Dr. Branka Milivojevic
Data & AI Advisor, Nederlandse Spoorwegen
Who is Branka?
What is your career path?
Branka: I’d describe my career path as a long and winding road with lots of twists and turns. I did my Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Anthropology, followed by an MSc, and then a PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience, at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Before and after my PhD, I also held support roles as a Lab Manager and later as a Data Analyst at the same University. After I defended my PhD in 2008, I held multiple postdoc positions until 4 years ago when I left academia to pursue a career in the Data and AI sector. Since then, I have held several roles at NS, initially as a Data Scientist and then also a Scrum Master, and now a Data & AI Advisor.
What is your postdoc experience?
Branka: Just like the rest of my career, my postdoc experience has been quite non-linear and quite long as well. I was a postdoc for 13 years, working at four different Universities, one in the UK and three in the Netherlands, and I also worked in a start-up. My research focus evolved over time and included visual perception to memory, (film) narrative perception and memory, language, communication, and marketing. In that time, my job title didn’t change but my role had evolved. Initially, I was primarily doing research, while later I had also picked up teaching, admin, and management tasks. It’s been quite a ride.
During this time, I grew both personally and professionally, but I still started feeling uncertain of my prospects in academia. For example, I was promised a new appointment after my maternity leave, if I stepped down for six months, but the role became unavailable due to funding issues. Another time I was given a permanent contract “on paper” but was discouraged of reapplying after the grant ended.
I think everyone has had experiences like that, but after years of applying for both grants and Assistant Professorships and getting rejected over and over, my confidence that I will “make it” had been eroded. Despite growing professionally and developing a range of new “transferable” skills, I didn’t really feel like I was qualified for anything else. In the end, lack of prospects along with extra responsibilities made academia less attractive, although, I did receive significant support from colleagues and enjoyed access to funding and professional development opportunities.
How did you transit to non-academic work?
Branka: As I already mentioned, I felt very ambivalent towards the end but also quite unsure what else I can do. To gain inspiration I made sure I talked to people who were leaving academia: I would make sure that I went to say ‘goodbye’ and join the cake-and-drinks. I also always asked: Hey, what are you going to do next? Where are you going? And then, a few months later, I would set up meetings with them to see how they were doing. I was just really curious.
By talking to my former colleagues, I found my skill gaps. Two main things that stood out to me were that I would have a larger range of potential employers if I could speak Dutch at a professional level and that my preferred programming language (MATLAB) was not the preferred language outside of academia. I started closing that gap by taking more Dutch classes and following bootcamps online to learn Python, and also picked up new analysis toolboxes on my academic projects where I could practice with other programming languages like Python and R.
Another thing about talking to people is that, they often know a position that's available or someone who is looking. And so, one of my old colleagues, who was and still is at NS, reached out to me to say that they are expanding his team and would I be interested in applying. So, I applied for the position and sort of over-prepared for my interview – I really went all in, with a mini research project on a topic they were working on, and they were super impressed, and I got the job. I guess there's a benefit in being an academic, just generally over preparing and having extremely high standards.
What differences do you experience with non-academic work?
Branka: A big distinction between academia and industry is the difference in priorities about excellence and value. In academia, we prioritize excellence and novelty over practically anything else. We think things through and come up with big ideas and big projects and take time to bring them to completion. But in industry, maximizing value is vitally important as that is the source of revenue. We start small, decide on a minimum viable product which generates value, and then iterate it to make it better. The flip side is that innovation can fall by the wayside and outside academia innovation often takes the form of small pilot initiatives to gauge what will scale well and what is likely to fail. So, there is an inherent difference in approach: thinking things through vs trying stuff out. I think we can all learn a lot from each other if we strengthened the communication between academia and industry and discussed how we approached similar challenges.
Branka’s Portrait of Postdocs
What does postdoc mean to you?
Branka: I see a real gap between what postdocs should be and what they actually are. In my opinion, postdocs should be carving out their own research paths and gearing up to run their own labs—kind of like PI training. I think in the US, that’s how it’s viewed, but in Europe, it often feels more like postdocs are the middle managers between the PI and PhD students.
What would (not) fall under postdocs’ responsibility?
Branka: Again, there’s a gap between what I think postdocs should be doing and what they actually end up doing. When I did my PhD, the message was just: do good work and you’ll be fine. No one talked about being strategic or thinking ahead. In my view, postdocs should focus on research, teaching, and sharing knowledge—and also be applying for funding and mentoring others. But in reality, it’s way more about figuring out where you fit and taking charge of your own path.
Postdocs’ roles in other aspects?
Branka: There is more emphasis and pressure on getting involved with other activities, because doing great research is simply not enough to get you a job. Getting a grant is a very big gamble. Should you apply for grants? For sure. But the chance of getting a grant is getting smaller and smaller. And what sort of funding should you be applying for? The big grants are very low likelihood, and the small grants don’t have a high impact. Should you be teaching? I think within the contracts as we get, teaching is not strictly needed, and it might even be discouraged by the PI. At the same time, if you apply for an assistant professorship, they'll want someone who can teach.
Postdocs’ roles in their own career development?
Branka: As I mentioned earlier, postdocs need to take charge of positioning themselves in the academic landscape. To facilitate that, postdocs should carefully consider their next career steps. If you want an assistant professorship, then you do whatever is necessary to develop skills needed for that role. If you are not sure about what is needed, you should get in touch with people from institutions of interest and ask what is needed and then think about how you can build up your CV to match that profile. Networking, talking to people can really help as you hear about jobs and can be recommended for them via your network.
One colleague gave me really useful advice that more direct inquiries are more effective than being indirect about what I want. Just ask potential employers: Are you hiring? When will you be recruiting? Would you consider me a strong candidate, and why/why not? Thinking back on it, I don't think I appreciated these things enough at the time.
But, doing that is not as easy for everyone. As a postdoc, you're often moving internationally and have to adapt to new cultures and re-establish networks each time you move so it is more difficult to make those informal connections that might help you land that next job. Cultural differences in communication style can also affect networking. For instance, I've spent a third of my life in Serbia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands each. In some of these cultures, I am too outspoken and too direct, while in others, I'm too timid. So, what works in some cultures doesn’t in others, and it can pose added challenges in developing a strong network within the intended geographical location.
Support in career development
Were you supported in your career development?
Branka: Yes and no. When I began my career in the early 2000s, my professors expected me to stay in academia, and alternative paths were never discussed. I studied psychology and anthropology for my bachelor's, followed by a master's and PhD in Cognitive Neuroscience. I assumed I would do a post-doc and eventually become an Assistant Professor, but I received little guidance on how to achieve this during my PhD or postdocs. Over time, however, conversations about career options at the start of a postdoc became more common.
Was there support from your organization?
Branka: During the later stages of my postdoctoral work, I was nominated for a career development program for women designed to support leadership skills among female academics. This provided me with opportunities, although I believe I could have gained more from it if I had clearer professional goals at that time. Additionally, the grant I was on included a personal development budget, which allowed me to hire a career coach; this resource was valuable in helping me prepare for a career transition outside academia. In hindsight, accessing career coaching earlier could have helped me strategically plan my professional decisions and prioritization. Career coaching can be super helpful at various important career-decision points, not only when considering leaving academia.
What academic qualities do you bring with you for your current work?
Branka: Honestly, all of them. My work topics have shifted, but my method is still the same: I analyze a situation and find the right solution, whether in analytics, project management, or advising stakeholders.
In academia, we adapt quickly, seize new opportunities, and handle projects independently, which mirrors the agility many organizations aspire towards. Although people often think intellectual freedom is lacking outside academia, I believe it's an internal quality that you bring to any role, so it stays with you wherever you go. It’s an asset you bring to the table.
What are the positive things about non-academic work?
Branka: Work-life balance is way better now—your job isn't your whole identity anymore. There's less pressure to constantly do more; strict deadlines only pop up now and then, and teammates help each other out so no one's overwhelmed.
The company really encourages personal growth. You get access to all sorts of coaching and training, both inside and outside the organization. Plus, chatting with your manager about your own development plan is just part of the routine.
This is just my take from working at NS, and it might not be the same everywhere. Still, I feel like most non-academic jobs make work-life balance easier to reach than academia.