In this blog Ben Hanley, chair of the Opening up Photonics steering committee interviews Eleni Margariti, who holds a PhD in Physics and works as a research scientist specialising in hybrid integrated opto-electronic systems and devices.
In part two of our interview, Eleni covers the contrast between Greek and UK physics academic systems, closing a coding gap after moving to Scotland, trust-based mentorship, photonics’ real-world impact, women in STEM, and bridging academia–industry.
What is your experience of education in Greece versus education in the UK, but also that difference between living and growing up in Greece and then having to settle in Scotland and how you found that?
There are certainly many differences between Greece and the UK, and to be honest, many of those differences extend beyond these two countries and can be seen between Greece and other European nations as well. One of the biggest differences I’ve noticed is in the structure and philosophy of the educational systems, particularly in the field of physics.
In Greece, the undergraduate degree is much broader and, in many ways, more demanding. Physics students are expected to gain deep theoretical exposure to a wide range of subjects — from cosmology and solid-state physics to atmospheric physics, nuclear physics, and beyond. The emphasis is on developing a comprehensive foundation across many areas of the discipline, often with rigorous mathematical underpinnings. You don’t become an expert in just one subject during your degree, but it trains you to think critically and conceptually, and to understand the physical world from multiple perspectives. I believe this breadth of knowledge cultivates strong problem-solving skills and a deep appreciation of fundamental scientific principles — qualities that are central to becoming a well-rounded physicist.
In contrast, I found that physics education in the UK, particularly at the undergraduate level, tends to be more focused and application-oriented. Students are encouraged to specialise earlier and develop expertise in a narrower domain. This can be highly advantageous when preparing for specific roles in industry or applied research, as the curriculum is closely aligned with practical skills and employability.
This brings me to another important difference I personally encountered: programming. In Greece, at least during my time as a student, programming was not part of the core physics curriculum. As a result, when I came to the UK, I quickly realised I lacked essential coding skills, which were crucial for handling large datasets, running simulations, or working in data-driven roles in both research and industry. This was a gap I had to fill on my own, and it highlighted how critical such skills have become in the modern scientific and professional landscape.
Now, whether one system is “better” than the other is difficult to say — they each have their strengths and weaknesses. The Greek system offers a rich, foundational, and highly theoretical education, while the UK system is often more aligned with the practical demands of industry and research careers. In a way, I feel fortunate to have experienced both. The Greek system gave me the intellectual flexibility and theoretical grounding, and the UK environment taught me how to apply that knowledge in a targeted and practical way. Bridging these two approaches has been incredibly valuable for my development as a physicist and as a professional.
Moving to the UK was a big step for me, as it was the first time I had ever been abroad — not even for holidays. Everyone was very welcoming here. After the first month or two, I became more comfortable living, working, and communicating in English on a daily basis.
One of the main reasons I decided to leave Greece was the lack of opportunities for innovation, particularly in research. Unfortunately, funding for scientific research at that level— especially in the field of photonics — is quite limited there.
Do you have any idea of the percentage of women in Greece that are getting into technology degrees? Is it similar to the UK from what you’re seeing?
I know that this is quite low, I remember even from my university, I think it was just me and about ten other girls in the entire physics department. From what I’ve seen, most of the women I know who are involved in science tend to be in fields like biology or other life sciences.
I’m not exactly sure why this is the case. Historically, women have always been part of science, but they often didn’t receive the recognition they deserved. For example, everyone knows Pythagoras, the famous Greek mathematician, but very few people know about Themistoclea — the woman who is believed to have taught him. So women were always there, contributing to science, but their work was often overlooked.
That said, I don’t believe that, especially in today’s world, there are any real limitations stopping women from pursuing science. I think there are many more opportunities now than in the past, and ultimately, it comes down to personal choice and interest.
What’s the best advice or support that you’ve been given?
Undoubtedly, the most significant support I received during my PhD came from my supervisor, who also happens to be my current line manager. From the very beginning, our relationship went far beyond the traditional student-supervisor dynamic. Rather than imposing a top-down, directive approach, he fostered a highly collaborative environment where my input was genuinely valued. He consistently encouraged me to explore new ideas and gave me the autonomy to shape the direction of my research.
One of the most empowering aspects of his mentorship was the trust he placed in me. He would offer guidance, suggest different paths or perspectives, but he never dictated the process. Instead, he was always open to hearing my ideas, challenging them constructively when necessary, and ultimately giving me the freedom to pursue them if I believed in their potential. This was especially important because a large portion of my PhD work involved developing something entirely new — there wasn’t a predefined template to follow. I would come to him and say, “I have this idea; I believe it can work like this,” and he would respond with genuine openness and trust, encouraging me to move forward.
This mutual respect and trust proved to be extremely beneficial for both of us. It allowed me to grow not only as a researcher but also as an independent thinker. I felt empowered to take initiative, make decisions, and take ownership of my work — all while knowing that he was there to support me if needed.
Even now, after completing my PhD, our professional relationship continues in the same spirit. As I transition into more senior responsibilities, he is giving me the opportunity to lead not only my own projects but also to oversee additional ones. He continues to provide guidance when needed and offers thoughtful suggestions, but he also gives me the confidence that he fully trusts my judgment and leadership. Knowing that he believes in my ability to succeed independently has been incredibly motivating and rewarding.
Overall, his mentorship has played a critical role in shaping my development, not just during my PhD, but also as I move forward in my career. It has been a truly collaborative, supportive, and inspiring partnership.
In terms of advice, I’m not sure if it was traditional advice, but rather encouragement — specifically, encouragement to explore my own ideas. It was more about asking the right questions: Do you have an idea? Could it work? How would it work? What would it cost? How would you communicate it? That kind of guidance helped me think more critically and take ownership of my ideas, turning them into something real and actionable.
I love that because what comes through is that sense of adventure. Moving country, exploring what can work scientifically and communicating that passion for technology development.
Since the beginning, what I loved about Photonics is that constant challenge! Challenging me to think both fundamentally and practically, so whether it is to understand, let’s say the light matter interaction or engineering a fabrication method. I want to work on the blend of theory and application, and there is something uniquely satisfying being able to observe the effect of your work quite literally in action. I think that Photonics in general is somehow nature that is fundamental science, but it has real applications that are rapidly growing.
What particular challenges do you feel you’ve had to overcome in life or in your career so far?
I would say that, at the undergraduate level, it’s often difficult to figure out exactly what area of physics you want to pursue. Physics is such a broad field, and there are so many directions you can take. I found this quite challenging in the beginning.
One of the first things I realised was that I wanted to do research that has a real impact. I’ve always been more drawn to experimental work — I enjoy being hands-on and building or testing things myself. Also I found that it was much easier for me to think things in micro scale rather than in a bigger scale.
Another common challenge for many physics students is deciding whether to continue in academia or move into industry. Personally, I’ve found myself somewhere in between, working in a role that bridges both worlds. I think this is another big decision people have to make — whether they enjoy the more technical, research-driven path or are more interested in the business, communication, and practical side of things.
What I’ve discovered is that it’s possible to enjoy both. There’s a significant gap between academia and industry, and that’s actually one of the reasons I enjoy the role I have now. I’m actively working to bridge that gap — through outreach, collaboration with companies, and communication with people outside of academia who may not be aware of the exciting research happening in universities.
In academia, research is often done because it’s important from a scientific or theoretical standpoint, but without always having a clear real-world application in mind. Through outreach and engagement with industry, we can help guide that research toward practical uses. For me, the main motivation is to help advance the field of photonics. It’s a multidisciplinary effort — combining physics, materials science, simulation, and collaboration — and it’s through that collaboration that we can truly bring photonics technologies into real-world applications.
What can industry do to engage future employees? How do we reach out, inspire and get people to sign up for the physics courses in the first place and then to go and pursue a career in this amazing industry?
I believe company open days are a fantastic idea. Having the opportunity to visit a company, see their labs, and observe their work environment provides a direct connection to the industry. It gives you a much clearer understanding of what day-to-day work looks like, which I think is incredibly valuable.
Many people are not familiar enough with photonics and don’t really understand what it involves. That’s why I believe it’s especially important to introduce these concepts early on, particularly to school students, but also to the general public. Showing how photonics is embedded in everyday technologies can make a big difference.
For example, explaining fibre optic communications, lighting systems, displays, or the sensors in smartphone cameras can really help people relate to the field. If you put a phone screen under a microscope and show them the pixels, then explain how those pixels are made and how they work. Sharing these kinds of examples helps to engage and inspire people, making photonics more accessible and exciting.
