Discussions are a crucial part of the research process. Research events that include more discussion-based sessions have gained in popularity over the past two decades. It is suggested that this shift highlights the significance of more collaborative events to enhance the social research process. However, it is not clear how we can be sure such discussions are really benefiting the process – evaluating the production of knowledge coming out of these types of events is challenging. This article demonstrates how phronetic interpretive analysis has proven to be a useful evaluation method to assess the knowledge-building potential of collaborative research events. We present the case of the evaluation of an Australasian Early Career Urban Research Network (AECURN) symposium of early-career urban researchers, an event organised to share and discuss research and knowledge about urban studies and place. The conclusions demonstrate both the knowledge-building potential of discussions within ECR symposiums and the theoretical framework used to facilitate its application to the evaluation of other research network event initiatives.

In this paper we reflect on our experiences of applying for formal ethics approval and how these have conditioned our research encounters. We draw attention to the disconnect between formal ethics procedures and protocols and the messiness of research realities. We argue that universities seek to govern research activities through rigid research protocols that privilege 'safe' research designs and practices. Instead, we call for a more flexible and reflective ethics in practice that goes beyond obtaining institutional approval and considers the intricacies of real world research.

This paper reflects on researcher trauma in the discipline of geography. I explore ways to build a framework for researcher self-care by facilitating conversations about mental health in collaboration with Human Research Ethics Committees, Professional and Organisational Development Services and Workplace Health and Safety units. My journey towards recognising vicarious trauma amongst researchers happened when after six years of interviews with bushfire survivors, firefighters, and residents fearful of the potential threat of bushfire, I observed a growing personal inability to manage seemingly inconsequential tasks both physically and mentally. The thought of vicarious traumatisation seemed alien, as the pervading feeling during interviews had always been a sense of calm rooted in gratitude towards the participants for sharing their intensely personal experiences and emotions. Analysing and writing about these experiences seemed a suitable way to simultaneously process any internal reaction to these stories. This, it appears, was a vast underestimation of the potential accumulative effect of many years of indirect exposure to high-impact events. Facing the consequences of what my research was doing to my own health, led me on a hard but rewarding journey of thinking and exploring ways to better promote and facilitate self-care for researchers in geography.