I had been in many different countries, met different people, so I was able to build that mock panel, which was extremely useful for me. Yeah, so these contacts helped. And obviously, before submitting the proposal, I also sent them my proposal to give me some feedback. And again, these are people from different countries, from different disciplines. They will notice different things that maybe you and your team would never notice. And that was the mistake the year before, actually, because I made a mock panel mostly from people from my own surroundings, and they didn’t notice the things that the panel noticed. And there were also strange questions from them, yes? Yeah. Like, for example, the year before, with the question— and I had planned to do massive fieldwork of 6,000 interviews per country. One of the questions that I got was like,"Why do you need subcontracting? Why don't you do these interviews yourself?" And I was like, "6,000?" And, you know, as a sociologist, I was like, "What?" But the thing is that none of the people on the panel were sociologists. So obviously, if you come from a different field, like, I don't know, environmental science or history or something, some of these things are not obvious because they use different methods and different disciplines, right? So you have to be prepared to answer and to explain these things to anybody who's maybe not in your discipline. But that was my mistake. And, yeah, another one asked about this historical example of, I don't know, Yugoslavia or something like that. Again you need to be prepared pour this kind of questions. Then… Was it Yugoslavia? Probably, yeah. But, you know, that's the thing. This is why it's so important to really try to understand the panel, to understand—it's really a useful lesson for all situations— that you need to understand your audience, who you're talking to. Actually, the first step to success in ERC, I think, is really choosing the right panel that you're applying for. Like, in my case, it was actually really difficult because I'm a sociologist, but none of the panels had, or was really very, very close to, what I was planning to do. So I chose a panel, SH7, which is human geography and environment and space. Very broad. Yes, it’s really, really broad. It's mostly geographers and people working in environmental science. So again, when I'm talking to people from these fields, I need to understand, for example, what kind of theories are they familiar with, and maybe I need to explain certain things better for somebody who's not from my own field, right? So this is something definitely to consider when applying. For me, what you're talking about, the idea is, of course, of great importance, but this preparation takes an enormous, I think, amount of time—much more than writing this proposal, actually. It takes more to prepare, to screen, to understand what the people on the panel... And especially what gives it the additional pressure, I think, is this interview, like, live interview, where you live, in Brussels? No, no, no. You were remotely. The first two years, it was live. After COVID, I think, yes, it was remotely. The first time I applied was the Starting Grant phase. That was in 2014–15, I think. Oh, it's before. Yeah, that's before COVID. So a few times I got to go to Brussels, and I thought that this was even more pressure than when it was online, despite the technical challenges, of course. Because if you're online, at least you're in your own space, you're someplace where you feel comfortable with. But I think really a key to not being too stressed is that you have, like, practice and practice and practice and practice this, so that you can be woken up in the middle of the night and you can have that five-minute speech just, like, from the top of your head. So that was what I was working on. And, to be honest, I think that this was the difference also between the first time when I applied and the last time, was that I really put in a lot of work into preparing. For example, I was preparing all of the possible questions that the panel might ask. I had everything written down with really short and pointed answers to each and every possible potential question. So I had, like, 50 pages of possible questions— some that I figured out might come up based on the panel, some that my mock panel asked me. So, like, really pointed questions. So that was, like, a lot of work went into this. And then, of course, you know, presenting, presenting, presenting that five-minute presentation to get it, like, so that it's, like, five minutes and 59, right? And it was. It really was. Because, like, the first few times that I applied, I ran over the limit, and then they need to stop you, and then it's, like, it's really, like, a bad start. So, yeah. And the last time, like, perfect. And then the thing, you know, the thing that made the difference was that the last time, the successful time, none of the questions that the panel asked me surprised me. I was really prepared, like, for anything that they could ask. And I think this really made the difference because it leaves a really good impression, right? But you know what you're talking about. And even, you know, some things—well, people will have an opinion. They might choose a different method, they might, you know, choose a different country and things like that. But you need to be, like, sure about your own decisions, in a sense that,"Yes, I know. But there's a different way you could look at this, there's a different method, but this is my approach, and I'm sure about this because of this, this and that." You know? Yeah, short, concise, logically coherent, etc. Everything, but we really need to take into the… Yes, yes. Actually, this is another mistake of mine in the previous rounds: that you try to squeeze too much into this. Again, it’s not going to be good. It has to be really streamlined. It has to be really concise around this one idea, new concept, new theory, new idea, just like… Do you think that, like, returning to the old-school style, when we had oral exams at university, would help a little bit in this respect for future ERC grantees applying? Because sometimes we are not prepared. We are used to writing something, typing. Typing is another way of our communication. But oral presentation is a real challenge. Yeah, it’s true that, for example, discussions could help. Not maybe oral exams, but presenting more, discussing more, being critical, also receiving critical comments and responding to them without taking them personally, things like this. Because sometimes I feel that here people don’t want to criticize their friends and colleagues, just like, “No, no, everything’s fine, everything’s good.” But you need those critical comments. And I’m like, “Well, please be critical. Please destroy my proposal. Just find anything that you can criticize.” There’s “No, it’s all perfect, it’s all beautiful,” but it doesn’t really help you. You need that criticism. Right. And another thing is, I think that here in Latvia, maybe in the region in general, we are used to being more humble, in a sense that you—and especially in your own proposal— you always notice all these little details that are maybe not perfect, and you tend to focus on that. It’s like,“Well, maybe it’s not so… Does it really add so much? But maybe, you know, maybe this and that,” and then you start doubting yourself. But you need that little bit of arrogance, a little bit of, you know, ambition. It’s like, “I mean, this is brilliant. This is wonderful. I have this super idea,” and just, like, have more confidence in yourself and be a little bit more, like, arrogant about this, right? On the other hand, what I also realize is that, like, presentation is one thing; it’s a second step. But oftentimes, in my own country, people even don’t get to that second step, the interview. Actually, the first step, putting together that proposal, is where many stumble. And so it’s really also about the writing. And also, as I understand, when you already get to the interview stage, the grade is almost set by then. So basically, you can range it, but in the interview you can improve your score a little bit. You can definitely lower the score if you, you know, if you can’t answer some basic questions and things like that. But you would not be able to raise your score by a lot just by the interview if you don’t have a good proposal. So I think what I would have done differently if I applied again, I would have put more work into the first phase, into the writing, because that’s the crucial part. Because in my case, I actually put much more work into the second phase than the first one. Yeah. Thank you very much. If you would like to add something, to tell something, as our podcast is more focused on early-career researchers, maybe some advice for them—how to apply, how not to apply, and a little bit also on the idea side, on shaping the idea. So it means to be open about your idea. And you know, people are curious whether their idea will be stolen and implemented by someone else. But maybe to encourage them to be a little bit more open and seek support. What would be your advice on that? Well, definitely seek support. But I think really at the core of it is really having that vision, having that ambition that this is what you want to do, this is what you want to go for, and that you’re good enough. Because sometimes we feel like, I mean, well, maybe, you know, I don’t have that many groundbreaking publications, and I’m not ready yet, and so on. No. If you have that brilliant idea, just—it’s important just to dare and to apply, and then you see what happens. And even if you’re not successful the first time, you will learn, and you will fall, and you will stand up again, and you will apply again. And at some point, really, persistence pays off,

as my case shows: 59:53

four times in the final, and finally the success. Fourth time’s the charm. Yes, fourth time’s the charm. So, yeah, I really hope to see in the future more proposals from Latvia and from the Baltic region in general, because I think that our science is becoming much more competitive in the latest years. We have a lot of support from our institutions, and we're doing what we can. And of course, as a new ERC grantee myself, I will be tring to help my peers, you know, to encourage them to apply and to be successful. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for joining us on this episode of the EURAXESS Smart Talks podcast. We hope you enjoyed this conversation and gained valuable insight into the ERC and the mERCury project. Stay connected with us for more episodes featuring leading researchers and ERC-funded innovations. You can follow us on the ERC website, our social media profiles, or wherever you listen to podcasts. This episode was prepared by hosts Darja Aksjonova and Jovan Aranđelović and editor Iser Pier.