At the intersection of several disciplines, Enora Denimal Goy's pathway towards rigorous and committed research

History & background

Can you describe your academic background?

I have a fairly conventional background. I took the “fast track”, with a preparatory course in Rennes, followed by an engineering degree at École Centrale in Lyon. Right from the start, I had the idea of pursuing a PhD. The doctorate was a decisive stage: three years to explore a subject in depth, build something, make mistakes and start over again.

The PhD allowed me to devote three years to my own scientific ‘baby’. At last, I really had the time to get to the bottom of things.

Your PhD focused on a very concrete topic: brake noise. Can you tell us more about it?

Yes, I worked on the phenomenon of brake squeal – the very unpleasant noise you hear when a train arrives at a station or when a bicycle brakes. This vibration phenomenon is extremely difficult to predict numerically, as it is heavily dependent on the environment: temperature, humidity, conditions of use, and so on.

The aim of my PhD was to develop methods capable of accounting for these sources of variability in models, so that more robust systems could then be designed. The PhD was carried out in partnership with PSA-Peugeot, and it was highly satisfying to see that, even if the method itself was not their immediate priority, the results were of concrete interest to engineers.

Why did you choose research rather than a career in corporate life?

What truly motivates me is understanding. During my studies, I was sometimes frustrated by skimming over subjects without ever really delving into them. Research enables me to focus on a problem over the long term and to analyse it from every angle. I’ve never wanted to work for a company; what interests me is the long term, exploration and the right to make mistakes. The PhD allowed me to make a total commitment to a scientific problem and to explore it in great detail. 

You then undertook a post-doctorate fellowship at Imperial College London. What did you gain from this experience?

A great deal, both scientifically and personally. Scientifically, I discovered a different way of doing research. In France, we’re very attached to equations and formal proof, whereas British scientists sometimes adopt a more intuitive and experimental approach. At the time, this can be unsettling when doing maths, but this difference proved to be highly complementary.

I was working as part of a very international team, which fostered genuine openness to other cultures – both scientific and social – and other ways of working. Comparing different perspectives and practices enabled me to take a step back from my own habits and enrich my own approach to research problems.

On a personal level, it was also a defining experience. Moving to London was a childhood dream, but arriving in a city of almost eight million people without knowing anyone was a formidable adventure. London, with its highly international character and different social codes, forced me to question myself, overcome certain preconceptions and broaden my perspective on the world.

Research & ambition

What subjects are you currently working on, and what is your daily routine in the Platon team?

I work on uncertainty quantification applied to various engineering problems. The general idea is not to treat numerical models as perfect, but to take account of the fact that there are always uncertainties relating to parameters, materials and conditions of manufacture or use.

In particular, I am developing a research project on uncertainty propagation in vibratory phenomena. The aim is to efficiently predict the vibrations of a structure despite a large number of uncertain parameters by drawing on fast surrogate models and a physics-guided breakdown of the problem. 

Alongside my research, my day-to-day work entails the provision of support for five PhD students. 

For example, I am currently supervising a PhD student working on the optimisation of structures manufactured using metal 3D printing. We know that these processes generate defects, which may affect the strength or lifespan of parts. The aim is therefore to design geometries that remain efficient despite these manufacturing imperfections and their gradual wear under repeated loading. 

Optimising a system without taking account of uncertainty means designing for a world that doesn't exist.

You work at the interface of several disciplines. How does this situation affect you?

I find myself straddling two disciplines. I wouldn’t really define myself as a mathematician; I’d say I’m more of a mechanical engineer and dynamicist with a strong mathematical sensitivity. I used to be the somewhat mathematically inclined person amongst mechanical engineers. Today, I'm considered the one with a more mechanical background amongst mathematicians.

It's not always a comfortable position, because it can generate a feeling of illegitimacy, but that's also what I enjoy. Being at the interface, building bridges between disciplines and translating issues from one field to another – I find that fascinating.

Gender equality & inclusion

Is it challenging to be a woman in such male-dominated fields?

This is a complex issue, because when I left engineering school, I was in a way “trained” to evolve within these sexist standards; I considered it normal. For a long time, I wasn't even aware of certain sexist situations because they were so commonplace. 

With hindsight, I realise what an emotional burden this was. My experience in England really helped me to become aware of these issues, and today I systematically report inappropriate behaviour.

What made you want to stay in research despite these difficulties?

Because I deeply love what I do. There are difficult aspects to the profession, and the working conditions can be complicated, but there's a core that I'm really passionate about, and the presence of friendly colleagues helps me to put things into perspective and get through the tough times.

I refuse to give up the fight or leave the research because of a few individuals; it's up to them to leave, not me.

It's also what prompted me to become involved in a number of bodies, starting with the local Gender Equality Committee at the University of Rennes Inria Centre, and then at national level. Even if can sometimes be frustrating and wearisome, I think it's necessary.

What message would you like to send out to young women who are hesitant about embarking on a career in research?

They have every right to their place in research, even if that place is not easy to take, and it is up to us – the scientific community – to make it accessible to them. They don't necessarily need a “vocation”, they just need to be interested. The digital sciences are extremely varied, far beyond the stereotypes.

Research needs people with different profiles, different sensitivities and from different social or cultural backgrounds. That's how will obtain a science that is more representative of society and more relevant to today's challenges.

We will conduct better research when it truly reflects society in all its diversity.

“Women Making Digital” is a series highlighting the careers and achievements of women scientists whose research in the digital sciences is shaping our future. For this tenth edition, we spoke to Enora Denimal Goy, a researcher in the Platon project team at the Inria Saclay Centre.