Women in Wetlands

Beyond Strunk and White

2012-01-29T13:17:00.000-06:00

We've been considering sentences and how to write them.

I mentioned in the first post in this series, the book by Stanley Fish called How to Write a Sentence. He writes initially about how grammar books (e.g., Strunk and White) focus on form, but on aspects of form that are detached from the underlying form that must already be in place before one begins worrying about grammar and punctuation. Such books assume that the writer already has the skill to write a well-constructed sentence, to be able to express a complete thought with a subject and predicate, and to link thoughts together coherently in a sentence. They consequently focus on the technical aspects of grammar and punctuation, especially on those rules that people find difficult to remember and apply. There's nothing wrong with this approach--it is indispensable information that writers need to be successful. What Fish means is that grammar books skip over a very important aspect of writing, which is how to organize one's thoughts in a logical manner and to do so within the space of a single sentence. The latter is what Fish's book attempts to address.

Fish's point is important because without a basic understanding of how to express one's ideas in a logical manner and in a way that captures the reader's attention, the ability to correctly punctuate is not very important (except to pass a test perhaps). Another point he makes and that also occurred to me as I was reading is that the emphasis on grammar and punctuation partly underlies people's fear of writing. Novice writers can become completely frozen at the thought of making a technical error that will be embarrassing. Worse, a writer's ability to freely express themselves is often blocked by the desire to write a perfect sentence (without technical errors) at the first go. I've talked about writing and writer's block previously and ways to overcome it. Perfectionism can underlie some of these writing difficulties, and an emphasis on technical errors can exacerbate them. Perfectionism (and fear of making a technical error) was definitely part of my problem when I first began to write. However, looking back on it, I now think that it was also a lack of understanding of how to construct a sentence in a way that expressed my thoughts clearly and unambiguously.

Fish points out that with practice, a writer develops a grammatical "sixth sense", which enables her to sense that something is wrong with a sentence and then to identify it and correct it. The latter can occur during revision of the writing so as to not interfere with the natural flow of ideas during the act of writing the first draft. Such an ability only comes with practice...lots of it. Once acquired, however, the writer is free to write without worrying over every little grammatical detail, which can be reviewed and corrected later during revision. Of course, experienced writers are able to express their ideas freely while simultaneously making corrections to the grammar and punctuation without blocking the flow of writing. These technical aspects become so ingrained that they are applied to the writing with little thought or consideration. For the novice writer, however, it's best to get the ideas down on paper first and later revise to correct grammar and punctuation. I would argue that it's much more important to get your idea across than to write a perfectly punctuated sentence. There are plenty of examples in literature of fantastic sentences that take your breath away, but that are not punctuated properly, according to Strunk and White.

But back to the point about the underlying form of a sentence. Fish describes an exercise that helps a writer understand sentence form and to practice writing complex sentences. The exercise involves taking a simple, three-word sentence such as, "Mary looked out." and expanding it to form first a fifteen word sentence and then to a sentence of thirty or more words. Here is an example, using this short sentence as a base:

In the middle of her presentation to a standing-room-only audience of top scientists from around the world, Mary, a young post-doctoral researcher, nervously looked out at her mentor sitting in the front row, who had pioneered the topic of her research and had won a Nobel Prize for it and who typically conveyed an intimidating image to anyone facing him, especially in a forum where the speaker could be subjected to public humiliation in front of colleagues, and saw that he was nodding appreciatively at her delivery and content, an action that boosted her confidence enormously and that she later would remember and cherish as she faced more challenging and unfriendly spectators.

Okay, this isn't a literary gem, but it illustrates how the exercise works. I could have written an infinite number of variations on this theme using "Mary looked out." as the basis. I wrote this 112-word sentence spontaneously, with very little thought initially as to what it would describe. The sentence seemed to take on a life of its own as I began to imagine Mary standing in front of an audience (a choice I made after contemplating what Mary might be looking at). I found this exercise to be quite enlightening and fun to conduct. What you begin to recognize in conducting such exercises is how a single sentence can tell a complex and interesting story. The sentence I wrote conveys a huge amount of information about Mary and her apparent relationship with her mentor, even projecting Mary's experience and feelings far into the future (see previous post about time-traveling sentences).

The point is not to develop a writing style that involves long, convoluted sentences, but to develop a sense of how relationships among words give sense and coherence even to lengthy sentences such as this one. The exercise promotes an ease with which a writer can convey complex ideas and thoughts in a logical and clear manner....a skill that is quite useful for technical science writing.

Give this exercise a try and see for yourself.

Back to the Future

2012-01-22T18:39:00.000-06:00

We are discussing sentences and how to write better ones (see previous posts).

An interesting and useful type of sentence is one that covers several time zones: past, present, and future. The quote from the movie, Back to the Future, is written in this form. It takes the listener from the past (last night's visit from Darth Vader) to future consequences (date with Lorraine vs. brain melting). Here are a few more fictional examples I made up to illustrate how this sentence form can work to connect thoughts or events happening at different points in time:

-Having spent all of her life surrounded by modern comforts, she gazed in despair at the rickety outhouse at the end of a gap-toothed pier anticipating the noxious odors within and the indignities awaiting her when she finally would be forced to make use of the facility.

-He thought about last night and what happened as he drove his car, now slightly dented and stained, to his office where he would pretend to be his usual carefree self, laughing at the boss’s jokes and flirting with the female staff.

-I was already halfway out the door to get the mail when I spotted the rock, a chunk of gneiss by the looks of it, sitting forlornly in the middle of the living room floor and only belatedly noted the broken window.

-After struggling to reach the top of the rise, she paused to take in the expansive vista of high desert and distant peaks tinged pink by the setting sun and then again wondered if she would find the child in time.

In each case, the sentence takes us from a point in the past, through the present, and into the future. They generate curiosity and anticipation in the reader. As first sentences in a story, they would stimulate the desire to read on and discover what happens next. Can we use this form in scientific writing? Yes. In fact, I think most of us have used it at one time or another, but never really contemplated what we were doing. Here’s a typical example:

After preconditioning the seedlings for two weeks to ambient conditions in the growth facility, we applied the flooding treatments, which were designed to simulate future sea-level rise scenarios predicted for the end of the 21^st century.

Here’s another fictional example that might appear in an abstract or as an opening statement in the introduction:

To resolve the longstanding controversy surrounding [an important topic], we conducted a meta-analysis of 56 key studies and discovered a methodological pattern explaining 84 % of the conflicting data, an insight that led us to develop a new experimental protocol for future studies.

If I read the above sentence referring to my primary topic of research, wild horses couldn’t tear me away from that paper.

In the last post, I pointed out that the first line in Darwin's treatise, On the Origin of Species, was written in this time-traveling form:

"When on board H.M.S. ‘Beagle,’ as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent.”

This sentence starts the reader in Darwin's past (his journey on the Beagle) and then makes reference to the distant past (geological) and how it relates to the present situation.

This sentence type is clearly useful, but requires some practice to be able to implement successfully (in both fiction and in technical writing). You can practice writing such sentences by making up a few lines, using a fictional or real situation. It's easiest if you restrict yourself to a specific opening word or phrase to begin, such as "after observing" or "had we". For example: "After observing the response under control conditions for one hour, we then proceeded to apply the experimental treatments." Another example: "Had we not included soil controls, our conclusions would have been different." Later, you can try a more complicated sentence that spans past, present, and future. The point of such an exercise is that when you sit down to write your next paper, this form will be in your repertoire. Practicing sentence forms is comparable to practicing scales as a musician. If you practice writing different sentence forms, you will be able to automatically apply those forms to your writing with little effort. An advantage of this sentence form is that it forces you to connect several events (separated in time) in a single sentence instead of a long paragraph. If done well, it can not only save space, but can lead to an elegant and concise summary.

Photo Credit: Still image from Back to the Future, Universal Pictures.

Sentences and Origins

2012-01-20T19:14:00.000-06:00

We've been discussing first sentences in works of literature and science. In the last post, I looked at some recent articles in the journal, Nature. How about first lines in some famous scientific works? Here’s the first sentence in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species:

“When on board H.M.S. ‘Beagle,’ as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent.”

I think this is an interesting opening sentence that not only tells us something about what is to come, but also manages to convey a sense of humility by the author in venturing his insights about the topic, while at the same time subtly establishes his credentials. He doesn’t start off by making some pompous declaration about the importance of his work or boldly stating that he’s an expert about to expound a new theory. Instead, he basically says that during his travels he noticed unique patterns that intrigued him and led to an important insight. Notice that, in describing the process whereby he acquired his insight, he says he was “much struck”. That phrase says a lot and conveys the impression that these patterns were so compelling that he could not help but notice them (and that the reader may also become "struck" by them). Then Darwin uses the term “facts” to describe his observations about the “distribution” of the organisms he observed. That terminology subtly interjects the idea that what he’s about to describe is not mere speculation, but a conclusive truth. He also provides some history about how he came by the knowledge he’s about to describe (serving as a naturalist onboard the Beagle), which tells the reader that he’s no armchair theorist without field experience. He goes on in the rest of the introduction to establish his credentials as a naturalist and author, but this beginning sentence does all that quite succinctly.

Darwin is a bit vague, perhaps deliberately so, in the use of the term, “inhabitants” in the opening sentence. Victorian reviewer, Sir Richard Owen, wonders if Darwin means human inhabitants: “we suppose he means aboriginal inhabitants, of South America, or in their distribution on that continent, to have suggested to any mind that man might be a transmuted ape, or to throw any light on the origin of the human or other species?” As one reads on, it is clear that Darwin meant plant and animal inhabitants of South America. He uses the term “organic beings” and “innumerable species” a few paragraphs later and ultimately explains that he was referring to the distribution of certain animal species (rheas, Galapagos tortoises). I’ve not found anything that explains why Darwin might have used the term inhabitant without being more specific, but then he may have thought it would soon be obvious which inhabitants he was talking about. Owen, who was one of the main reviewers of this work, was a critic of the mechanism of evolution espoused by Darwin and seemed to be looking for points to criticize, particularly in relation to human origins.

Here’s the second sentence:

“These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species –that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.”

Darwin continues his tone of humility, saying that the facts “seemed” to him to reveal something about a “mystery of mysteries” and then acknowledges someone else as the source of that terminology. This sentence announces that what he’s writing about is a deeply important topic. Using the term, “mystery of mysteries” tells the reader that what she’s about to learn is a secret of nature, perhaps a truth that heretofore has been unknowable except by divine revelation. Certainly a puzzle requiring detailed investigation and discovery to unravel. Darwin names this mystery: the origin of species, which reflects back on the title of the work.

He repeats the term “facts”, which again drives home the point that the observations he’s about to describe are concrete and unassailable.

Darwin’s lead sentence has an interesting structure, one that traverses time zones both in describing his personal history as well as the observations upon which his work is based. He refers to his time on the Beagle, a past event. He explicitly links past and present in the sentence (present to the past inhabitants) and then refers to "geological relations", further suggesting that his “facts” cover a huge time span in history, foreshadowing the concept of evolution.

In the next post, I will explore this "time traveling" type of sentence a bit more.

First Impressions

2012-01-17T18:31:00.002-06:00

We are talking about sentences and how to write good ones, especially first sentences. In the last post, I gave several examples of famous first lines in literature and promised to examine examples from the scientific literature.

I looked up a few papers in the journal Nature to see how their opening sentences were constructed. Here are a few at random from the most recent issue (first line of abstract with citations removed):

“Most known extrasolar planets (exoplanets) have been discovered using the radial velocityor transitmethods.”

“Angelman syndrome is a severe neurodevelopmental disorder caused by deletion or mutation of the maternal allele of the ubiquitin protein ligase E3A (UBE3A).”

“A conserved protein from enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, NleE, inhibits innate immune defence against infection by disrupting the NF-κB signalling pathway through methylation of ubiquitin-chain sensing proteins.”

“Insights into the rotary mechanism of the Thermus thermophilus ATP synthase are obtained using electron cryomicroscopy to determine its three-dimensional structure calculated to subnanometre resolution.”

“In 1969, a palaeontologist proposedthat theropod dinosaurs used their tails as dynamic stabilizers during rapid or irregular movements, contributing to their depiction as active and agile predators.”

I don’t know about you, but from the list above, I would be most likely to select the last one to read. Based on that first sentence, I would expect this paper to (1) be interesting, (2) tell a good story, and (3) be written in such a way as to be understandable by someone unfamiliar with the topic.

Here is the second sentence of the abstract:

“Since then the inertia of swinging appendages has been implicated in stabilizing human walking, aiding acrobatic manoeuvres by primatesand rodents, and enabling cats to balance on branches.”

And here is the last sentence of the abstract:

“Leaping lizards show that inertial control of body attitude can advance our understanding of appendage evolution and provide biological inspiration for the next generation of manoeuvrable search-and-rescue robots.”

The title of this paper is, not surprisingly, intriguing and also concisely conveys what it is all about: “Tail-assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs”. Both the title and the first sentence were written with full comprehension of what this work is all about and its broader significance (robot design). They even got in some alliteration and reference to a comic book exclamation (leaping lizards!).

One of the interesting aspects of good first sentences is that they can convey an enormous amount of information about a topic in a very short space or they can stimulate curiosity or anticipation with just a few choice words. That is what a novelist or a scientist writing a journal article may strive for.

Do you have any favorite first lines in scientific papers? Do you notice first sentences; do they grab your attention or leave you uninspired?

In the next post, I'll take a look at a famous scientific treatise and how the first line is structured.

Photo by DrDoyenne

A Good Sentence Is Hard To Find

2012-01-15T17:55:00.003-06:00

It’s time for another series. For this one, I’d like to focus again on writing but will narrow the focus to sentences—their form and content. Now don't roll your eyes. I promise this will be an interesting and informative exercise. Many of us don’t really think a lot about sentences. We string them together and hope they tell a good story. However, sentences are the basic building blocks of our writing and deserve some in-depth scrutiny.

I began thinking about sentences recently when I came across a book called, appropriately, “How to Write a Sentence and How to Read One”, by Stanley Fish. Now, I’m not recommending that you run out to your local bookstore (or to Amazon) and buy this book. Only those people who are really fascinated with sentence structure will enjoy this book. If you are, however, one of those people who enjoys collecting and analyzing famous first sentences in literary works, for example, then this book is for you (admittedly, I’m one of these).

For everyone else, there are a few nuggets in this book that I will try to condense and explain in this and later posts.

Another caveat: although I will attempt to relate these insights about sentences to technical science writing, I’ll be using a lot of literary examples. Also, because of the restricted style of scientific writing, some of the ideas I will cover may be difficult (or unwise) to implement in your technical papers. However, the concepts and exercises may prove useful for developing general writing skills. Even if you have no plans to write a novel any time soon, you may find the examples interesting and even applicable to writing a nontechnical science article, for instance, or letters of inquiry (for a job application), letters of recommendation, or descriptions of your research interests or accomplishments in your CV.

So let’s get started.

One of the first points I’ll be making is definitely applicable to scientific writing. Above, I mentioned famous first lines in literature and will use this example to make the first point. When we read a literary work that begins with a beautifully constructed, witty, or intriguing sentence, especially one that takes your breath away, we know that we are in the hands of a master and sink back into our chairs ready to savor what comes next.

Everyone recognizes the first sentence of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens:

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

That sentence, with its series of contrasting concepts, perfectly foreshadows what is to come in the telling of a story of parallel lives in London and Paris. One might argue that it’s not the best opening sentence in literature, but it certainly makes an indelible first impression and indicates that the author is about to unfurl an interesting story.

How about a few more, but lesser known, first sentences? Here are some by female authors:

They shoot the white girl first. - Toni Morrison, Paradise (1998)

I had the story, bit by bit, from various people, and, as generally happens in such cases, each time it was a different story. - Edith Wharton, Ethan Frome (1911)

I write this sitting in the kitchen sink. - Dodie Smith, I Capture the Castle (1948)

He - for there could be no doubt of his sex, though the fashion of the time did something to disguise it - was in the act of slicing at the head of a Moor which swung from the rafters. - Virginia Woolf, Orlando (1928)

In the town, there were two mutes and they were always together. - Carson McCullers, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (1940)

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. - Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (1813)

The doctor’s waiting room, which was very small, was almost full when the Turpins entered and Mrs. Turpin, who was very large, made it look even smaller by her presence. – Flannery O’Connor, Revelation (1965)

We started dying before the snow, and like the snow, we continued to fall. - Louise Erdrich, Tracks (1988)

Miss Brooke had that kind of beauty which seems to be thrown into relief by poor dress. - George Eliot, Middlemarch (1872)

Once upon a time, there was a woman who discovered she had turned into the wrong person. - Anne Tyler, Back When We Were Grownups (2001)

The grandmother didn’t want to go to Florida. – Flannery O’Connor, A Good Man Is Hard To Find (1953)

You’ll notice I included two by one of my favorite authors, Flannery O’Connor (hence the title of this post). In any case, the point to be taken with these examples is that first sentences, whether in a novel, a short story, or a scientific paper, are important for setting the stage for what comes after. How many times have you sat down to read a journal article and found the opening statement to be uninteresting, uninspiring, and trite? How often do such papers go on to surprise you with their insights? As I’ve described in previous posts, when I do reviews of manuscripts, I pay close attention to the title, the abstract, and the first (and closing) sentence of the paper. If they are poorly written, with ambiguous wording or other problems, then I anticipate that the remainder of the manuscript is going to be torture to read. And it will take a dramatic turnaround in the writing (or very important data) to change that initial impression.

Given the competition for space in journals, authors cannot ignore the fact that they’ve got to not only have good data, they must write memorable papers—and if they are smart, they will start off with a compelling sentence.

In the next post, I’ll take a look at some first sentences in scientific papers.

Unforgettable

2012-01-10T18:58:00.000-06:00

Is it possible to improve one's memory? That is a question explored in a book I recently read called "Moonwalking with Einstein (The Art and Science of Remembering Everything)" by Joshua Foer. I've been musing about memory (see previous posts) and in the process of Googling for information came across the title of this book. Curious, I ordered it on Kindle. Turns out that Foer is a journalist who became interested in memory and in people who have extraordinary powers of recall.

On assignment for Discover magazine, Foer attended the U.S. Memory Championship where contestants must do things such as memorize and recall the order of entire (or several) decks of playing cards. He interviews several contestants who are former U.S. champions as well as some memory athletes from Europe. He also visits and interviews scientists who study memory, people who have suffered brain injuries altering their memory capacities, and savants (Rain Man). One of the first things he finds out, from some of the memory athletes, is that anyone can be trained to perform the amazing feats he observes at the U.S. Memory Championship. It only takes time and commitment to the training.

Before long, Foer has become fascinated with the idea that he might be able to acquire these skills and decides to train for the next U.S. championship, a year hence, under the tutorship of a European memory athlete. One of the first things he learns is the basic technique that these memory athletes use...a technique that dates back to a Greek poet by the name of Simonides. In the fifth century B.C., Simonides was attending a banquet and after delivering an ode, was called outside. Just as he exited the banquet hall, the marble building collapsed, crushing everyone left inside. What happened next forged the way for the technique taught to Foer. Simonides visualized the building and all its contents prior to the collapse and then led each of the victims' relatives to the exact spot in the rubble where their loved one had been sitting. According to legend, this experience ultimately led to the method that modern memory champions use. Basically, it's all a matter of technique and understanding how memory works.

As I was reading this, I was thinking, "Righhht." However, once I understood the technique, I decided to test it out. I asked my husband to help me by giving me a list of random words, twelve in all, which I would subsequently recall, in order. Most people, given such a list, would only be able to recall five to seven items (normally, I would be lucky to remember three). Here is the list:

dog
Einstein (note I did not tell him the title of the book!)
evolution
San Francisco
Hercules
Pinot Noir
Taj Mahal
Mozart
Scrabble
IBM
derivatives
Spartina (a plant genus familiar to both of us)

He wrote each item down as he called them out to me. I took a second or two to commit each item to memory. After hearing the final item, I then was able to recount all twelve items on the list, in perfect order. In fact, that was about a week ago, and I still remember them (as the above list demonstrates). How did I do it?

The technique involves something called a "memory palace", which is a setting (a building, a landscape with distinct landmarks) that you know intimately. For example, I used my house, which has twelve main rooms. I decided on a set "route" through my house starting in the master bathroom at one end and terminating in our office/library at the other end of the house. In each room I placed an image representing each word I was given. It's important to have a very vivid image, preferably someone or something doing some action (the more outrageous, the better). For the dog, I imagined an Irish Setter splashing around in our bathtub. For Hercules, I imagined the mythical character (specifically, an actor who played Hercules in a movie) standing in our dining room hoisting the dining table over his head. For Mozart, I imagined watching the movie "Amadeus" playing on our TV in the den. And so on.

I was vaguely familiar with the idea behind this method, but had never had it explained quite this way or in such detail before. The difficulty is not in remembering, but in being able to quickly conjure up sufficiently vivid images. It takes a good imagination. Even so, it is especially difficult to quickly think of vivid images for abstract concepts such as "derivatives". For that item, I used the stock market meaning, and imagined a moving ticker display in red lights above the guest bathroom mirror. The other difficulty or limitation is having enough "memory palaces" to house your items and then later to "clean house" and remove items that you no longer need to remember. You might be able to use all the houses and apartments you've ever lived in plus your workplaces to expand your memory capacity. Foer additionally visited museums and similar places to adopt them as memory palaces in preparation for the U.S. Memory Championship.

How useful is this technique...beyond amazing your family and friends? Well, I can see how it would be great for a student during exams, especially for those courses that require extensive memorization of lists of items. I can recall sitting and grimly trying to remember the last item in a list that I had been asked to provide on an exam and coming up blank. However, in everyday life, it's too easy to write out to-do lists or to look things up on the internet. Foer has a nice discussion about all this and how we (modern humans) have come to rely on these external memory sources compared to the past before written language. In fact, one explanation as to why the memory palace technique works so well is because our hunter-gatherer ancestors had to remember locations of food, water, shelter, and other items essential for survival; our brains are still wired to remember things in association with physical loci.

Anyway, the book is entertaining and quite interesting. You'll have to read it to find out how the author did in the U.S. Memory Championship.

Photo: In my memory exercise, I imagined Einstein standing in our master bath writing his famous equation on the mirror with red lipstick.

Memory Protection

2011-12-25T13:30:00.000-06:00

We are talking about memory. In the last post, I mostly rambled on about some past memories, both first-hand memories as well as second-hand (an interesting thought: how many of your memories are based on vivid events someone else experienced and told to you?). My original intent, however, was to do some exploring about the neurological aspect of memory. So I'll continue here with more focus on cognition and memory.

I was watching a TV show the other night called "Into the Wormhole", which talks about the latest research in physics and related topics. This episode was about immortality and geriatric research (I suppose this is physics--immortality.....infinity?) and some promising progress toward extending the life span of yeast and mice. The researchers confidently state that that it won't be long before human life spans will be increased to 800 years or more. Really? Aside from the question of where we're going to put all those octocentinarians (didn't these researchers ever learn about "carrying capacity" in school?), there's the worry about caring for them. Perhaps their bodies can live for 800 years, but what about their minds and memories?

Most people suffer what is known as Age-Related Memory Impairment (AMi), and the deficits often involve short-term memory. As people age, their ability to refresh recently acquired information declines. This decline is linked to faults in "episodic memory" processing, which relies on knowing the when and where the information was acquired. That is, the information content is linked to the source of the information and associated physical or emotional factors, so that remembering is facilitated, for example, by simply imagining where you were when the information was acquired. As a student, I could often recall my notes on a specific topic by visualizing the page in my textbook or notebook. That linking apparently does not work as well as we age--with new information. I think such links remain mostly intact for memories laid down when we were younger (for normal aging; people with diseases such as Alzheimer's apparently suffer more severe injuries to neural pathways). So, a sight or smell or activity (brushing your hair, feeding the dog) automatically stimulates a specific memory or recall of information learned in the distant past.

As we age, those associations between the information and the surrounding factors are not made or are only poorly made. That is my observation of my short-term memory changes. I will perform some routine task such as taking a daily vitamin or brushing my teeth and an hour later I'm wondering if I did or if I'm remembering yesterday's routine. I cannot recall anything specific or different about the surroundings that would tell me, "Yes, you definitely took your vitamin because the phone rang right after or you noticed that a light bulb was burned out in the bathroom." These lapses happen to everyone at all ages, but now seem to be more frequent. I now consciously note something about my surroundings or do something unusual (reverse my routine) if I want to ensure I recall doing something (and avoid repeating it). I now appreciate why those pill dispensers with compartments corresponding to the days of the week are so popular with the elderly.

In his later years, my father seemed to have suffered from an extreme case of short-term memory loss. He could not remember what he had for lunch or that he had just taken his medication an hour before (although he could vividly remember events 70 years in the past). His inability to make that linkage between the act of taking his medicine and the situation surrounding that act (who was present, what time of day it was, whether the TV was playing, etc.) meant that he could not distinguish that particular event from similar events of taking his medicine on previous days. This memory impairment was incredibly stressful for him because he was aware of it. If you asked him, he could not tell you whether or not he had taken his medicine that day. He remembered taking medicine in the past, but not specific instances.

What can one do to protect memory as we age? There are all the usual suggestions: keeping mentally active, following a healthy diet, avoiding medications that impair memory, etc. Those of us in science have no deficiency in terms of intellectual activities. We write, do math, create graphics and other visual images, and speak in front of audiences. We use "both sides" of our brains: the left hemisphere, which supposedly involves linear, logical, analytical thinking and the right, which involves nonlinear, holistic, intuitive thinking. Is this enough to protect us from AMi or more dreaded things such as dementia? I once thought so, but am not so sure anymore.

I came across an interesting bit of research, which found that auditory training (music training) improved memory abilities as one ages. In fact, the number of years of musical training was predictive of non-verbal memory performance and time span of cognitive ability. The suggestion seems to be that there is something unique about the auditory experience. Perhaps. Or maybe it's just the fact that musicians have developed secondary linkages in their brains through a novel activity that is unlike daily activities involving, for example, reading or writing or walking. In other words, your brain has developed backup pathways that can take over when the primary ones are blocked during aging or disease.

My guess is that other novel activities requiring mental concentration or memorization (and stimulate new neural linkages) would work similarly. I've mentioned this idea before, but it's worth repeating. In his book, "A Whole New Mind" Daniel Pink talks about how to expand your mind or to keep it sharp. One activity he explored was drawing. He signed up for drawing lessons and discovered that drawing is all about relationships or "perspective". Drawing is all about seeing, in other words. Learning to draw or paint will develop and strengthen aspects of your brain that you may not use often.

I think the novel aspect of the activity is what is relevant, not the specific activity.

I think the take-home message here is: have some hobbies that are mentally challenging and different from your primary work activities. If drawing or playing a musical instrument do not appeal to you, I think physical activities requiring substantial skill or concentration will do the same thing: golf, skiing, surfing, Tai Chi, or learning a second language. It's not clear if taking up these things later in life has the same effect as adopting them in one's twenties. I imagine that forming redundant pathways and linkages early on when your brain is still developing is more effective than trying to do it with an older brain. I played a musical instrument for many years and also developed drawing and painting skills. In my thirties and early forties, I learned karate and became fairly skilled at it. I no longer play an instrument or train in karate, but I think those brain pathways are still there; I remember how to read music, for example, or perform a karate move (although my body may no longer be able to carry out the physical action). Now I wish I had done more activities like these.

But, it's never too late.

There are programs involving brain games designed to improve cognitive function such as Lumosity and CogniFit. You usually have to pay a subscription to get access to all the programs designed to get your brain in shape. Some will do an assessment of your cognitive abilities for free and let you do some initial training. I've tried these and they definitely teach you some things about your mental abilities and where you need improvement. I was shocked to discover that my "working memory" was way, way above average, more than twice that of the world average (either I am that good or the people taking the assessment are really bad at this). This score did not agree with my impression that my memory was on the decline. My reaction time was also above average--again not my perception. On the other hand, my divided attention and spatial perception abilities, which I always thought were very good, were below average. In any case, wherever your weakness, the program designs training to improve those cognitive skills.

Holiday Memories

2011-12-23T11:04:00.002-06:00

It's that time of year when families reunite for the holidays. These get-togethers can be fun or stressful depending on the health status of the older family members or the employment status of the less successful family members. They are always the settings for indelible memories.

If you only see your parents or grandparents once or twice a year and they are over sixty, it's usually a shock to see how much they've aged since your last visit. At least that was my experience during the latter years of my parent's lives. Although it was disturbing to see their physical decline, it was more stressful to see the mental decline. When I was a student and visited during the holidays, the first question always was, "When are you going to be finished?" Later, they couldn't seem to remember that I had finished school and had been working at a university for twenty years. Their first question to me when I arrived for a visit was, "How was school this semester? Did you do well?" I suppose their persistent belief in my student status was due partly to the fact that I was in school for a very long time and partly to the fact that both my husband and I were at a university and talked about being in class or doing research, which were also places and activities we talked about when we were students. It makes sense, in a way....

My husband's parents were in better physical shape than mine, but were mentally worse off in some ways, if you can imagine that. His parents (and their friends) seemed to get obsessed with certain things...like drugs and whether my husband and I were hooked on them. We were never sure where they got this idea, except from TV soap operas. They grilled my husband on each visit about our finances (we were fine, no debt), about our friends (no heroin addicts), about our jobs (we had not been fired), etc. This inquisition continued well into our 40s. They also were convinced that drug-sniffing dogs were deliberately addicted to the drugs they were trained to find (this explained why they were so eager to find the drugs).

"What about bomb-sniffing dogs?" I would ask.

His parents lived in Florida during the winter, so that's where we would go during the Christmas holidays. One year, I decided that I would visit my parents and my husband would go alone to Florida. That was the year of his infamous encounter with "Aunt Becky", one of those stories that becomes family legend.

Aunt Becky was actually my husband's great aunt by marriage. She lived in an up-scale condo in Miami Beach. That Christmas, his parents decided to visit Aunt Becky one afternoon. She was in her 70s, so my husband was expecting a frail, elderly woman, perhaps needing a walker to get around. When they arrived at her condo, my husband was shocked when the door opened. He described her to me as very healthy, very blond, very tanned, and dressed in a skimpy jogging outfit that showed off her very well-proportioned body.

And that was apparently the least of the surprises in store for him.

Aunt Becky proceeded to give her visitors a tour of her condo, during which she made suggestive remarks about recent male visitors (she was unmarried, having outlived several husbands). Everyone, including my husband, was laughing along with her about her raucous remarks. Then, while his parents were taking in the view of Miami from the balcony, Aunt Becky suggested that my husband might be interested in seeing her bedroom. He reluctantly went along with her, not wanting to offend her by saying no. She pointed out her bed, which was a waterbed (this was the 80s), and suggested he try it. When he declined, she pushed him down on the bed and jumped on top of him. He said she was incredibly strong, and between her strength and the sloshing waterbed, he could not extricate himself.

It was then that his parents walked in.

His mother yelled, "Aunt Becky, get off [my husband's name]!" They thought it was pretty funny, but my husband was mortified. His parents told that story for years, much to his chagrin. Unfortunately, I never got to meet Aunt Becky. I often wondered what would have happened had I been along on that visit.

My husband's parents and my parents are now deceased (as is Aunt Becky). So we are long past the stage of having to make the annual trek to our respective childhood homes (and deciding which set of parents to visit during the holidays). We've also moved past the period of watching our parents' decline from being physically active and mentally sharp to being frail and faltering in body and mind.

We've instead transitioned to watching each other age, both of us being at the point where our parents began showing the first symptoms of decrepitude. We watch each other for impending signs of dementia and worry over every little lapse in memory or inability to dredge up the name of some obscure (or not so obscure) actor or political figure. He forgets to turn the oven off, and I make a mental note that it's the third time in the past few months. I can't remember something he told me the day before (he claims), and I can see he's taking note of my forgetfulness as well. It gets to be a contest. I only forgot once this week to set the security alarm. He only misplaced his keys two times. We joke that between us, we have a whole brain.

Neither of us looks our age....yet. My doctor always exclaims when I go in for my annual visit, "You look fantastic! I can't believe you are only [my age]." (I get the impression he doesn't have too many patients like Aunt Becky). The nurse, taking my blood pressure, says, "You're going to live forrreeevver." A slight exaggeration. However, my grandmother did make it to 97 and she had most of her marbles at the end (I'm counting on those genes).

Well, I had planned to talk more about the neurological aspects of memory, but I think I'll postpone that until the next post.

The Movie Heroine

2011-12-10T17:50:00.000-06:00

I recently received a comment about the series I did a while back on how women are portrayed in Hollywood movies. In one post (Feminism and the Movies), I used several examples of movies by James Cameron, including the Terminator series, and applied a couple of tests designed to gauge how central female characters are portrayed (as true heroines or as stereotypes designed to support a male protagonist).

One of these is called the Bechdel Test and the other is one I made up called (tongue in cheek) the Feminist Film Test.

It's been a while, so I'll repeat them here:

To pass the Bechdel Test, the movie must have:

1. Two women (who have names),

2. Who talk to each other,

3. About something other than a man.

The Feminist Film Test requires that the movie:

1. Have a female lead,

2. Who survives or succeeds,

3. Without the intervention of a man (saving her, dying so she can live, etc.).

The commenter focused on the fact that I said Terminator II failed the two tests and argued that technically this movie passes both tests, pointing out how the lead female character (Sarah Connor) had matured from the helpless victim in Terminator I into an aggressive, militaristic woman with a violent plan (to save the world) in Terminator II.

Well, maybe Terminator II squeaks by on minor technical points (Sarah speaks briefly to another woman and does take charge of her destiny), but this comment misses the point of the litmus tests and my series on feminism and the movies. My purpose was not to identify "anti-feminist" films or to nitpick movie details, but to question the presumption that these are films that align with feminist ideals and/or provide useful role models of "strong female characters" simply because they have women who can shoot, cuss, and fight as well as a man.

The two litmus tests I described are meant to make people think about stereotypes and how women are portrayed in film. One blogger, talking about the Bechdel test, emphasizes that "passing the test does not necessarily make it more feminist, or otherwise, positive-for-women." Nor does failing the test make it a bad movie. This blogger goes on to explain that the test is a crude tool to begin examining sexism in movies. If you look at the site that lists movies and whether they pass the Bechdel Test, you'll see lots of nitpicking about minor details; but it's not very productive to focus too closely on these tests (or try to find technical loopholes).

Both tests are designed to uncover the glaring pattern of sexism in Hollywood movies. When you have to really search and search for movies that portray true heroines, you have to conclude that there is something wrong somewhere. Can you think of, say, just ten movies (out of the thousands made) in which there are two female characters who have meaningful conversations (about something other than a man) that advance the storyline (see end of this post for a few)? Hollywood writers, directors, and producers seem to have difficulty in creating strong female characters without making them violent, gun-toting, and physically threatening (with a few exceptions, see below). In the past, women were routinely portrayed as weak victims (to be saved by a man). Now it seems their only option to be "strong" is to adopt violent, masculine behavior.

Let's be realistic. These are male fantasies: the helpless woman (needing to be saved by a man) and the "I can be as tough as a guy" woman (a titillating sex object). Movies with such characters are not sincere efforts to portray strong women. They are in these films solely to sustain the male (mostly adolescent) viewpoint. One can speculate as to the reasons: screenwriters/directors/producers are mostly male and, therefore, emphasize a male point of view; the target demographic is the young adolescent male, and action movies are geared toward their perspective. There's nothing wrong with this; the objective is to make money on these movies, after all. However, one wonders why Hollywood is ignoring half the population of movie-goers.

But back to the point. What constitutes a strong female character who is the heroine of a film? She might be mentally and intellectually powerful, emotionally resilient, highly competent and skilled (in something other than gun play), of great moral character, and courageous...all without resorting to violence. A heroine is defined as "a woman of distinguished courage or ability, admired for her brave deeds and noble qualities". Is Sarah Connor a true heroine? Do we admire her or feel repulsed by her adoption of violent methods to solve problems? Is her plan to kill the creator of Starnet (the computer network that will take over the future world and destroy humanity) courageous, noble, or admirable? Was she a good mother (to John Connor)? Is she a role model you would want your children to emulate?

I'd say Sarah Connor is the anti-heroine. Not that there's anything wrong with an anti-heroine character....just don't confuse it with a heroine.

Can we think of other movies, even violent movies, in which a true heroine appears?

Yes. There are very violent films that manage to depict strong female characters who are the antithesis of the Sarah Connor character (in T2). One example that comes to mind is Police Chief Marge Gunderson in "Fargo", played to perfection by Frances McDormand. She manages to solve an extortion/kidnapping/murder case and captures a killer (carefully shooting him in the leg, instead of blowing his head off)...all while pregnant and suffering morning sickness.

This film passes the Feminist Film Test (Marge succeeds without any male assistance), but fails the Bechdel Test (technically, Marge interviews a couple of female prostitutes, but the focus is on men [the killers]); she also talks briefly on the phone with a high school friend, but about a man who is stalking Marge). Does that mean the movie is flawed from a feminist standpoint? Of course not.

In my view, this film provides a compelling portrait of a real heroine. Marge is a down-to-earth, no-nonsense kind of woman who is successful in a very male-dominated profession. She's a heroine, not because she catches a killer, but because of the courage, integrity, and humility she displays in her professional and personal life.

Some other movies with well-developed female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man and whose interactions advance the storyline:
Gone With the Wind (1939)
All About Eve (1950)
The Bad Seed (1956)
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
Julia (1977)
Nine to Five (1980)
Silkwood (1983)
Working Girl (1988)
Mermaids (1990)
Thelma and Louise (1991)
Enchanted April (1992)
Girl, Interrupted (1999)
Black Swan (2010)
The Help (2011)

Image Credits:
Still image from Terminator 2, TriStar Pictures
Still image from Fargo, Gramercy Pictures

Respect

2011-12-07T18:33:00.000-06:00

We all want it, but do we always give it to others? I was reminded recently of the importance of respect in dealing with other people, especially those we may not know well. Impressions based on how someone looks, what others may have told us, or an unconscious (or conscious) bias are more the norm. It’s human nature. When we meet someone for the first time, we immediately begin forming a mental image, looking for clues about their morals, intelligence, and other inherent traits, and filling in the gaps based on our past experiences with other people bearing similar superficial features. This approach is, of course, a dangerous one.

One of the things I admired the most about my father was that he was unfailingly respectful of other people, even when they were treating him with contempt. He was an uneducated man, a dirt-poor farmer who grew up in the rural Mississippi countryside. It was presumed (incorrectly) that he was unintelligent, unmannered, and bigoted, based solely on his situation (I also experienced similar presumptions when I first ventured to other parts of the country and the world). As a child, I watched more educated or wealthier people treat my father with disrespect. Yet, I never saw him get angry or raise his voice to anyone (not even his children when they let snakes loose in the house [a pest control experiment]). He listened respectfully and responded politely to others who clearly thought themselves to be his superior and made a point of emphasizing the difference.

As a teenager I was embarrassed by my parents (who wasn’t?), but the lesson of his respectful nature did sink in, and I’ve later come to appreciate just how important it is. I’ve tried hard to follow my father’s model, but it’s difficult, especially when other people are disrespectful of me. Some would argue that such people are not deserving of respect. However, it’s not really about them; what’s important is your behavior and whether you choose to take the high road or get down in the mud with your attacker. And I use the term, “attacker”, because disrespectful acts are definitely attacks. I’ve talked a bit in past posts about “verbal attacks” and ways to handle them (here and here). But often we don’t recognize when we are being attacked, especially when it involves subtle disrespect.

In any case, I know my father would say that to maintain one’s own self-respect, it’s essential to preserve your respectful treatment of others. I’m not advocating here that you should not defend yourself against unfair treatment. Just that you do so without showing disrespect for the other person.

Image Credit: The Farmer by Fred Neveu. I really like this painting, which perfectly captures the affable, hardworking character of a dying breed of family farmers.

Recurring Dreams

2011-12-03T09:34:00.000-06:00

Someone recently mentioned to me the often common occurrence of recurring nightmares that plague those of us who have spent a lot of time in school. You know the ones: you are taking a final exam and realize that you've somehow forgotten to attend this particular class...or you are trying to find the room where your dissertation defense exam is being held and you are lost....or you can't find your class notes and have an exam in a few minutes. There are many variations on this theme, but they all have the same underlying fear of failure.

I had such nightmares periodically all through school and even long after I had obtained a Ph.D. and had a job. Mine always involved high school and an inability to find my locker (where my books and class notes were) or the appropriate classroom (always a math class) or both. In the dream, I would be forced to go back to high school (regardless of age or the fact that I already had a Ph.D.) to take a math class that I had somehow neglected to take. So there was also an element of not fitting in with the other students due to my age and other factors. There I would be, back in high school...sort of like in the movie, Peggy Sue Got Married, in which a woman has an accident at her high school reunion and wakes up back in the 1950s. In that case, Peggy Sue gets to relive a lot of events during her high school years, but with the mind of an adult.

My dreams were similar to Peggy Sue's in that I would have the mind of an adult and all my memories and skills acquired up to that point. You would think, then, that I would be more adept at finding my classroom and keeping track of my class notes. But nooooo....I would be totally at a loss to figure out my class schedule, the locations of my classrooms, and how to find and open my assigned locker. In some cases, I would find my classroom, but I would be so hopelessly behind, due to prior absences, that I would just sit there in complete bewilderment at what was being discussed. Or I would find myself taking an exam for which I had not studied. Excruciating for someone who was always prepared for exams and always made high grades.

You would also think that someone who had managed to acquire a Ph.D. in a science field would be immune to such dreams. Quite the contrary. For me, they actually got worse after I completed my schooling and was working as a professor at a university. I found these dreams to be unsettling because I realized that they indicated a lack of confidence. I suspected also that they were related to my tendency toward perfectionism.

Ultimately, however, I discovered how to stop these recurring dreams.

I had been reading about lucid dreaming, in which the dreamer realizes that they are dreaming and is then able to direct the dream. The advantage of lucid dreaming is that you are only restricted by your imagination, not by the laws of physics or rules of society. I've only managed to have a handful of lucid dreams over the years, but they were all quite amazing and realistic...bordering on out-of-body experiences. The trick is to realize that you are dreaming, which is not as easy as it sounds. For me, when I think I am dreaming, I apply a test, which is to see if I can fly. If I am able to fly, then I know I am dreaming and can proceed to direct the dream. It's a tricky balance, however. I think what is happening is that you are in between a state of dreaming and consciousness. Once you recognize you are dreaming, it often happens that you wake up because you slipped too far toward consciousness.

My lucid dreams always seemed to have a very practical storyline. The first lucid dream I ever had involved an ability to shoot a laser beam from my fingertips. So what did I do with this amazing gift? I proceeded to use it to trim the trees in my yard of dead branches! Other dreams involved flying and traveling great distances to see different ecosystems of the Earth. A bit more adventurous, but still practical from a professional standpoint. These are quite vivid dreams, which upon waking, are difficult to distinguish from a real memory.

I had other recurring nightmares about elevators, for example (don't ask me why, because I don't have a phobia about elevators in real life). I began thinking that perhaps lucid dreams could be used to rid myself of these annoying recurring dreams. Unfortunately, I couldn't just turn lucid dreaming on and off at will. I had to wait for one to occur spontaneously.

That's what finally happened with the school nightmares. I found myself in the middle of a typical dream in which I was running around my high school, desperately looking for my math class, when I suddenly realized that this was a dream. I then stopped and said to myself, "I have already graduated from high school and college and also completed graduate school. I have a Ph.D. and a job at a university. I don't need to go back to high school and take some silly math class." Then I just turned and walked out the front door of the high school. I never had these dreams again, and my sense of confidence increased dramatically.

My experience exemplifies one advantage to learning how to dream lucidly: overcoming fears and other psychological barriers to success. You can accomplish the same thing with psychotherapy, of course, but going the dream route may work faster. It certainly worked for me. From what I understand about it (which isn't a lot), the best predictor of lucid dream ability is whether you have good dream recall. I've always been able to recall my dreams in great detail; in contrast, my husband reports that he has great difficulty recalling any dreams at all. In any event, dreams provide powerful insights into your psyche, and the ability to modify or control them might provide a means of treatment for certain disorders (post-traumatic stress disorder, for example). It is definitely a way to minimize or eliminate nightmares.

I've been quite pleased to be rid of these recurring dreams about school. However, I wonder if students these days have such nightmares? Considering that skipping class and not having to take notes (the professor provides these on a website) are more common now than when I was a student, perhaps these fears of missing classes or losing notes are not as great? On the other hand, maybe it's worse?

Photo Credit: Promotional image for Peggy Sue Got Married, Tristar Pictures.

They Took My Joy__I Want It Back

2011-10-30T14:11:00.006-05:00

Those of you familiar with rhythm and blues singer, Bettye LaVette, will recognize the title of this post as the lyrics from the song, "Joy", written for her by Lucinda Williams. I was sitting in the audience listening to LaVette singing this song when it hit me that these lyrics described something I've been feeling lately....about science.

It may sound strange that I had this reaction to this song, which reflects LaVette's early career struggles in Detroit, New York, and Memphis. LaVette has been singing for a long time now (she's in her 60s), but only recently has been "discovered", earning a Grammy nomination for "Best Contemporary Blues Album" and and an award for "Best Contemporary Blues Female Artist". But there are many parallels between the competitive worlds of music and science in finding success and simultaneously keeping one's "joy".

LaVette has been in the music business for over forty years, much of it struggling to gain respect and recognition for her work. If you listen to her perform today, you see why critics call her "the greatest soul singer in American music". LaVette is a consummate performer. She's not just technically good; she reaches out and grabs the audience emotionally. Her voice literally oozes raw emotion, gritty and defiant. The video link above does not do justice to the actual, live experience, but gives some idea about her style. As I listened to her performance, I recognized (without knowing anything about her history) the years of practice and focused effort required to attain the level of expertise I was witnessing. I knew I was in the presence of someone unique, someone who had struggled to become the best. She made it seem effortless, of course. That's the hallmark of an artist at the top of her profession.

Many talented women working in competitive fields are often overlooked. As we all know, this is the story for women in science. Actually, more than overlooked. Many of us struggled to even be allowed to practice science. Even without the early discrimination, however, women would have had a difficult time (and still do). Science is a hard profession. It's especially hard when our work goes unrecognized, and the joy we once felt at doing science is slowly, inexorably ground out of us. The things that attracted us to it in the first place (curiosity, passion, concern for the environment, a desire to help others) are gradually bled out of us in the struggle to find research funds, to publish, to fit into a male-dominated world, and to gain a modicum of respect.

This is what LaVette sings about in "Joy". Of her early years trying to make it in a hard industry. First in Detroit, then New York, and later in West Memphis and Muscle Shoals (Alabama). The song's lyrics describe how she lost her joy and looked for it in different places; in the end, she sings that "I don't want you anymore...cause you took my joy" and finally "you took my joy...I want it back". The song describes the loss of joy, the subsequent search for it, the despair at ever finding it, the dismissal of what led to the loss of joy, and then the angry demand for getting her joy back.

I can only imagine the struggles a young, black woman went through during the early 60s in America and in the highly competitive world of music. She put out her first single in 1962, but did not cut her first album until 1982--twenty years later. And twenty more years went by before she began to receive major awards and recognition commensurate with her talent. How many of you could continue in this way, for so long, for so little? But she clearly kept at it, honing her craft. During the performance I saw, LaVette talked ironically about her recent "discovery" by the music industry and the awards and nominations that are now being showered on her. I think there are a number of women, in many laboratories and offices around the world, who are shaking their heads at similar ironies.

How can such obvious talent be overlooked for so long? I've talked about "talent" in previous blog posts and how it is not something one is necessarily born with, but instead is the result of "deliberate practice" conducted over thousands of hours. Perhaps a person is borne with a suite of physical, intellectual, and emotional attributes that predisposes them to be musicians, artists, or scientists. But it still takes enormous amounts of time and focused energy to acquire the necessary technical skills and confidence to outperform everyone else with those inherent attributes. To observers, their performance seems effortless; hence, the perception that it did not require much effort or practice to achieve. We may intellectually recognize that a famous musician or athlete has to spend a lot of time practicing her craft, but emotionally we believe that they must have a special talent that no one else has.

I think people believe in "natural talent" because they don't want to consider having to invest all that time and effort on something and then fail to succeed at it. It's easier to say, "Well, I tried, but I just wasn't as talented as Bob or Sue (who outperformed us)." Unfortunately for these people, the belief that talent, not hard work and practice, is all that is required to succeed will doom them to mediocrity, if not outright failure. Many other people, especially young people, want success and fame now, in their twenties, certainly by their thirties. Why should it wait until they are old and can't enjoy it? It's much easier to watch someone like LaVette perform and think, "I could do that, only if I had the talent." Or luck. That's the other belief about "sudden" success. One only has to watch the early tryouts for American Idol to see that hundreds of thousands of young people believe they have the talent to be performers, yet have exerted little effort at developing their skills. The naivete is simply breathtaking.

The truth is that to become really good at something, even if you have some basic "talent" for it, requires a lot of work, sacrifice, and time. My guess is that even for the best, it is about ten percent talent and ninety percent drive, hard work, and endless (deliberate) practice. Maybe a few, exceedingly lucky people hit it big early in their career, but if you look at the history of most early achievers or so-called prodigies, you find that they have spent at least ten years at hard practice before they were "discovered".

If so much time and effort are required to attain a high level of skill, how can one possibly keep going without reward or acknowledgment for so long? That has been the lot of LaVette in the music field and is also the story of many women in science. We plug along while watching less talented men sail past us. But we are catching up. A few women are getting the recognition they deserve. And the struggle has given us something that those, who have not had to work hard, lack. We have put more effort into developing our talents, creating our unique voices, and learning to persevere. We've had to, to survive. LaVette's style, for example, would not be so emotionally charged, so compelling, or so distinctive without that long, hard experience getting to where she is today. I think the same is true for women in science. We've had to work harder and smarter than male colleagues, but it has made us unique.

There is a message here for women in science, which is why I'm describing Bettye LaVette's story. It's not that we should keep struggling because success will eventually come. That might be one eventuality of perseverance at a career and a welcome reward at the end. It might be one lesson to learn from her story. No, the message is about not losing one's joy in the pursuit of one's dream. From the moment we make the decision to embark on a science career (or any career), we begin to give up some of those early ideals, passions, dreams, and other emotions that attracted us in the first place. We begin to compromise as we encounter the realities in the process of training, getting a job, and keeping that job. Some of us manage to hang on to a few of our early dreams and passions, but I doubt that there are many mature scientists out there who are completely satisfied with their scientific emotional well-being. All one has to do is ask, "Do you still feel the same joy and excitement (about your work) as you did when you first dreamed about being a scientist?"

In the beginning, many of us are simply driven by the need to know and are completely satisfied with finding the answer (as well as the process of looking for it). We don't need an award to feel good about figuring something out. But somehow, we gradually move away from that simple satisfaction to wanting more as we advance through school and into the working world. For some, it's to beat the competition to publication, or to gain international standing in the scientific community, or to win prestigious awards or positions on panels, or all of these. These achievements are all false goals that bring only temporary satisfaction and, worse, feed the desire for bigger and better accolades. We get focused on numbers of publications and citations, our H-index, landing a big grant, or getting our next paper published in a Glamor Science Mag. These are the measures of "success" by which others judge us and may be important for us to advance in a science career, but we should take care that the pursuit of such things does not take over our emotional well-being. If we do, we risk losing that original joy of seeking knowledge and making discoveries.

When I was a child, I experienced the simple pleasures of discovery and learning. I saw that scientists could continue seeking knowledge and experiencing that joy of discovery...and make a career of it. What a deal! I recognized that this aspect set a science career apart from many other types of careers one might choose from. I could actually do work that I loved to do and be paid for it. Interestingly, this emotional reward that scientists enjoy is the same for musicians and artists. Their work is their passion; their passion is their work. This is another interesting parallel that the Bettye LaVette story has reminded me of: how closely related science and art are from an emotional (and creative) standpoint.

What I did not realize, when starting out, was how difficult it would be to sustain that original joy; how career setbacks, professional jealousies, work-life pressures, struggle for respect and recognition, and other factors could dampen and bury my joy. I imagine that that is what LaVette is singing about. In the process of doing what she loves (singing), she lost her joy. The business (and politics) of music must interfere greatly with the sheer joy of performing music. And the same is true of science. Women in science may find themselves singing the same song...if they are not careful.

So after almost forty years in science, I can relate to the refrain, "they took my joy....I want it back". I don't just want it back; like Bettye LeVette, I'm demanding it back.

Clone Me

2011-10-15T11:27:00.000-05:00

You finally have your own lab and are ready to hire one or more technicians and/or a lab manager plus post-docs and students. Do you hire someone who is like you or completely different (assuming candidates of equal qualifications)?

Some scientists seem to hire clones of themselves. Perhaps they assume that it will be easier to interact with someone who is more like themselves or that their work habits will be more to their liking. With a large team, the thinking might be that a homogeneous group will work better together, be more productive, and efficient. Early in my career, I favored people who were similar to me in terms of work habits, organization, and personality. I discovered, however, that a more diverse group or partnership is better at problem solving and more creative overall than one with very similar personalities and skills.

When I started out as a PI, I had one assistant/technician, and the two of us worked side-by-side doing fieldwork and labwork. I felt most comfortable working with another woman whose personality and work habits were similar to mine. In other words, a clone of myself. My research often took us on field trips of a week or more to distant locations where we would be spending 24/7 together. I knew that I wanted someone who (like me) was hard-working, uncomplaining, quiet, well-organized, and generally task-oriented. After technical qualifications, personality and work ethic were important considerations for me. Anyone who has done fieldwork knows that personality clashes or disagreements over work habits can frequently arise and cause much misery, especially for the project leader. Such clashes can, of course, occur in the lab or office setting, but are magnified during travel, living in close quarters, and in conjunction with various logistical and other travel-related problems, which add to the overall stress. Fieldwork is difficult enough without having to deal with someone who has to be constantly cajoled into getting up early or working late to finish a task or who complains about everything. If my research had been totally lab-based, I could see (maybe) working with someone whose personality was, let's say, abrasive, as long as they did the work. However, I knew that the person I selected as an assistant also needed to be a good travel companion and would be easy to get along with.

My point is that my early decisions about a research assistant were driven by a narrow focus on personality and anticipated working conditions (in addition to the obvious technical qualifications). It did not occur to me then that there might be advantages to having someone quite different from me as an assistant. This early situation also differed from later in my career when I had a larger research group with up to ten people (employees, students, volunteers). With a larger group, there was a greater opportunity to work with people who were very different from me in personality and problem-solving skills.

When we consider diversity in relation to the workforce, it is usually from a legal, EEO standpoint: race, religion, age, gender. However, that is not what I'm referring to here. I'm talking about diversity in interpersonal skills, work habits, and personality traits that influence important skills such as problem solving. When you are hiring someone, you are concerned with two main aspects: their technical qualifications and how they will fit into (and contribute to) the work environment in your lab. As employers, we tend to focus on the technical aspects and neglect to fully examine how that person will complement the existing team. If we do consider the latter, it may be to seek out someone like us, rather than someone very different. This approach can, of course, get us into trouble if it leads us to exclude certain protected groups that happen to differ from us. Aside from the legal ramifications, this approach is short-sighted in terms of developing a team that has diverse problem-solving or interpersonal skills and consequently has a broader range than a more homogeneous group.

I did not begin thinking seriously about diversity with respect to my research group until a problem arose with a postdoc. This postdoc caused a lot of bad feelings within my research group, which included students and several master's level technicians. Her main problem was "PhDitis"--she felt that she was superior to anyone lacking a Ph.D., regardless of their experience and skills. At the time, I had several excellent technicians who had master's degrees, but with years of job experience. Some were experts in certain lab analyses....techniques that this postdoc had never performed herself. Yet she still felt that she knew better than they did...and often expressed this sentiment. As you might imagine, there was quite a bit of grumbling. I had tried talking to this postdoc about how skilled my technicians were and that they really responded better when their expertise was appreciated and acknowledged. Unfortunately, these words fell on deaf ears. So I came up with another approach.

After doing a bit of reading about team diversity, I assigned my group a paper on the topic (which, unfortunately, I can no longer find--this was some years ago) to be discussed at our weekly lab meeting. I also asked each person to take an online test (similar to this one) that would identify their "personality type"--according to a Myers-Briggs typology. When we met, we listed everyone's personality type and discussed the makeup of our group, whether our personalities were complimentary or duplicative, and which personalities our group was missing. This exercise was intended to be a fun way to get everyone to understand and appreciate what each person brought to the group. I don't recall the exact breakdown, but we had quite a diversity of personality types.

Most everyone seemed to find the exercise enjoyable and interesting (and a welcome departure from our usual lab meetings). Most everyone understood why I organized this particular lab meeting and expressed a positive reaction to my added comments about how each person, regardless of background or educational achievement, was important to the success of the research we conducted. There was one exception. You can guess who did not recognize the reason for this meeting and who argued about the relative contributions of individuals to a team effort.

Although I failed to change the post-doc's mind about the value of team members with different educational backgrounds, I developed a deeper appreciation of diversity and the potential benefits to a research group and to me as a PI. When I later considered applicants for positions in my group, I especially looked for well-qualified people who were complimentary to me in personality. I'm more introverted and tend to be a perfectionist, for example. So I began hiring assistants who were outgoing and had interpersonal skills that I lacked. A PI who is naturally gregarious but disorganized might benefit, for example, from hiring someone who was highly organized, efficient, and more introverted. Someone else might be a "big-picture" kind of thinker and would benefit from hiring a person who is more detail-oriented. If you are a PI who tends to be "low-key" and modest (and reluctant to self-promote), you might benefit from an assistant who talks a lot about your research successes, someone who essentially does your bragging for you. These are just a few examples. You can probably think of more...that especially relate to you and your situation.

Everyone has one or more short-comings in terms of work habits and/or personality. Even if you have a well-rounded personality and good work habits, it's unlikely that you will possess ALL the problem-solving or interpersonal skills to cope with every professional situation. For example, previous posts have talked about leadership styles here and here, which can differ dramatically in terms of interpersonal skills. Leaders tend to fall into two types: those with good interpersonal skills and a focus on their followers' needs and those who are more task-oriented. The first type of leader has mostly communal qualities: nurturing, sensitive, sympathetic, warm, collegial; the second type has agentic qualities: aggressive, dominant, ambitious, controlling. If you fall into one of these categories, it's likely that you lack the qualities of the other type of leader (although it's possible to combine some qualities of both). Some of these traits might be changed with effort, but others are hard-wired and resistant to change.

Recognizing my limitations (e.g., interpersonal skills) was a prerequisite to identifying the type of assistant who might enhance my team. It's not easy to examine one's limitations, but the effort can pay off in the long-run.

What About Bob?

2011-10-12T17:17:00.003-05:00

We are discussing a hypothetical scenario involving Jennifer, a scientist working for a consulting company, who has a problem with her co-worker Bob (see previous two posts). Jennifer has discovered that Bob is communicating on her behalf with the manager of a refuge where she is leading an important project. The refuge manager feels more comfortable communicating with Bob, even though Bob is not part of Jennifer's project. Instead of calling or emailing Jennifer, who is the project lead, the manager is contacting Bob, with whom he is better acquainted and has dealt with in the past.

Jennifer initially thought that Bob was just trying to be helpful....but now is not so sure.

I posed the possibility that Bob might have an ulterior motive for his actions, evident by his persistence in intercepting and responding to messages about Jennifer's project. In the last post, I noted that Jennifer failed to deal effectively with Bob in the beginning. In addition to straightening things out with the refuge manager, she should have confronted Bob and asked him not to respond to any more messages on her behalf...to instead forward emails or otherwise direct any communications to her. Instead, she made the mistake of thanking Bob for the forwarded messages, which apparently encouraged him to continue.

Let's assume that the situation has not improved, and Bob is still interjecting himself into Jennifer's affairs, even after being asked to stop. This is a warning sign that Bob is probably trying to undermine Jennifer.

What should Jennifer do? Storm into Bob's office and demand that he butt out? That's not likely to work, especially if Bob is deliberately trying to sabotage Jennifer's project. Even if Bob is simply a bumbling idiot who doesn't realize the damage he might be doing to Jennifer, her tirade will likely backfire. Should she go to her boss and complain? No, that will just send the message that she can't take care of the problem by herself.

Jennifer takes some time to think about her options and comes up with a three-pronged approach for dealing with Bob and his interference in her project:

1. First, she stops responding to or acting upon any emails or other messages from the refuge forwarded to her by Bob. She does not thank Bob or contact the refuge manager about whatever the email was about. By no longer acknowledging Bob or acting on these forwarded messages, Jennifer takes the first step in removing Bob as Gatekeeper of the information flow between her and the refuge. Bob no longer gets any feedback that his interference is working. The refuge manager, no longer getting responses to messages sent via Bob, begins to have second thoughts about communicating with Bob instead of Jennifer.

2. Second, Jennifer sends email progress reports to the refuge manager each month, enthusiastically highlighting significant findings. And, most importantly, she copies her boss at the consulting company on these emails (not Bob). This action accomplishes several things. She shows her boss that she's keeping the client updated about the project (which will counter any hints by Bob that she's having communication problems). Her boss responds to these messages with, "Great work, Jennifer! Thanks for keeping us all informed." Her emails regularly remind the refuge manager of who is in charge of this project and that the consulting company is supportive of her in this role. In addition, she creates written documentation of her communications with the refuge (in case the refuge manager later complains). Finally, her regular email correspondence prompts the refuge manager to begin responding directly to her once it's obvious that she is the one with knowledge about the project, not Bob.

3. Finally, Jennifer develops another line of communication with the refuge. She befriends the refuge manager's administrative assistant who readily agrees to provide Jennifer with a heads-up about any goings-on that relate to her project. The assistant sees and hears everything and, having had her own run-ins with the "good ole boys", is more than happy to help Jennifer out. This action might be useful if the manager continues to be obstinate about keeping Jennifer informed about refuge activities involving her project.

In the end, Jennifer successfully completes her project. Her boss is very pleased with how she kept the client (and him) informed about the project. He is confident that he can put her in charge of larger projects in the future.

And what about Bob? Well, he tried to tell Jennifer's boss about her communication difficulties with the refuge. However, things didn't turn out quite as he imagined. The boss, instead of asking questions about Jennifer, began quizzing Bob about his role in the situation and why he was wasting time monitoring Jennifer's activities. Bob ended up being reprimanded for interfering with Jennifer's project and was put on probation.

Comfort Level

2011-10-10T00:01:00.017-05:00

In the last post, I described a hypothetical situation in which a female project leader (Jennifer) is having difficulty with some of her male colleagues. Instead of contacting her directly with some important information affecting her project, the manager of a refuge where she is conducting a study has contacted someone else in Jennifer's organization who has no involvement in the project (Bob). To make matters worse, Bob is attempting to "help" her by answering these emails (instead of simply forwarding the messages to her and informing the sender of his error).

Over the years, I've experienced variations of this annoying situation. Female colleagues have also mentioned this problem. The details change, but the underlying theme is the same. Instead of contacting the woman who should be receiving the message directly, the message sender instead talks or writes to another man who may be the woman's supervisor, employee, student, collaborator, husband, or the guy in the next office. The man who receives the message typically forwards the message, sometimes immediately, sometimes not. He may inform the sender of his error, or not.

So what's going on here?

First, I think that people want to deal with people with whom they feel most comfortable. They prefer communicating with someone who is similar to themselves. This is the reason the refuge manager in the hypothetical scenario persists in contacting someone he knows and feels at ease with. Similarly, the instances I've personally encountered involved men who seemed to be more comfortable communicating with other men and who were uncomfortable interacting with a woman (of equal status). In these cases, it's male workers who feel more at ease interacting with other males, especially concerning more "masculine" endeavors. We can imagine other situations in which the gender roles are reversed or which involve other contrasting types of people.

I imagine that there are also those men who, because of their stereotypical thinking, feel that their message cannot be understood by a woman and needs to be communicated to a man (who will understand and might have more experience communicating with the woman in question). There are fewer of these dinosaurs nowadays, but they still exist.

Second, this situation is exacerbated by an intermediary who tries to help out by responding to the message. This man may be trying to be helpful or he may be doing something else entirely. In our hypothetical scenario, Jennifer's colleague, Bob, is receiving messages about Jennifer's project and instead of simply forwarding them to her, is responding on her behalf. We don't have enough information to know whether Bob is trying to be helpful or has an ulterior motive for his actions. Regardless of his motives, however, by responding to the message (instead of informing the sender of his error), Bob has set himself up as Gatekeeper of communications between Jennifer and the refuge manager.

This type of situation may be a minor annoyance or it might be a Problem. If Bob is trying to help, it's just a brief irritation. On the other hand, Bob may be taking advantage of the situation to undermine her. Jennifer is a new employee in a consulting company, where competition among employees may be intense. Bob may be trying to insert himself into a project that he wanted to lead, but instead was given to Jennifer. She is new, so may not be fully aware of office politics or have had time to identify the sharks.

Jennifer responded initially by contacting the refuge manager directly to say that she had received the information (but did not point out his error in contacting Bob). I think this action was appropriate, given the circumstances. She sent a clear message to the refuge manager that she was the rightful recipient of the information (which hints that they should contact her directly in the future). This was the minimum action that someone in Jennifer's situation should have taken.

However, Jennifer did not address Bob's actions. She should have asked him not to respond to any future messages from the refuge on her behalf and to simply forward the messages to her. Actually, this step was critical not only to insuring that Bob could not interfere, but so that the refuge manager would have no other option except to contact her directly. As long as Bob was available, the refuge manager could ignore Jennifer's request for direct communication. Also, by dealing with Bob in such a direct way, she would also gain some insight into his motives for interfering in the first place (critical information for Jennifer to survive in her new workplace). If Bob persists in his role as Gatekeeper, then Jennifer will know that he is not simply trying to "help" her.

If Bob continues to intercept messages meant for Jennifer, then she has a much bigger problem on her hands....one that will take some creative thinking to resolve. In the next post, I'll consider how Jennifer might handle Bob's persistent interference.

Image Credit: Still image from "Cool Hand Luke" (1967), Jalem Productions

Tell Me

2011-10-05T16:43:00.002-05:00

Consider the following hypothetical encounter:

Jennifer is a newly-hired scientist at a consulting company. Because she has extensive experience in her field, she is immediately put in charge of a project to assess long-term impacts of the BP oil spill on bird populations within a wildlife refuge. The work entails interactions with refuge personnel, who are all male and might be best characterized as "good ole boys". She initially meets with the refuge managers to finalize details of the project and her team's schedule. Time passes, and the project is going well and staying on schedule.

Then Jennifer receives a puzzling message from a coworker, Bob. One of the refuge managers has sent him an email concerning activities that might interfere with Jennifer's fieldwork. Bob is not part of this project, but has worked with this refuge in the past on other projects. Instead of just forwarding the message to Jennifer and telling the refuge manager that he's contacted the wrong person, Bob replies for Jennifer saying that he'll make sure her team is informed. Jennifer feels unsettled, but can't quite put her finger on what's bothering her about this.

She decides that it was just a simple mistake, and sends a brief email to the refuge manager that she appreciates the heads-up and will modify her sampling schedule accordingly (and does not mention his faux pas). A couple of weeks later, however, her field technician mentions that Bob has been getting and responding to additional emails from the refuge manager about her project.

What is going on here? Should Jennifer be concerned? Should she take some action? If so, what should she do? In the next post, I'll analyze this situation and offer some possible responses.

Image Source: modified photo from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs

Is My Lipstick Smeared?

2011-09-30T18:18:00.001-05:00

In episode 11 of the 4th season of the television series, Mad Men, Peggy gives a presentation to Playtex executives. Before she gets to the conference room, one of her male colleagues (she had earlier rebuffed) notices that her lipstick is smeared on her teeth. He doesn't warn her. She gives her presentation, failing to notice that people are trying to alert her to the lipstick problem. Later, someone breaks the news to her. Her colleague just smiles.

If you are unfamiliar with this TV series, it is set in the 1960's New York and focuses on an advertising agency. Although the show revolves around Don Draper (the main ad man), there are lots of episodes and scenes that deal with women working in a male-dominated world.

I was reminded of this show and the scene described above during a conversation with a colleague.

I was talking with this male colleague about a women-in-science group that I sometimes attend. He inquired about what we were discussing this semester, and I mentioned that one topic I hoped to address was leadership styles. He soon began talking about several university administrators who happened to be women and mentioned something that he observed one of them doing at meetings. Apparently, this woman would walk into the conference room, sit down, open her purse, and begin to carefully apply lipstick. When finished with her makeup, she would call the meeting to order.

My initial response was something along the lines of, "Hmmm. That's interesting. I wonder why she did that? Most women would apply lipstick (those who wear it) in private." We were interrupted by the arrival of some other people, so I did not have a chance to question this colleague further about why he mentioned this particular example during a discussion of women in leadership positions.

I later thought more carefully about this conversation...not about why a woman in a high position would call attention to the fact that she was a woman by conspicuously applying makeup (I suspect she was oblivious to how this looked to others), but how my colleague interpreted this behavior.

One might dismiss the lipstick observation as an offhand, unimportant remark. However, it clearly made an impression on this colleague, who was obviously critical of this woman and offered this up as an example of her poor judgement. It reminded me of critical comments made about a woman's physical appearance or other attributes that have no bearing on their professional capabilities.

This colleague is married to a professional woman who is very successful and highly regarded. Consequently, I figured that he was making a statement about how women need to be careful (in dress and behavior) to avoid calling negative attention to their gender in professional settings. Perhaps he was leading up to a suggestion that our discussion group counsel the younger members about inappropriate behavior? Or maybe he did think that this woman's lipstick habit indicated an overall incompetence in chairing meetings? I'm not sure.

Women can call attention to their gender unintentionally, especially when nervous. Some women play with their hair or jewelry, which is acceptable in a social setting, but might send unintended signals in a professional setting. Men seem to be particularly alert (consciously or subconsciously) to sexual signals. Lipstick, which has an interesting history by the way, is a sexual signal (although its sexual connotations are not always recognized). I think this is why my colleague noticed it, but I doubt that he realized why it was so memorable. I also doubt that the female administrator was aware of this either (and would probably be mortified if someone pointed it out to her).

I know that some women dismiss such concerns about dress and behavior, saying that they should be judged on their professional capabilities rather than their wardrobe or personal quirks. However, the fact that this senior male faculty member had noticed the lipstick application, remembered it years later, and pointed it out to me (in the context of women in leadership positions) suggests that women are still being judged inappropriately, even by men who are generally supportive of women.

Photo Credit: AMC, Mad Men, still image of Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss)

To Each Her Chimera

2011-09-27T17:59:00.002-05:00

We are talking about leadership style choices for women. More specifically, I'm considering leadership qualities that are more consistent with the feminine stereotype (nurturing, cooperative, modest) versus the male stereotype (assertive, dominant, outspoken). In previous posts, I've examined the two extremes: Leading from the Heart (traditional female qualities) and Command and Control (traditional male qualities). In this post, I look at a leadership style that combines both traditionally masculine with feminine qualities: the Chimera.

By definition, a chimera is a composite creature, sometimes having disparate parts (lion's head, goat's body) or composed of genetically distinct tissues. I've stretched the definition somewhat to describe the female (or male) leader who displays both traditionally female and traditionally male behaviors. One might argue that it's an inappropriate choice, since chimeras are typically viewed as being grotesque creatures that don't fit in. I'm taking a different view...one in which such a composite combines the best qualities from two disparate sources and creates a new whole that works well.

This woman has adopted a mixture of strong leadership qualities that are stereotypically male, while retaining some communal qualities. By being assertive, ambitious, and outspoken, she sends the message that she's capable of going toe-to-toe with the boys. However, having a few communal qualities (cooperative, nurturing) will show her to be in synch with her traditional gender role. Many successful female leaders fall into this category. As I noted above, however, this approach does not always put a woman on equal footing with a man whose natural gender-based tendencies are congruent with strong leadership qualities.

There is also another set of leadership styles, often referred to as transactional vs. transformational. The transformational leader sets high standards of behavior and establishes herself as a role model by gaining the trust and confidence of her team. She frequently discusses past achievements with her subordinates and offers new ideas for achieving even higher goals. This type of leader mentors subordinates and encourages them to advance to the point that they outgrow their current position and move on to a higher level position elsewhere. This leader often retains strong ties with these mentees, eventually becoming colleagues and developing long-term working relationships. The transactional leader, by contrast, manages subordinates by setting up defined responsibilities, monitoring their work, and using a reward/punishment approach to make corrections.

A woman who exhibits the transformational type of leadership behavior might be much more successful at being perceived as a strong leader, compared to the transactional approach. This would be true, of course, for men as well. However, it might be an added quality that helps a woman overcome the disadvantages of the gender-leader inconsistency. Research suggests that women, more than men, adopt aspects of the transformational style, including: 1) motivating their followers to feel respect and pride in being associated with them, 2) exhibiting excitement and optimism about future goals, and 3) mentoring. Perhaps women can use these in place of aggressive or competitive behavior to demonstrate strong leadership.

Well, there you have it. The topic of leadership styles is obviously complex, and I've only skimmed the surface. However, the material I've covered has helped me to better understand what the issues are for women in selecting a leadership style and some of the options that might work better than others. Every person's situation is different, so that the choice of leadership style must be tailored to the particular circumstances. This point also means that a leader must be prepared to change styles as conditions change. Moving to a new job, transitioning through career stages, or interacting with different groups of people all require periodic reassessment of leadership modes. Those leaders who insist on using the same style no matter what will likely run into trouble at some point.

If you are in a leadership position and are having difficulties, it might be beneficial to reassess your leadership behavior. If you are a woman, it is especially important to determine what your organizational expectations are for its leaders and how gender roles are viewed in your workplace. This is where female role models may be especially important. Those women who have successfully established themselves as leaders in their fields will have adopted those specific behaviors that work. By observing them and how they lead will be invaluable to younger women struggling to develop their own styles.

Command and Control

2011-09-23T14:09:00.001-05:00

I'm discussing three leadership options for women. In the last post, I described a leader who exhibits traditionally female qualities (nurturing, cooperative): Leading from the Heart. In this post, I will consider a leader who has for the most part adopted (or naturally has) masculine characteristics congruent with strong leadership (assertive, competitive, aggressive, etc.): Command and Control.

I know several women, both in academic and non-academic settings, who favor this style. Although they are successful in the science profession and may be strong leaders, they are not always viewed in a completely positive light. Some of them seem to have difficulties gaining the respect of subordinates, peers, and/or superiors. According to experts, the problem may lie in the inconsistency between gender role expectations and leadership expectations. A woman who is assertive and outspoken may be seen as presumptuous and over-confident. If she has mostly discarded all feminine features, she is especially criticized for having violated her gender role and is seen as a flawed person, regardless of how successful she is professionally. Although this probably explains some of the reactions to such women, I'm not so sure this is the whole story.

I’ve particularly intrigued as to why such women are frequently challenged (or disrespected) by subordinates (male and female). I don’t have enough in-depth information to be certain, but I can speculate about some possibilities. I suspect that a woman who is assertive, aggressive, and competitive, but whose work is not of the highest quality (evidenced, for example, by publishing in low-tier journals or not bringing in large grants) would be viewed as having an over-inflated ego. The same might be true of a young female who has not yet established a strong professional status, but behaves as if she has. The fact that she is acting in a contra-gender fashion might add further to the negative perception. (A man, by contrast, might not be downgraded as much for having an over-inflated ego).

In decision-making, a leader may behave democratically and allow subordinates to express opinions or make decisions autocratically and discourage any input from subordinates. If a woman is highly regarded by peers and successful, then behaving autocratically would seem to be justified (to a degree, but not as much as for a male). On the other hand, a woman who is perceived as having a too-high opinion of herself would have special difficulties with subordinates. If she’s not that successful and also ignores her subordinates’ input by being autocratic, then she will likely not be seen as a capable leader. Eventually, her demands are seen as irritating and repressive, and subordinates begin to rebel, challenging her decisions... at first behind her back, then face-to-face.
An autocratic approach could also sully interactions with peers--other scientists. In joint projects as PI, she might insist on making all the decisions and not invite co-PIs to participate (or veto their opinions, if they do not coincide with hers). You can imagine how well this would go over with her colleagues. I've seen this situation on several occasions involving lead PIs who were female. They treat co-PIs the same way they treat their staff: assigning tasks, monitoring their work, and excluding them from the decision-making process even though they may have co-designed the project and are responsible for a major aspect of it. I suspect that such women either think this behavior is expected of them as a leader or they are over-compensating for low self-esteem.

In any case, adopting the Command and Control style of leadership can be problematic for a woman, especially in interactions with colleagues. Perhaps a senior woman who has reached the top of her profession might successfully implement this style of leadership, but I would expect that even she would experience some resistance.

Leading from the Heart

2011-09-20T09:24:00.002-05:00

In the last post, I promised to muse about the different leadership choices women may make.

Women more often exhibit communal qualities (nurturing, cooperative, supportive) and are generally concerned with the welfare of others. Men more often exhibit agentic qualities (assertive, aggressive, confident, attention-seeking), characteristics traditionally ascribed to a strong leader. A woman seeking a leadership style may behave in a mostly feminine fashion (Leading from the Heart), in a masculine manner (Command and Control), or in a mixed style (Chimera).

In the following posts, I will try to explore a bit more deeply each of these options, looking at why they work or don't work well for women. In this post, I take a closer look at the leader who exhibits mostly traditionally female qualities. This person may be male or female, but the female will be behaving in a manner consistent with the feminine stereotype.

This leader is concerned with the welfare of subordinates and may exhibit few qualities expected in a strong leader. She may be timid, backs down when challenged, is tentative rather than confident (in stating an opinion or giving orders), is usually soft-spoken, rarely speaks up in meetings, and is more happy being in the background. On the other hand, she is empathetic, concerned, honest, collaborative, encouraging, and supportive--attributes that make her good at team-building and mentoring. Such a woman may struggle with her leadership role, especially if she finds herself in an organization that favors the Command and Control type of leader and/or where there are few other leaders like her.

However, there is a growing recognition that the take-charge, autocratic type of leader is not compatible with the 21st century world where people from diverse backgrounds have to work together and where complex problems require teams of people who can all contribute creative ideas. The networking skills of the female leader may prove to be an asset in the future, rather than a liability. A woman in science, especially in academia, also will be training or mentoring others, which requires many communal qualities. A female scientist in a non-academic setting will likely have a staff who look to her for encouragement, vision, and emotional support.

I can think of several women who fall into this category. Not surprisingly, in many science settings such women still are not generally viewed as leadership material and are undervalued. Will this change in the future, as networking and other communal skills become more appreciated or in demand? Is this a viable choice for a woman in science now? Is this style more likely to be successful in academia compared to other settings? I don't have answers to these questions, but I do think that this style might work for some women in some circumstances.

In the next post, I consider the Command and Control style of leadership.

She's Too Bossy!

2011-09-13T18:01:00.002-05:00

Imagine the following scenario:

Jane is a PI at a research laboratory and has been asked by the lab director to be team leader for a new, high-profile project. The other team members are mostly male, some of whom have served as team leaders for previous projects. Jane has never been selected before, but was tapped in this case because she is the acknowledged expert on the topic of this new project. Jane is very excited about this new challenge and dives right in, setting up meetings and organizing plans for tackling the project.

She wants to show that she's a capable leader by taking charge and being decisive. In the first meeting with her team, she lays out her plan for the project, assigning different members to tasks based on their respective areas of expertise. As she is going through her plan, she notices several people frowning and others who are making inaudible, but clearly critical comments to their neighbors. When she finishes, no one says anything...they just sit and stare. The atmosphere in the room is definitely hostile. Later, Jane learns that her team members have complained to the director that she is too "bossy" and "dictatorial". Jane is mystified by this reaction because on other projects male team leaders typically set forth the overall plan and assigned roles in exactly the same way she did.

What happened to Jane in this hypothetical scenario is not uncommon. Women who display traits normally associated with strong leaders (assertive, independent, dominant, out-spoken) are criticized as being "bossy" or, worse, the other "b word". In contrast, if a woman behaves in a more feminine way (soft-spoken, hesitant, nurturing), she is judged to be a poor leader. A recent paper Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms explores the classic no-win situation that women leaders may experience. This work is summarized in The Glass Hammer, a website for women executives.

The problem lies in the inconsistent expectations for leaders and for feminine behavior. Leaders are expected to behave in a dominant fashion, be assertive and outspoken--characteristics that are consistent with stereotypical male behavior. A man behaving like a leader is more readily accepted. However, a woman who displays normal leadership qualities is viewed as being presumptuous; her behavior clashes with the feminine stereotype. This Catch-22 situation is sometimes referred to as the Double Bind.

These leadership stereotypes work against women, sometimes in a subtle way, but can have a definite effect on a woman's career. If an assertive, outspoken woman is passed over for a job or promotion because she's judged to be "overbearing", while a man with the same characteristics is hired, this is discrimination. Similarly, if a woman is seen as being less qualified for a leadership position because she's "too nice" and is not selected on this basis, this too is discrimination. The key here is that a decision is made based on gender stereotypes, not on actual capabilities. The fact that such an action would be considered discriminatory and illegal would probably come as a surprise to some people who hold such beliefs (e.g., based on traditional social values or religious beliefs). They may view women (and some men) with predominately communal attributes (cooperative, nurturing, caring) as being incapable of being strong leaders. However, anyone who makes hiring or promotion decisions based on such reasoning may find themselves in very hot water.

Not all women in science have problems in terms of leadership. For some, their leadership style may coincide with the expectations of the organization. In academic settings, communal behaviors are compatible with teaching and training, so that women may safely display such characteristics without detracting from their overall role as a leader. However, in other science jobs, mostly involving research and other competitive endeavors, there may be a greater expectation for a leader to be more aggressive, forceful, confident, and outspoken. It is in this setting that the organizational expectations for leader behavior and female behavior are major determinants of a woman's experience...and, ultimately, her career success. If the expectation in the organization is for the Command and Control type of leader and a woman's natural inclination is to be something else, there will be problems. Some men may also run into this conundrum and have similar difficulties being viewed as capable leaders.

A woman (or man) who is unaware of leadership pitfalls may fall prey to such biases. She may think that her problems with subordinates or superiors or her failure to advance in the organization are her fault. She may begin to question her capabilities, which leads to a loss of confidence and a downward spiral effect on her overall performance. By itself, leadership difficulties may not be overwhelming, but may tip the balance along with the added pressures to publish, bring in high-profile grants, and balance family and work. This is what I suspect contributes to the "leaky pipeline". I also think that subtle disadvantages for women and advantages for men compound over time, leading to greater disparity at each career transition. Women in STEM fields see others (men) who do not have to work as hard and/or seem not to have the same difficulties. The failure to meet expectations has an increasingly greater impact as a woman advances from student to professional. This is extremely discouraging.

When women are given opportunities to perform in a leadership role, they may find the position difficult or they may even completely fail...and never recognize why. Superiors, co-workers, and subordinates may unknowingly contribute to such failures because of their biases. Some women eventually decide they are just not cut out to be a scientist or engineer and quit.

The disadvantages from various sources accumulate over a career, until a breaking point is reached. Leadership bias is only one of several potential ways a woman may be disadvantaged. However, it's interesting that leadership skills increase in importance with each step up the career ladder from student to post-doc to assistant professor/junior scientist to tenured professor/senior scientist and beyond. Lacking any formal leadership training (and the natural acceptance afforded men in leadership roles), a woman is at a huge disadvantage. Without leadership skills (or savy about avoiding gender-leader inconsistencies), a woman may become increasingly disadvantaged as she is faced with more and more leadership responsibilities at each career transition.

So, what can women do? One obvious answer is to be aware of leadership pitfalls and how inconsistencies between organizational expectations and gender roles may arise. Developing good leadership skills is also important. But what leadership styles work for women and why? In the next post, I consider three options women have to choose from in a leadership role.

Gender and Leadership Styles

2011-09-11T09:16:00.006-05:00

Before I delve into leadership styles for women, we first need to understand a bit about how both our gender and our workplace influence not only our choice of behavior, but whether it's effective or not.

It’s difficult to determine the impact of gender on leadership behavior, in part because of the simultaneous effect of gender roles and organizational roles. Even though we may strive to perform in a genderless manner, we cannot escape the fact of our sex and its effect on our behavior as well as on others' expectations of us. Men and women who achieve leadership status in an organization may behave similarly because of norms regulating the performance of tasks in that role. A PI, for example, will prepare grant proposals, develop and carry out research, hire and supervise a staff, write and publish papers…all activities required to be successful in this role and that are essentially genderless. However, there is always leeway in how these activities are carried out. A PI may be friendly or reclusive, ask colleagues for advice or not, be aggressive or timid, be autocratic or democratic in making decisions, work alongside staff or have distinctly separate activities. Exactly how someone carries out various tasks may be influenced by gender, either due to their own gender-related tendencies or to organizational expectations of their performance in that position.

Characteristics relevant to leadership that are more often ascribed to men are termed agentic: assertive, controlling, ambitious, dominant, independent, daring, self-confident, competitive. A leader must speak and act confidently, capture and hold the attention of others, generate a viable plan of action (and vision), and motivate subordinates to carry out tasks. In contrast, characteristics more often associated with women are communal in nature: sensitive, sympathetic, kind, warm, affectionate, nurturing, and modest. Behaviors arising from such characteristics might be: being a good listener, supporting others, expressing concern for others’ welfare, being cooperative, avoiding attention, speaking softly or tentatively. These features are counter to what is traditionally expected in a leader, but are not entirely without merit in that role. For example, some effective leaders are good at “reading” other people, especially body language.

I am talking here about general qualities and perceptions related to gender; there are obviously exceptions, with men having communal qualities and women with agentic qualities.

We can see how a female, in attempting to meld her naturally communal qualities with those qualities associated with a leader, would develop a somewhat different leadership style than a male whose natural inclinations already coincided with strong leadership qualities. A female who is naturally assertive, out-spoken, and competitive would perhaps develop a leadership style more like that of a male with similar tendencies. We could also envision a male with communal qualities becoming a leader with a mixture of qualities more like the first female.

Problems arise mostly because of other people’s expectations: their beliefs are upheld with men in the role of leader, but not with women. This is partly due to traditional views of the female gender role, which is seen as inconsistent with the leadership role. Here’s where the Double-Bind comes in. There is often prejudice against female leaders, because leadership abilities are more stereotypic of men. However females who exhibit strong leadership qualities are also viewed less favorably because their behavior is counter to what is expected of the female gender. We can't win.

It’s easy to see, then, that a woman who behaves in a stereotypically female fashion will not be viewed as an effective leader, whereas a woman who exhibits mostly male-stereotypical qualities (assertive, competitive, etc.) will also be viewed as a flawed leader (or at least not readily accepted). Research shows that women who adopt a very authoritative and directive leadership style often encounter resistance, whereas men with exactly the same qualities are gauged to be highly competent leaders. Some women try to take charge in a very authoritative fashion, in an attempt to show they are strong leaders, but this approach backfires for them.

There is thus the possibility that a woman who exhibits the strong qualities of a leader, but also shows some communal behaviors (warm, cooperative, nurturing), will have better success. However, she will still be at a disadvantage because her supportive behaviors may be interpreted as weaknesses (in a leader). However, this may depend on specifics of which leadership features are adopted (e.g., autocratic vs. democratic) in combination with the communal qualities she exhibits....and what the organizational expectations are.

Do I know women who exhibit these different styles of behavior, either in leadership positions or who are potential leaders? Yes, I can think of examples for all of these. See the next post for more on this topic.

It's My Way or the Highway

2011-09-07T16:44:00.001-05:00

In this series of posts, I'm talking about leadership styles and using a movie K-19: The Widowmaker to illustrate contrasting types of leader. In the last post, I described the participative or democratic style, exemplified by the character, Capt. Mikhail Polenin (Liam Neeson), who captained a Soviet submarine during the Cold War era (the movie is loosely based on real events). He and his crew are assigned to test drive the first nuclear submarine. After Polenin angers superiors, another officer is assigned to serve as captain: Alexei Vostrikov (Harrison Ford). Polenin stays on as XO, which sets the stage for a clash of leadership styles.

Vostrikov is the polar opposite of Polenin when it comes to leadership styles. He's autocratic and very task-oriented (as opposed to a democratic leader like Polenin whose leadership style focuses on the welfare and morale of his subordinates). Vostrikov makes decisions on his own and never solicits advice or input from his officers or crew. When Polenin tries to advise him about how best to handle his crew, Vostrikov ignores him. Later, the two clash over the brutal drills Vostrikov puts the crew through to ready them for firing a nuclear missile. Vostrikov believes that Polenin has not done his job in preparing the crew for the grim realities of serving on a nuclear submarine. Vostrikov puts the mission above all other concerns, including the lives of the crew (the ultimate task-oriented leader).

Initially, the viewer is sympathetic to Polenin and admires his rapport with his men. As the movie progresses and the crew succeeds in firing the missile, however, the crew (and the viewer) begin to see the two leaders in a different light. When disaster strikes later on (the cooling system for the nuclear reactor fails), everyone is put to the test. The viewer begins to realize that the shoddy maintenance of the submarine and failure on the part of Polenin to demand the best of the crew is partly responsible for the fix they find themselves in. At that point, it's clear that in situations involving life and death decisions, the autocratic style of Vostrikov has some distinct merits. As I noted in a previous post, there is no time for a leader to make everyone feel good or to consider everyone's preferences when a decision must be made to sacrifice some crew members to save the majority (to repair the nuclear reactor, some crew members must receive a fatal dose of radiation).

In situations where the leader is much more experienced and knowledgeable than subordinates, the autocratic approach may be the best choice. That's clearly the case with Vostrikov......and this military scenario. He knows what is required and the consequences; for himself and the crew. He's prepared to go down with the ship if necessary, and expects the crew to be similarly prepared to make sacrifices for the mission.

We can consider a more familiar situation of a laboratory with a PI leading a research group composed of less knowledgeable students, post-docs, and technicians. It may not be a life or death setting, but the element of differential expertise is the same, as is the requirement to follow protocols and the need to make critical decisions that will determine success or failure of the group.

Many PIs rule their research groups in much the same way as Vostrikov handles the submarine crew. This type of leader makes decisions alone, without input from the group, and only shares those decisions when the time is right. The PI is the most experienced, usually, and fully aware of all aspects of the research program as well as budget and other administrative concerns and, therefore, is the person most qualified to make key decisions. This reasoning is certainly justified when there is a large gap in expertise between the leader and team members.

The autocratic leader is focused on the task, not the morale of the group, and often demands that subordinates function at their best at all times and be willing to sacrifice to accomplish their goal. This type of leader assumes that anyone choosing such a career is prepared to make sacrifices. The task-oriented leader holds team members responsible for mistakes and immediately takes steps to ensure that the mistake is not repeated. Such leaders typically are hard-driving individuals who demand the same effort from their group as they do of themselves.

Are such autocratic, task-oriented leaders popular with their team? Probably not. Being task-oriented focuses attention on the bottom line, rather than on the immediate welfare or preferences of subordinates. However, that is perhaps not the right question. Are such leaders successful? Are they popular with their superiors? Definitely. They produce results and make their superiors look good. This usually means more resources and support from the organization, which leads to job stability and a better working environments for the team. Producing high-quality results leads to recognition and more resources (grants). In the long-run, the task-oriented leader ensures that the group succeeds; everyone reaps the benefits.

In Vostrikov's case, the crew members eventually recognize that his leadership saved their lives and that had he not pushed them to the limits and demanded the best out of them, all would have been lost. Even Polenin ultimately acknowledges Vostrikov's leadership in crisis and joins the crew in supporting the decisions he made.

However, there is a point during the crisis when some of the officers, incensed over Vostrikov's demanding behavior, decide to mutiny. They dislike Vostrikov, think he is making bad decisions and is going to sacrifice the crew. They've been trained by Polenin, who emphasized the welfare of the crew over other concerns, and are doing what Polenin would want, i.e., they are second-guessing. Vostrikov also is partly to blame because he has not shared his views or thinking behind his decisions with the officers and crew. So they've jumped to false conclusions: that he doesn't care about the crew, is only interested in his own glory, etc. That's one downside to the autocratic approach. When subordinates are not informed, they may not understand certain decisions and grumble. If things go wrong, the followers are going to blame the leader. Of course, they might do this with a more democratic leader, but there will likely be more sympathy for the leader and an inclination to acknowledge their own roles in any failure of the group, if they understand the reasons behind key decisions.

As I said in the previous posts, the movie exaggerated some aspects, and the diametrically opposed leadership styles may have been somewhat contrived. For me, that was not a negative. I thought the exploration of leadership (also, the meaning of bravery) was interesting and added an intriguing dimension to the story.

What lesson can we take from this discussion?

Well, we can see that there are advantages and disadvantages to both the democratic/communal and the autocratic/task-oriented type of leadership. There are specific circumstances in which each approach is the better choice. As I pointed out in the previous post, the democratic style probably isn't the best choice in a military situation, but instead works best for a leader when team members are all highly skilled, are capable of making good decisions, and where the mission depends on creative and original contributions from the group. Where there is a big discrepancy between the expertise of the leader and subordinates, the autocratic style may be preferable. Success is not guaranteed, of course. In both cases, either style can work as long as things are going smoothly. However, when a crisis strikes, things can go haywire quickly--as depicted in K-19.

There is a third type of leader, not depicted in the movie, known as the laissez-faire or free-rein leader. This type of leader basically leaves the team to their own devices to decide how to do their work. One might say that this type of leader does not really lead.

So, which type of leader are you (or do you aspire to be) and why? Is this something you are concerned about (or do you think it's not worth worrying about)? Do any of these leadership styles pose special issues for female leaders?

Photo Credit: Still image from K-19: The Widowmaker

The Feel-Good Boss

2011-08-31T17:29:00.002-05:00

We are discussing leadership styles, and the first type I'd like to consider is known as the "interpersonal" or "participative" type of leader. Someone who employs this style might be called the Feel-Good Boss. Such a leader motivates subordinates by focusing on their morale and welfare, often helping or doing favors for them or working alongside them to solve problems. This boss is friendly and available, which usually makes them very popular and well-liked.

That's the case with Capt. Mikhail Polenin (played by the actor Liam Neeson), a character in the movie K-19: The Widowmaker, which I described in the previous post. He is the captain of the first Soviet submarine outfitted with nuclear reactors. For its first mission as a nuclear-powered submarine, Polenin has been demoted to XO and replaced by Capt. Alexei Vostrikov (played by Harrison Ford), who uses quite a different, more autocratic leadership style (Command and Control). I will be using this film to explore these two styles of leadership.

As the film opens, we immediately recognize that Polenin is well-liked and respected by his officers and crew. The reason becomes obvious even before the submarine leaves port. As supplies are being loaded, the ship's doctor, rushing to catch up with a departing supply truck, is struck and killed. Vostrikov strides over, takes one look, and orders one man to call and wait for an ambulance and the other men back to work. They all stand there with shocked expressions at this apparently callous response. Polenin then rushes over, kneels by the fallen doctor, calls his first name, and clearly shows that he's affected on a personal level at this death.

As the movie progresses, we see many more examples of Polenin's interpersonal style of leadership. He inquires about individual crew members and challenges Vostrikov's intensely brutal drills, which push the crew to their physical and emotional limits. When the crew members falter during these exercises, Polenin rolls up this sleeves and works alongside them to accomplish their tasks.

What are the advantages of this type of leadership style? According to experts, this style works well in situations where team members are highly skilled and capable of making informed decisions as well as providing useful input to leaders. It's helpful in settings where creative and original ideas are needed from everyone to accomplish the mission, and there is time to discuss options and come to a democratic decision. Workers are more motivated and inclined to work hard when their leader treats them with this level of consideration and respect. I would add that this style is also compatible with the academic leader who is expected to mentor students and postdocs.

The interpersonal style does not work well in other situations, however. Military situations are a prime example in which a leader must be able to make fast decisions. There is usually no time to get everyone's opinion, discuss options, and make everyone feel good before proceeding to shoot off a nuclear warhead.

In K-19, the interpersonal style used by Polenin has clearly led to a dangerous situation in which the crew is ill-prepared to respond to the various challenges that may arise in a nuclear submarine carrying atomic warheads. The numerous accidents that occur prior to leaving the port and during the drills are a direct result of Polenin's failure to push his men to their best performance and to hold them accountable for failures in the past. One gets the impression that Polenin has coddled his crew, who have not been trained properly to face the grim reality of their situation.

Polenin's failure is abundantly clear to Vostrikov, who proceeds to test and push the crew until they perform satisfactorily. The viewer soon recognizes that Vostrikov's style of leadership is needed for this particular situation and that Polenin may have failed his crew by being too soft on them.

In science, we do not usually find ourselves in such dire circumstances as a nuclear submarine crew, but our work is very mission-oriented, which requires adherence to protocols, careful record-keeping, and other concerns to ensure the quality and timeliness of our products. A leader who fails to ensure that team members are performing their best will ultimately fall by the wayside due to errors, delays, and other problems. If a person chooses the interpersonal style of leadership, they must walk a fine line in such settings. In the process of being friendly and supportive of subordinates, asking for advice and help making decisions, and perhaps failing to hold people fully accountable for mistakes, the Feel-Good Boss may subvert the work goal in favor of people's feelings. Or the subordinates may begin to take liberties and overstep their roles, which happens in K-19.

When the nuclear reactor springs a leak, the crew must go inside the chamber to make repairs. Unfortunately, they have only chemical protection suits on board, not radiation-protective gear. They have no choice but to sacrifice a few crew members to avoid a larger disaster that will kill everyone. The crew are sent into the reactor chamber in pairs for only 10 minutes at a time, but this is enough to get a fatal dose. Each pair emerges vomiting and with their skin already burned after their brief exposures. The radiation quickly begins spreading throughout the submarine. Polenin wants to ask a nearby American destroyer for help to evacuate the crew. Vostrikov is adamant that he will not allow the sub to fall into American hands. Some of the officers loyal to Polenin decide that they must relieve Vostrikov of his command and reinstate Polenin. I won't reveal what happens next, but it's this action that finally wakes Polenin up to the fact that his crew is making decisions and taking actions that they think he would approve of (rather than waiting for him to issue the order).

An analogous laboratory scenario might be, for example, when a student or less knowledgeable lab worker has decided to take a "short-cut" in a method. Their reasoning is usually that the short-cut will save time, not realizing that it will cause a major error in the resulting data. This scenario might occur when the PI has encouraged her team to make their own decisions. By inviting less skilled team members to participate in decision making, the PI may get some useful ideas or boost morale, but also runs the risk of sending the wrong message, i.e., that subordinates are being invited to make critical decisions on their own--for which they are insufficiently prepared.

Another downside to the participatory style of leadership is when a subordinate feels emboldened to eventually challenge the leader's authority. If the leader works side-by-side with subordinates, frequently helping them with their tasks or soliciting advice, the distinction between their roles becomes blurred. Subordinates may perceive their role to be more elevated (e.g., by providing input to major decisions) and the leader's role reduced (e.g., by seeming to need subordinate's advice to make decisions). They ultimately may question the leader's capacity to lead. A female leader might be more vulnerable in this regard.

It's possible to be a participatory leader without a loss of control, of course. For example, a PI might work alongside staff in the laboratory or field, even performing menial tasks, but still remain a strong leader by performing duties that only she can carry out (establishing the group's research goals, writing and submitting proposals, preparing budgets, doing performance reviews, approving expenditures, etc.). Everyone gets the message that the boss is willing to (and capable of) doing the technical work when necessary, but that her primary role is to make the big decisions and guide the team, i.e., be the leader. Team morale is good because members feel that their leader values their opinions and skills and knows first-hand what their work entails; they simultaneously are glad that the leader is ultimately responsible for the team's performance. Capt. Polenin was following this model, which worked as long as there was no crisis (at least that's how I interpreted his portrayal in the movie). The movie's contrast between the more "feminine" leadership style of Polenin and the "macho" style of Vostrikov may have been mostly contrived (and unrealistic), but was still an interesting comparison.

So, the participatory style of leadership can have a positive impact on team members' morale and usually gains that leader the respect and allegiance of subordinates. This approach works in certain settings, but not in others. It can be problematic when there is a critical mission to accomplish....one for example, where failure can result in death or injury of those involved in the work (military) or who might be affected by the outcome of the work (medical field). For a woman, this leadership style, which uses many traditionally feminine qualities, may seem to be a natural choice, but could make her appear to be a weak leader.

In the next post, I'll examine the task-oriented/autocratic style of leadership, exemplified by Capt. Vostrikov in K-19. After we have a clear picture of both styles, I'll consider them together in the context of scientific leadership and whether gender differences play a role in our choices of leadership style.

What Type of Leader Are You?

2011-08-29T17:26:00.006-05:00

....or do you prefer? These questions occurred to me as I was watching a movie, K-19: The Widowmaker. In case you never saw it, this film is loosely based on events during the Cold War when the Soviet Union’s first nuclear submarine (the K-19) almost experienced a nuclear meltdown when the reactor cooling system sprung a leak.

Aside from telling a gripping and suspenseful story, the movie also explores a number of interesting themes, including leadership styles.

The main characters, played by Harrison Ford (in one of his best performances) and Liam Neeson, have very different styles of leadership. Neeson’s character (Capt. Mikhail Polenin) uses what is known as a “participatory” style of leadership behavior. He treats his crew in a friendly manner, seeks their input, and often pitches in to work alongside the crew when they falter. His style also has many features more characteristic of women (sympathetic, concerned about subordinates' welfare, helpful, and other communal qualities). Polenin has been the crew’s captain for some time and holds their absolute trust and allegiance. The character played by Harrison Ford (Capt. Alexei Vostrikov) is just the opposite…an authoritarian leader who pushes the crew to their limits and expects nothing less than peak performance in all circumstances. His style of leadership is known as "task-oriented", in addition to being autocratic. Vostrikov is totally focused on the mission; all other concerns are secondary (or not relevant), including people's lives, which may be sacrificed to achieve the ultimate goals of the State. He makes all decisions alone, seeks no input from subordinates, but accepts full responsibility for his decisions. These two are thrown together when Vostrikov is assigned to replace Polenin as captain of the K19 (after Polenin disagrees with superiors about the readiness of the sub); Polenin is assigned to stay on as XO.

Reviews often compare K19: The Widomaker to The Search for Red October, Das Boot, or Crimson Tide. However, about the only thing these films have in common is that they all take place on a submarine. There are various quibbles about historical accuracy, fake Russian accents, and the obligatory submarine scenes (pressure-induced hulk clanking, etc.), but all in all it’s a good movie. I’m not interested in doing another review of K-19; plenty of others have done so, and you can find these on the internet.

What is most interesting to me and what I'd like to explore further is the contrasting leadership styles and how the two characters deal with different dilemmas that arise during their ill-fated voyage. It’s such an interesting and nuanced exploration of leadership (as well as bravery) that the film is often used as a case study in leadership courses.

And did I mention that K-19 was directed by Kathryn Bigelow? She also directed the recent film, Hurt Locker, which won an Oscar for best picture and director, beating out Avatar, directed by her former husband, James Cameron (see previous posts about Avatar and sexism in Cameron's films). One can muse about why Bigelow is drawn to mostly male protagonists and topics of bravery and leadership in military situations…

But….back to leadership styles. I thought it would be interesting to examine these two styles (task-oriented/autocratic vs. communal/participatory) and then consider women's leadership styles. Which one worked better in this military situation? What happens when women copy men’s traditional leadership styles? Can we develop our own unique styles of leadership...that work?

In the next post, I will examine the participatory style of leadership in more detail, using the dilemmas in K19 to assess advantages and disadvantages of this style.

Photo Credit: Still image from K-19: The Widowmaker, First Light Production

American Translation

2011-08-26T17:26:00.001-05:00

I mentioned in the last post that I recently attended a regional conference in another country. I gave one of the plenary presentations, but was the only speaker (plenary or session) to deliver a talk in English. There were other Americans in attendance, but they were apparently fluent in the local language. I knew beforehand that this would likely be the case and that many in the audience might not understand English very well.

What should one do in such an instance? Just deliver in English and hope for the best? Read a foreign translation of your talk?

I had briefly considered reading my talk in the native language of the host country, but finally decided that my pronunciation/accent might not be understood. Also, reading a talk is boring, in any language. I decided I had to deliver in English and have a translator. I've done this before, but it was not a simultaneous translation. Instead, the translator stood beside me and translated after each sentence or two. Simultaneous translation is much better, but requires more preparation.

I initially relied on the conference organizers, who invited me, to make whatever arrangements might be necessary. The plan was to have a simultaneous translator and to give out headphones to those who needed them. However, I learned after arriving at the conference venue that only 100 or so headphones would be rented, but that they were expecting around 600 participants (turns out around 350 or so attended the day of my presentation).

After meeting a few people who spoke so little English that I was forced to use what little I knew of their language to communicate, I realized that this would not be like a typical international conference where the official language is English and most people understand it. I began to be concerned that some people would not be able to follow my presentation. So in addition to the translator (more about that later), I made a few adjustments to my Powerpoint presentation.

First of all, I asked a former student from that country to help me translate key phrases on my slides into their language. I know enough of the language to get by, but cannot carry on a conversation or trust myself to do an accurate job of translation. However, knowing some basic vocabulary and conjugation was a big help. We also made use of online translators to check for alternate definitions and to look up technical words. This all worked well. Each slide had the title translated. I also inserted a sentence on key slides that summarized the main point. Most of my slides were very visual, with photos, graphs, and diagrams--to facilitate understanding without a verbal description. I also used a lot of animation with arrows or circles to emphasize key aspects of the data (and minimize the need for additional verbiage).

It took us about an hour to go through the presentation and do all the translation. I later added some more slides to the presentation and was able to use the online translator by myself to fill in the text translation.

As I mentioned above, they also hired a simultaneous translator, and the conference hall was set up for this with a booth and microphones. Prior to leaving home for the meeting, I sent the translator the script of my presentation so she would have plenty of time to do the translation. She took the script and wrote all of it out in the native language. The day of my presentation, I met with her to go over the talk and to answer any questions she had about technical terms. I was very impressed with her professionalism and how much she understood of the science. I answered her questions, and we went over last-minute changes in the order of slides.

Then it was time for my talk. I hesitated to start off by apologizing for speaking in English, but decided to do so. However, I made a joke about it, which seemed to be appreciated. During the talk, I made a point to speak slowly and to enunciate my words carefully. I also paused frequently and looked directly at different sections of the audience (to make eye contact). I tried to gauge how well people were understanding, but it was impossible (I find this difficult anyway with most audiences, who tend to sit with blank expressions). Anyway, I proceeded with the expectation that I was being understood.

Apparently, I was. Afterwards, several people who were not fluent in English came up to tell me that they had no trouble following my talk and really appreciated the efforts I made to make my talk understandable. They mentioned my speaking slowly and especially the language translation on each slide as being the biggest factors that helped them follow me (they also hinted that this had not been their usual experience with other American and British speakers who tend to talk very rapidly).

I was very pleased with how well it all turned out. Maybe I'll get confident enough in the future to deliver a talk in another language. For now, though, I see what I should do to help non-English speakers to better follow my presentations.

Photo Credits: Creature from District 9 (TriStar Pictures); NASA/JPL Planetquest; modified still image, unknown photographer

Science Fans

2011-08-21T13:46:00.000-05:00

Last week I had a new experience. I have been attending a conference in another country and gave a plenary presentation. It went well, and afterwards, several people approached to talk and ask questions. Two students came up and told me that they were big fans of my work...had read all of my papers, etc. Both, by the way, were female. The one who could speak English the best and who seemed to be most "star-struck" asked if she could have her picture taken with me. I obliged.

I then asked the students about their interests and what their research projects were about. They were soon joined by other women, professors and students, all of whom were apparently fans of my work. We had a great time exchanging stories about our work and experiences (problems, triumphs).

Anyway, this was the first time I've ever experienced this--being asked to have my picture taken with someone...a stranger. I have been approached by students before who liked my papers and wanted to meet me. The request for a photo was new, though. It seemed awkward from my viewpoint, because I do not know this student. However, I realized that she felt she knew me through my papers and especially just having heard me give a presentation. So, it makes sense, I suppose, to want to have a photo of me. I'm not sure what she will do with this photo. Keep it on her computer desktop as encouragement through her graduate program?

I relate this story to make a point, which is that we often don't know how much our research articles influence others, especially students and junior scientists. It's only when they come up to us at meetings and tell us about the impact our work has had on them personally that it becomes apparent.

These students (and their female professors) explained that they followed my work and looked forward to each new paper. They also explained that they had been encouraged (by my work) to pursue a particular area of research themselves. I hesitate to use the term, role-model, but that was what I was thinking when they were explaining how they viewed me and my publications. I had not thought of being a role-model in this way before...for strangers I may never meet or meet only briefly.

Is it better to meet someone you admire (who perhaps will not live up to your expectations) or never meet and maintain your mental image of them?

I recall meeting a Famous Scientist early in my career, someone whose work I admired, and being quite shocked to discover what a jerk he was. It may have been better had I never met him, as I could never look at his papers with quite the same admiration after meeting him.

On the other hand, I've met scientists whose work I had followed for years and who turned out to be great people and very supportive. Some have become good friends over the years.

Are Female Scientists An Endangered Species?

2011-08-07T10:54:00.000-05:00

An article recently asked this question based on the observation that fewer than 10% of UK professors are female. The problem posed is the familiar one of retention of women in science after graduation, rather than engagement of girls at earlier stages. Statistics quoted for the UK are similar to those in the US: around half of science students are female (even higher for biology). So, there seems to be less of a problem attracting young females to science. After graduation, however, the numbers shrink as women, facing the realities of balancing a career in a highly competitive field with family obligations and other interests, begin to drop out. The article goes on to discuss what might be done to help women stay in science.

Viewing women in science as endangered is an interesting way to look for solutions. Using the endangered species model as a guide, we can immediately focus on the habitat as a critical factor in species survival. Just as an endangered plant or animal requires certain environmental conditions to maintain a healthy population, women in science also require a supportive environment to not only survive, but to thrive. For example: sufficient resources and space (habitat) as well as ways to support recruitment and minimize losses are necessary to have a viable population. From an individual's standpoint, it means everything one needs to compete with others successfully. It's not a perfect analogy, but perhaps useful to ponder how one's work environment, especially support from superiors, staff, and colleagues, can be a major factor in whether a woman chooses to remain in her career or drop out.

Just the other day, I was talking with another member of a Women in Science group at a university where I am an adjunct. I've been attending the meetings of this group off and on for over a year and providing some insights about being a woman in science, basically saying that there will be bumps in the road, but it gets better if you stick it out. One or two other senior female faculty had also been attending and providing the same type of message, in various ways. This was not a planned strategy on our part...it just came across that way.

I had been wondering if the students and postdocs who belonged to this group were getting anything out of our meetings (I had never really gotten any direct feedback from them, positive or negative). Anyway, she had been talking to one of the students who belonged to the group and who had told her that these meetings had greatly influenced her. The student had been having some problems and was thinking that she was not cut out for a career in science. Hearing from some senior female scientists and seeing how we had succeeded convinced her to persevere. It seemed that hearing stories about what issues we had faced and how we dealt with them essentially sent the message that they were not alone in their experience, i.e., it was normal to occasionally feel inadequate or uncertain about a science career, but it would pass.

It's important to have a support group, whether you are having problems or not. Perhaps you are supremely confident in your capabilities and are sailing through your graduate program or postdoc training. However, you never know what might change tomorrow to throw a wrench into your plans. I find that those students who have rarely (or never) faced real difficulties are the least prepared to deal with a major setback. They are so accustomed to things always going their way, that they are left confused and shaken when things go wrong. Instead, those who have had to work hard expect difficulties and usually have developed good coping mechanisms and especially a support network.

Having a support group can be a life saver in such instances. I didn't, and struggled to maintain my confidence and to see my way forward when those obstacles occurred. Even my spouse (a science professor), who provided emotional support, really didn't understand from his perspective as a male in a male-dominated field. Consequently, much of his encouragement missed the mark. He really could not grasp what it is like to be marginalized or even actively discouraged by superiors and coworkers. He was always accepted as rightfully belonging to the science club, assumed to be competent (or had the potential), expected to be ambitious and to advance up the career ladder. He's never really understood what it was like not to have that kind of underpinning.

I'm convinced that it takes someone who has had similar experiences to provide you with the right kind of support or encouragement. Peers (male or female), who are not experiencing problems, may even be dismissive or critical of you, believing that the fault lies in your inability to deal with everyday issues (or even that your behavior is the source of the problem). This attitude, whether voiced or not, can be extremely damaging...perhaps more so than the problem itself.

Anyone who is facing a problem, especially one that shakes an individual's confidence, needs reassurance that they can overcome it. Yes, in some cases, the victim is part of the problem and needs to do some serious reassessment of their interpersonal dealings. But the way to help them (if you are their friend) is to assure them that others have had this same problem, but succeeded in dealing with it....by doing x, y, or z. Hearing a true story from someone who lived through it is a safe way to get the message across without blatantly blaming the victim, which will only make them more defensive.

In recounting such a story, a veteran might say, "I didn't realize initially how I was viewed by colleagues, but once I did, it seemed obvious that they would continue treating me badly as long as I continued my behavior. I finally realized that they had no incentive to change, but I did. Once I modified how I (fill in the blank), their attitude toward me began to change."

Stories are excellent ways to teach others. They convey real (or sometimes imagined) situations and describe how the heroine overcomes obstacles and goes on to a successful career in science. Perhaps we need more of such stories, including the emotional and gritty details, to help prepare those starting out to expect and conquer impediments....and eventually, women in science will be taken off the endangered species list.

No Show

2011-07-23T13:59:00.000-05:00

I was attending a conference a couple of weeks ago and observed the usual behaviors that occur at such gatherings. One occurrence, which I thought I would relate, involved a speaker who failed to show up for his own talk. He was at the meeting, but apparently lost track of time during the break.

This is not an earth-shaking event, but there are a couple of aspects I'd like to muse about. First, from a purely practical standpoint, how would you handle this if you were the session moderator? When I am moderator, I try to determine if all speakers are present in the room before the start of the session. There is nothing worse than having a gap in the program, which happens frequently enough that you should be prepared with a backup plan. Nowadays, it's relatively easy to determine if all your speakers have shown up for the meeting and are prepared to give their talks. Most conferences require speakers to upload their presentations beforehand, and these are loaded to the session computer or room. The moderator can check the lineup on the computer and see that everyone has arrived and loaded their presentations. However, that does not guarantee that they will all show up for their talks...as I observed at this conference.

In this case, several people in the audience knew the missing speaker and knew that he was present at the venue that day (i.e., had not gone sightseeing or had slept in). Someone volunteered to go look for him and fortunately found him within a few minutes (this was a small conference--about 500 people). When the missing speaker arrived, the session was able to proceed with only a few minutes delay. At a very large conference, this action would likely not have worked. In that case, there are a few other options.

The worst option is for the moderator to announce that a talk has been cancelled and then leave the audience to their own devices or, more likely, to get up and leave (actually, the worst is for the moderator to move up the remaining talks, which should never be done). A better option is to try to fill the time with something. If the missing talk is not the first one, then the moderator could invite additional questions of the previous speakers. This option is better than doing nothing and leaving a gap in the program, but some in the audience may still leave to go to other talks in competing sessions.

If the missing talk is the last one of the session, then the moderator can invite all the previous speakers up for a panel discussion. The latter works well if the session was an interesting/controversial one, and the audience is likely to stick around to hear what else is discussed. Some moderators simply end the session early instead of trying to fill the time with something useful. I can understand this, especially if it is the last session of the day or the meeting when people are tired and ready for a beer. However, I would make an attempt to start a discussion to fill the remaining minutes of the session or give a quick summary or concluding thoughts. As moderator, you might want to plan ahead and have some questions/ideas ready to throw out to get a discussion going.

The option that I have been prepared for lately is to have a backup talk of my own ready to replace a no-show. At this recent conference, I organized a symposium with six speakers, but did not give a presentation of my own (due to various reasons). However, I had a presentation ready in case of a no-show. In this instance, I did not need to use it. What I prepared was a synthesis of previous work--something that I could use as the basis of a future seminar or that I could give at the next meeting. So, I did not feel as if this was a waste of time. This option is feasible mainly in this type of situation--where the moderator is not scheduled to give a talk in the session. Giving two talks in the same session would be too much.

If I were already scheduled to give a talk in my own symposium, an alternate option would be to find someone else to fill in the gap. That requires some lead-time, of course, and someone willing and prepared to give a last-minute talk. I've been approached at some meetings by a desperate moderator who was trying to find a replacement speaker.

The question is whether to agree to give a last-minute talk. Is this wise? Would you look like an "afterthought"? Are there situations where it might be advantageous to give an impromptu talk?

I would probably do it to help avoid a gap in the program, and if I had a talk that this particular audience had not heard before. As a senior scientist with a good reputation, I wouldn't worry so much about people thinking I was added as an afterthought. In some cases, there might be enough time for the change in schedule to be announced, so that people interested in your topic could choose to attend. If you are a junior scientist and an invitation was extended to you to give a replacement talk in a symposium with mostly senior speakers (who will be attracting a large audience), it might be a good opportunity to get broader exposure. Of course, you should be prepared with a good talk and deliver it well.

Mommy Wars

2011-07-17T06:35:00.000-05:00

The fourth and final type of gender bias is known as "Gender Wars" in which women find themselves in conflict with other women....either directly or indirectly...regarding how to behave as a scientist or in life/work balance choices.

Possibly the most common conflict is related to philosophical differences. Those women who have chosen to "fit in" with their male colleagues have adopted masculine ways of thinking and working (ambitious, long hours, etc.) and may have foregone a family to ensure career success. Many women of my generation have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort and made sacrifices to gain recognition for ourselves and for female scientists as a group. We've succeeded during a period when we were actively discouraged from seeking careers in science, engineering, and math...mainly by sticking to a rigorous and professional work ethic. We had to work many times harder (and smarter) than male counterparts to gain grudging acceptance by our peers and to be considered by superiors for positions mostly held by men.

Things are different now. It's not unusual for a woman to hold a professorial or other high-level science position, and in many countries there are laws preventing outright discrimination. Gender bias is still there, but is not as blatant as it once was. However, women who had to work hard to gain a foothold in science are often critical of other women who are choosing more "feminine" approaches to science, i.e., not adopting the traditional male work ethic, putting family before career, or just working fewer hours. Younger women who choose a different path (from that of my generation) are often shocked and upset when an older female mentor is critical of their choices. Those choices may involve having children or not (or when to have children), spending more leisure time with family or in non-science pursuits, or selecting alternative career paths in science (as opposed to the academic or research path).

This can be a touchy subject, but one that needs to be explored so that we (women in science) do not end up hurting the progress we've made over the past decades. I've often had conversations with female colleagues (as well as male) about the apparent change in work ethic and sense of entitlement adopted by those now entering science fields (I'm talking about general trends; specifics vary from place to place and with the individual, of course) We worry about how this change will affect the success rate of women in science, if for example, long hours and high productivity are expected to gain tenure or permanent status in some workplaces, and a woman decides she doesn't have to meet this expectation. In the past, men had better options than women in terms of balancing work and family; they still have an advantage over women, on whom childcare and housework more often fall. The bias we've been discussing in this series may also come into play if a woman takes time off to have a baby, stops the tenure clock, or decides to work part-time for a period. She may be judged to be less serious about a science career than male colleagues.

This concern usually comes to a head when a young female scientist decides to start a family and seeks advice or encouragement from an older, established female. In many universities and science organizations, a high percentage of female scientists are childless (and also unmarried). This is the case where I work. Some of these women are highly critical of younger female scientists who decide to have a family at an early stage in their career. The reasons for this reaction are varied and not always rational ("I gave up having a family to have a career, so why shouldn't they?"). Others are concerned that women who ask for special treatment (e.g., stopping the tenure clock) will promote the stereotype that women can't succeed in science unless they are "helped".

These so-called "mommy wars" are harmful and unnecessary. The decision to have children is highly personal, and what worked for you may not work for someone else. My response to a request for advice from a young scientist would be to mainly ask questions to help them clarify what they really want and what is possible, given their circumstances. My only advice for a woman who wishes to maintain a career in science and to have children is to choose your spouse very carefully. Even if you don't have children, having a supportive spouse can make all the difference when you encounter obstacles during your career. That is certainly what sustained me (in addition to my drive, persistence, and self-confidence, of course!).

The Gender Bias Learning Project describes all four patterns of bias that I've covered in this series, and there are videos that illustrate each type of bias.

Verbal Attack, Take Two

2011-07-15T23:55:00.004-05:00

In the last post, I described how one would go about defusing a verbal attack involving gender bias. I showed how to avoid the “bait” in a verbal attack and to instead address the underlying presupposition, which is the less obvious attack. In the next example, we will look at an interaction in which the target of the attack handled himself pretty well, but perhaps could use some help.

In that scenario, Mike is a new father and has applied for family leave to help his wife care for their newborn. He walks into the coffee break room and sees several of the other faculty members sitting around the conference table.

Robert, a somewhat conservative fellow, says, “Hey, Mike. I hear you’re getting some kind of special “mommy leave” and won’t be able to teach your usual courses this semester. Guess you figure the rest of us will carry your load!”

Mike replies, “I’ll be here part time and teaching only one course. My wife applied for maternity leave, but we chose to share it so that she could return part time to work…she has a new research grant. On the days she works, I stay home with the baby and vice versa. The department arranged for a post-doc, who needs teaching experience, to take my undergraduate course for the semester. I’ll still teach my graduate seminar. Overall, our choice benefits everyone.”

“Well, that’s a pretty sweet deal, “ Robert says, looking knowingly at the onlookers at his table.

“Actually, any employee can apply for family leave…to take care of a newborn, a seriously ill spouse, or an elderly parent. Any of you might need to use it one day.” Mike decides to have his coffee in his office and walks out.

Let’s analyze how Mike responded, given our insights into verbal attacks.

The “bait” is clearly the charge that Mike is taking “mommy leave”, a derogatory characterization of maternity leave, normally the prerogative of women. Robert has not only denigrated maternity leave, but has also impugned Mike’s masculinity. Many men would fall for the “bait” and attempt to defend themselves, only encouraging more ribbing from coworkers. Mike avoids that bait and instead addresses the second charge--that the other faculty will have to do his job for him while he stays at home with his newborn. That’s a pretty good answer, because it completely ignores the challenge to his manhood and addresses what is a concern of his coworkers—increased teaching load due to Mike’s absence.

However, Robert then voices the real presupposition: that Mike is getting a “pretty sweet deal”…implying that Mike is benefitting due to his special family situation, an option not open to the onlookers (whom we’ll assume don’t have children). Again, Mike ignores the “bait” that he’s getting special treatment and addresses the incorrect presupposition that family leave only benefits those employees with children. He gives some specific examples that childless employees might encounter.

Notice also that Mike keeps his comments civil, non-emotional, and focused on providing information that his coworkers might find useful. When Mike fails to respond emotionally to the teasing, Robert and the others will likely lose interest.

The part that could be improved upon is at the end, when Mike retreats to his office with his coffee instead of spending his break in the coffee room (as he had obviously planned to do). This action might signal that Mike is actually uncomfortable, despite his effective riposte, and lead to more teasing at a later date. Instead of retreating immediately, he could readily change the subject and say, “Hey, what did you guys think of the game last night?” He should stick around for fifteen minutes or so, until it’s clear he’s not being chased off.

Then, if he doesn’t want to talk to this oafish group any longer, he can say, “Well, I’ve got to get back to work on that revision of the paper I just had accepted by Nature. See you guys later.”

How to Respond to a Verbal Attack Involving Gender Bias

2011-07-14T10:26:00.000-05:00

In the last post, I provided two hypothetical scenarios illustrating a type of gender bias known as The Maternal Wall. In both cases, the perpetrator (of bias) used a "verbal attack" to express criticism of the target or victim of bias. I've previously discussed how to recognize and defend yourself against "verbal attacks". So I thought it would be worthwhile to take each of these examples and show how one might handle such situations.

In the first hypothetical example, Joan has a problem with her department chair who assumes that when she is not in her office, it is because she is taking care of family business. In the interaction I described, her boss asked if her kids were sick, because he had not seen her all week. In reality, Joan was attending a conference, which the chair knew about beforehand. Apparently, the chair is in the habit of making such statements to Joan. Such interactions are known as verbal attacks (you know you are the victim of one when your gut tightens and you feel defensive). In this example, however, the verbal attack involves gender bias (against an employee who is a mother).

There is a very effective method for dealing with verbal attacks, which I will apply to this example. Verbal attacks contain two parts: the "bait", which is the obvious attack, and the presupposition, which is the less obvious attack. In Joan's case, the bait is the charge that she was out of the office because her kids were sick. The presupposition, however, is that Joan is not doing her job.

The best response to a verbal attack is to ignore the "bait" and respond only to the presupposition. Here is a revised version of Joan's conversation with her chair:

Ben asks, “Joan, are your kids sick? I haven’t seen you the past few days.”

Joan calmly replies, “Ben, when did you start thinking that I was not doing my job?

Startled, Ben says, “What? I didn't say you weren't doing your job!"

Joan says, "Well, I'm often out of my office for various work-related activities, such as teaching my classes, attending conferences, and doing my fieldwork....as are all the other professors in the department. Yet, I seem to be the only one you assume is out of the office for personal reasons. Why is that?"

Ben, now completely flummoxed, replies, "Uh, Ahh. That's not what I think....uhhh....I'm sure you are doing your job...." [clears throat and begins looking around for the nearest exit]

There might be other ways for Joan to respond, but the point is not to fall for the bait and instead directly address the underlying attack. The attacker is usually so accustomed to getting a defensive answer that s/he will be discombobulated, at least momentarily. Let's assume, however, that Ben quickly recovers and continues his plan of attack:

Recovering his composure, Ben says, "Actually, what I wanted to ask you about was whether you could pick up our seminar speaker at the airport at 5 pm this evening?”

Joan has plans to attend her son's softball game after school. She replies, with a hint of censure, "I have a previous commitment at that time. If you had given me more notice, I might have been able to work it into my schedule. Isn't this a bit late to be organizing the speaker's schedule?"

Ben frowns and replies, “Uhh, well, actually....I do have a schedule, but Joe, who was supposed to pick up the speaker, has a family emergency and can't do it. I guess I'll have to instead."

So in this example, Joan has completely turned the tables on Ben and put him on the defensive. She has also managed to extract the real story from Ben regarding why he's asking her at the last minute to pick up the seminar speaker. Interestingly, Joe has had to cancel because of family obligations, information that drives home the point that it's not only Joan who has a family.

Contrast this with the original reaction of Joan in which she went for the bait and set herself up for the additional "test" of her devotion to her job. You can see how the latter reaction would confirm Ben's biased thinking about Joan and encourage continued verbal attacks (i.e., Joan's defensive reaction to such attacks actually invites further attacks). By not going for the bait and directly addressing the presupposition, however, Joan has short-circuited Ben's specific attack, which will likely make him think twice about trying it in the future. A commenter yesterday recognized the mistake that Joan made in explaining that she couldn't pick up the seminar speaker because she had promised to go to her son's game. That response just reinforced the chair's bias toward her.

In the second scenario, Mike, a new father, is being teased by coworkers about taking family leave to care for a newborn. His responses to the gender bias and verbal attack were better than Joan's, but perhaps we can improve upon it. See if you can identify the "bait" and then come up with an alternative response that directly addresses the underlying presupposition. I'll follow up in the next post.

Hitting the Wall

2011-07-13T02:50:00.000-05:00

Consider the following scenarios:

1. Joan is on her way to teach her class and runs into her department chair, Ben, who says, “Joan, are your kids sick? I haven’t seen you the past few days.”

Startled, Joan replies, “No! I was attending a conference and presenting a paper on my research….remember?

Ben says, “Oh, yes. I just forgot. Actually, what I wanted to ask you about was whether you could pick up our seminar speaker at the airport at 5 pm this evening?”

Joan hesitantly says, “Oh, I can’t. I had promised to be at my son’s game after school. Perhaps if you had given me more notice…..”

Ben frowns and replies, “Well, I guess I’ll have to do it then. I can see that your family takes precedence.”

Later, Joan confides to one of her coworkers, “He always does that to me…he assumes that I’m not working if I’m not in the office. When I provide a reasonable explanation for my absence, he then “tests” me by asking me to do something that he knows will interfere with my personal responsibilities.”

2. Mike is a new father and has applied for family leave to help his wife care for their newborn. He walks into the coffee break room and sees several of the other faculty members sitting around the conference table.

Robert, a somewhat conservative fellow, says, “Hey, Mike. I hear you’re getting some kind of special “mommy leave” and won’t be able to teach your usual courses this semester. Guess you figure the rest of us will carry your load!”

Mike replies, “I’ll be here part time and teaching only one course. My wife applied for maternity leave, but we chose to share it so that she could return part time to work…she has a new research grant. On the days she works, I stay home with the baby and vice versa. The department arranged for a post-doc, who needs teaching experience, to take my undergraduate course for the semester. I’ll still teach my graduate seminar. Overall, our choice benefits everyone.”

“Well, that’s a pretty sweet deal, “ Robert says, looking knowingly at the onlookers at his table.

“Actually, any employee can apply for family leave…to take care of a newborn, a seriously ill spouse, or an elderly parent. Any of you might need to use it one day.” Mike decides to have his coffee in his office and walks out.

This post is the third in the series about gender bias. One of the most common biases is called “The Maternal Wall”, in which mothers (and men who are non-traditional parents) are judged to be less productive or professional than their childless colleagues.

The scenarios described above are two common situations in which bias of this type can occur. One example involves a woman who is being targeted by her department chair because he thinks her family responsibilities are interfering with her job performance. His comments reveal his prejudice against mothers (or parents, in general). In the second example, the maternal bias is directed at the spouse, who is taking a portion of the maternity leave to care for a newborn. Note that nothing that was said or done in either example qualifies as sexual harassment or sex discrimination.

These hypothetical examples are meant to show how subtle bias can be…either disguised as a concerned question (Are your kids sick?) or teasing (“mommy leave”). Such bias is very difficult to spot immediately. It may take further reflection on what was said or several similar instances before the victim realizes what’s happening.

For more on the Maternal Wall and other gender bias patterns, see the Gender Bias Learning Project.

Not A Team Player

2011-07-10T11:55:00.000-05:00

We've been talking about gender bias and the "Double Bind", which is a bias in which a woman who displays more "masculine" professional behavior (assertive, strong, confident) may be viewed less favorably by colleagues or even be disliked. In contrast, a woman who adheres to more traditional feminine behavior in her interactions is liked, but not respected professionally. I mentioned that today's gender bias is often of a subtle nature, not always easily spotted; I described some scenarios to watch out for and specifically mentioned that whenever anyone was characterized in black and white derogatory terms such as "bossy" or "not a team player", that bias is likely at work.

In the New York Times Magazine, an article describes an exit interview with Sheila C. Bair, chair of the F.D.I.C. (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.), an agency in the US with the mission of protecting citizens' money in banks. She transformed the F.D.I.C. during her tenure (June 2006 - July 2011) and was an outspoken critic of bank bailouts. Other U.S. bank regulators failed to curtail the various practices that ultimately ended in major failures and the recent economic crisis. The exception was the F.D.I.C. under Bair's leadership. She pushed industry executives to change lending standards "to avoid abusive mortgages so that homeowners would not lose their homes when the housing bubble burst."

Not surprisingly, Bair was characterized as being "difficult" and "not a team player".

Another aspect of her "difficult" behavior was in reaction to something called the "Basel Committee on Banking Supervision". Basel II, which permitted banks to evaluate their assets with their own risk assessment models, was widely adopted in Europe. In the US, the Federal Reserve also strongly favored adoption of Basel II. The F.D.I.C. was opposed to it, due to the greater risk of bank failures under Basel II. Bair was pressured into signing on, but managed to delay long enough that the financial crisis struck before Basel II was ever implemented in the US. Bair's bureaucratic "foot-dragging" is described by some as a factor in the US avoiding the very worst of the financial crisis. Apparently, European banks are in much worse shape, a mess that caused widespread bank failures in a number of countries and cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Bair's "difficult" reputation arose from her refusal to participate in the rescue programs that other US agencies were pushing during the financial emergency. In other words, she didn't support her team, even though what was being pushed would have made the crisis worse (iwhich turned out to be correct).

The interesting question for us, of course, is how would a man (who behaved as Bair did) have been characterized? Would he have been called "difficult" or instead "persistent" and "strong-willed"? Would his lone voice have led to his being charged with "not being a team player"? Or would he have been seen as forceful and confident in his opinion, that is, "sticking to his guns"? Even after it was apparent that some of the proposed measures would have made the financial crisis worse in the US, Bair's influence was still not recognized, much less praised. Would a man in this position instead be acclaimed as a fiscal "hero" for trying to protect American borrowers and homeowners (the basic job of the F.D.I.C.)?

Bair explained that she "didn't start off being assertive and going public with concerns, but we were being ignored, and we had something to bring to the table." This statement suggests that she initially tried to be heard, but was not taken seriously. She then changed tactics and became more assertive and persistent, which led to her eventual depiction as being "difficult". Sometimes, being persistent is the only way a woman can be heard. Our opinions or requests may be repeatedly ignored, which is frustrating. It's especially frustrating when we see male colleagues not only being listened to, but assumed to have a useful opinion even before they speak. We must resort to restating our ideas or needs multiple times and more forcefully in the hopes that eventually someone will acknowledge us.

No wonder that a woman who is forced to use these tactics (more often than men) develops a reputation for being "difficult".

Women Should Be Paid Less Because of Monthly Periods

2011-07-07T07:27:00.001-05:00

Just when you think all the dinosaurs have gone extinct (or at least have learned to keep their thoughts to themselves), one of them forgets that it's the 21st century and makes a blatantly sexist statement.

Alasdair Thompson, the CEO of New Zealand's Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), said in a debate on gender and equality that women should be paid less because of their "monthly sick time". He stated that women take more sick leave than men, a difference he attributed to women's monthly periods (and having babies). He was attempting to explain why women are paid, on average, 12% less than men. Thompson walked out on two interviews when asked about his "monthly sickness" statement and where were his statistics about women's sick leave. Thompson later said in an interview that he was sorry if what he said upset anyone, but that it was true.

Government officials did not agree with him. Some reactions:

"To have someone with those sort of neanderthal views head of a major employers' association undermines the credibility of the whole organisation."

"At least some of the true attitudes that employers hold are coming out, but they are pretty shocking and utterly sexist."

"His ideas are 19th century."

"These are the people that are providing hundreds of hours advising business in New Zealand... He's spreading it. He's creating the space for these ideas to take root."

"He's saying we're not entitled to equal pay because women are women - because we have the capacity to give birth and have children. He's in a leadership role and it's pretty much rubbish. It shows worrying prejudice. It's actually illegal to discriminate against women."

"Alasdair Thompson needs to get with the programme."

A firestorm ensued, ending with Thompson getting the sack. Other repercussions include Air New Zealand cancelling its membership in the EMA.

It's ironic that I've been recently posting about gender bias in the workplace. This incident highlights the point I made about a bias that someone keeps hidden or that may not be recognized by the perpetrator as a bias until they are called on it. At some point Thompson said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he realized that what he said was sexist, but he wasn't a sexist. Hmmm.

I personally know some men who sound exactly like Thompson. If you asked them if they support equal pay for women or if they believe women are as capable as men in science, they would vociferously respond in the affirmative. However, they periodically let slip a comment that reveals gender bias, but they clearly don't recognize it as such (or don't realize that their words reveal their bias). They defend themselves by insisting that they're just stating the facts...that it has nothing to do with bias. This is what Thompson tried to do. This is a guy who says he is all for gender equality and equal pay for women, but who either doesn't "get it" or is flat lying.

Deja Vu

2011-07-03T14:11:00.009-05:00

Not so long ago, I wrote a post about extraterrestrial life and used the movie, Contact, to illustrate a couple of points. I included a still image from a scene in which Ellie meets up with an alien being who has taken on the form of her long-deceased dad, played by the actor, David Morse.

I'm at a conference at the moment in the Czech Republic and earlier today was standing in the Prague airport looking for the limo service driver who was supposed to transport me to my hotel (never showed). My attention was drawn to a group of people right next to me who were hovering around someone who looked vaguely familiar. In my jet-lagged haze, I stood there staring and thinking that I knew this person (I was on the look-out for a colleague with whom I could share a taxi, since my arrangements had fallen through and taxis are expensive here). Suddenly, it occurred to me that this guy was David Morse! He was politely answering the group's questions (they were trying to decide on an agenda or something--yes, I was eavesdropping). He said something like, "Okay, let's go." And they hustled out the door. I was hoping for a hint at what he was doing here, but no such luck.

This almost always happens to me whenever I see a celebrity. I first think it is someone I know, but can't think of who they are exactly. Then, I realize that I don't know them personally. I've come close on a couple of occasions of saying, "Don't I know you?" to a famous person (before I recognize them). In this case, I was on the alert for a familiar face--any scientist would do--to resolve my transportation problem. If I had not recently done that post and used his photo, I might have gone over and asked Morse if I could share a taxi with him and his students to the congress hotel! Wonder what he would have said?

Airports are great places to catch a glimpse of celebrities. Once, my husband and I had a long layover somewhere and were "discussing" whether it was better to wander through the shops or just sit and "people-watch" (my preference). My husband thought that sitting was boring and a waste of time. Ultimately, he went window-shopping, and I sat on the concourse watching the stream of people flow past. Not ten minutes after he walked away and into a shop, Elizabeth Taylor and her entourage swept past (this was a number of years ago). Did I mention that my husband is a big movie buff? When he returned about thirty minutes later, he snidely asked, "Well, did you see anyone famous?" I couldn't have planned a better set-up.

Anyway, this post has nothing to do with anything other than something funny I experienced yesterday.

Photo Credit: The Green Mile, Castle Rock Entertainment & Warner Bros. Pictures

The Double Bind

2011-07-02T13:59:00.001-05:00

If you are a woman, which do you prefer? Being liked, but not respected or being respected, but not liked.

What's that, you say? You don't like either option? You prefer to be both respected and well-liked? Like your male colleagues?

Unfortunately, women in science and other traditionally male fields may find themselves in a double-bind situation in which they experience a more complex political dynamic than men. This dynamic is sometimes referred to as "ambivalent sexism". The experience is one in which a woman who adheres to more traditional feminine behavior in her interactions is liked, but often not viewed as professionally competent as her male counterparts. Women who depart from the feminine profile may be respected (or their work is respected), but viewed as "too aggressive", "odd", or having other personality "issues". The latter woman is sometimes the butt of department jokes and may be left out of unofficial office social gatherings.

Sure, some women succeed at being both respected and liked. But others do not..for various reasons, some internal, but mostly external. If you are lucky enough to work in a truly egalitarian lab, then count your blessings. If not, then read on.

Gender bias is no longer as blatant as it once was. Nowadays, it can be quite difficult to spot (which may explain why some people, particularly men, insist it no longer exists or is rare). There may be little or no overt gender bias, and the workplace culture may be superficially egalitarian and seemingly benign. Most workplaces, however, are inhabited by at least a few people with traditional views of men and women and "acceptable" behavior by the sexes. Even though the institution strongly prohibits gender-based bias, individual beliefs and behaviors determine how women are actually treated in the workplace. Also, the workplace culture may be strongly pro-masculine in its reward system, i.e., reflects a historically male-oriented means of doing business. The resultant gender bias is virtually invisible to males. A woman may also not recognize it initially, especially if her workplace makes a show of supporting women and diversity in general. However, the professional woman may find the work atmosphere strangely stressful, uncomfortable, confining, or somehow not in synch with her own self-view. She can't quite put her finger on what it is that bothers her...at least not until something obvious happens to reveal the double bind.

The double bind often becomes apparent when the issues of leadership, work-life balance, or self- promotion (bragging) come into focus and are more carefully scrutinized with respect to how men and women in the same positions are judged.

The Leadership Double Bind: Good leaders are expected to be strong, confident, and assertive. However, when women act with confidence and take charge, they may be judged to be too aggressive, self-promoting, ambitious, or uncaring. If instead, the woman behaves less assertively (quietly influential, for example), she is judged to be a poor leader.

The Work-Life Balance Double Bind: A lot of workplaces purport to be "family-friendly" with flexible hours, paid leave for family issues, etc.). However, the person who fails to follow the traditional male model of putting work before family (in a workplace that expects it) is judged to be a poor performer. Those men and women who put in long hours are rewarded, and those who don't are viewed as less devoted to their work. Although some men may be nurturing and take time for their families, it's more often the woman on whose shoulders these family chores fall. Males with traditional wives will have an edge over their female counterparts in such a workplace . The female professional without a "stay-at-home spouse" may have to take advantage of the "family-friendly" options to balance work and personal life and consequently be viewed as less productive. This bias will express itself in various subtle ways. I recall recently a male professor wondering if a female professor should head up a large research project due to the demands of her "large family" (she has three children).

The Self-Promotion Double Bind: Women are more often chastised for being a "shameless self-promoter" whereas a man is expected to talk about his accomplishments. I was once chided by a male supervisor for announcing an award I received (even though such announcements were routine in my workplace). The reason given was that I would make my colleagues "jealous". 'Nuff said.

The Team-Player Double Bind: Another common experience of female professionals is being referred to as a "lone wolf" or "not a team player" if she develops a project on her own, whereas a guy will be praised for his initiative and "striking out on his own". I've gotten this very criticism despite a long history of working as part of large research teams. It took only a single case of getting a small grant to do a project on my own to be branded with the term "lone wolf". It seemed that while I was working as part of a team, I could be safely viewed as a follower, or at least not a leader, a more masculine role. When I deviated from that role and showed I could succeed without anyone's (i.e., male) help, it caused consternation in some observers, who quickly tried to shame me back into the more feminine role of follower/supporter. Female colleagues report that predatory male scientists try to horn in on (or take over) particularly successful research projects they (the female) initiated; when rebuffed, the male reacts by charging her with "not being a team player".

By the way, when you hear yourself (or someone else) being characterized in black-and-white, derogatory terms (lone wolf, bossy, not a team player), be assured that bias is at work.

In misogynist workplaces, women may get along by playing one of three feminine roles (there may be more, but these come to mind):

1. The Mother/Wife who volunteers to do clerical, service, or low-level lab tasks that are not her duty but that frees up the men to do the more "important stuff". She often cleans up after male colleagues (who may see nothing wrong with this behavior since their mothers/wives do this for them as well).

2. The Faithful Companion/Mistress who aligns herself with a powerful male and never challenges his superiority or upstages him. There are several variations on this theme.

3. The Cheerleader who praises male coworkers/colleagues and remains modest and quiet about her own skills. In some cases, female support staff may fulfill this role by complimenting the alpha males and admonishing the female professional for not being similarly starry-eyed about the workplace's Golden Boy(s).

Let me hasten to add that I'm not advocating the above roles as a solution (ha). I'll try to write a later post with some better approaches to dealing with the double bind and other gender biases.

You might say that someone in a double-bind situation should just ignore it and focus on her job and career. However, being disliked or disrespected is just another stress on top of other stresses and biases. These little stresses add up, and eventually some women decide that it's just not worth the hassle. The scientific community loses out when talented women drop out.

For more on the Double Bind and other gender bias patterns, see the Gender Bias Learning Project.

Prove It, Again and Again

2011-06-29T20:06:00.001-05:00

In the last post, I promised a review of the four most common forms of gender bias.

In this post, I will cover number 1: Prove It Again. In this type of bias, women working in traditionally male professions (e.g., STEM fields) must prove their competence repeatedly to maintain their credibility while men are presumed to be competent. If a man makes a mistake, it's more likely to be viewed as not representative of overall ability, whereas a woman's mistake is never forgotten and trotted out whenever she is compared to her male colleagues. Sound familiar?

This double standard is likely one of the factors causing those statistics showing that women must work several times harder and produce more than male counterparts simply to be acknowledged as competent. This has certainly been my experience throughout my career. I've observed male scientists, with few accomplishments, be described as "having great potential"and rewarded based on that belief, while highly competent female scientists with a long list of real accomplishments were overlooked.

Earlier in my career, this bias was certainly in evidence. I often felt as if I was running up a down escalator, working harder and harder to reach the top; if I paused, I would be carried backwards. I saw male colleagues with less experience and fewer accomplishments being offered more responsibility, higher level positions, and better opportunities to work on (or lead) research projects. They were on the up-escalator. Some were actively climbing, while others were just standing; but all could move up, even with no effort.

The few times I complained, I was told that "Joe" was being promoted because he showed "potential". In one job, when I asked for a raise or promotion, I was always told that I would be recommended, but only after I had accomplished a specific task--usually something that my supervisor figured I would never be able to do (conduct a difficult study and get a paper published reporting the results within a certain time-frame). When I came back with that task completed, I was given what I had been promised, but the delay was sometimes as long as a year. I was too young and naive to realize what was happening. I just assumed that my performance was somehow lacking, and these extra requirements were necessary to prove my capabilities to superiors. I eventually realized that male counterparts were not required to jump through the same hoops (I asked them).

I doubt that my superiors (male) were consciously biased, because I was encouraged to develop as a scientist. Whatever I had accomplished in the past, however, was apparently not enough to be viewed as showing "potential" (much less having achieved that potential). They just seemed to need additional evidence of my capability--no matter what I had accomplished in the past.

I realize now that part of this perception was due to the fact that I did not "promote" myself by talking about my accomplishments or making sure that my skills were widely known. I've discussed the topic of bragging in previous posts and the influence it can have on one's career. It's particularly difficult for women, who are typically expected to be modest, to self-promote successfully. I'm not sure it would have worked for me, and possibly could have backfired--at least at that time and at that stage in my career.

For more on gender bias patterns, see the Gender Bias Learning Project. The next post will talk about the choice women must make between being liked but not respected and being respected but not liked.

What Women Want

2011-06-19T18:49:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking lately about the reaction of men to women's support groups (and blogs devoted to female scientists). I sometimes get the comment from male readers and colleagues (who hear that I write a blog about women in science) that it's not necessary to talk about gender issues due to the improvements made over the past ten to twenty years. Yes, there have been improvements in some areas, for which I'm thankful. However, there's a flaw in the idea that because the situation for women in science has improved, we no longer need to be alert for gender bias (or to discuss gender-specific issues).

First, if you are experiencing gender bias in your workplace, it is no consolation whatsoever that things have improved for female scientists overall. If you were suffering from a rare brain tumor, it's unlikely you would be comforted by being told that few people get this tumor...and because of its rarity, no researchers are interested in finding a treatment for it.

You may find yourself in a job with, for example, coworkers who think women cannot be good scientists...who show you daily, in various ways, that your work is less important because you are only a female. Your once supportive supervisor may retire and be replaced by someone who thinks a woman's place is in the home; he undermines you at every opportunity, but is careful to stay within the law. Your complaints to superiors may be dismissed or ignored because no one has technically broken the law. Such treatment gradually eats away at your confidence and feelings of self-worth. If you are in such a situation and are told that you should not be concerned about gender bias because it's no longer prevalent in science, how does that make things better?

It doesn't, of course. In fact, it will make you feel even more isolated and alone in your experience. Eventually, you will begin to question yourself. You are told that most other women are either not having these problems or that they don't dwell on them and just get on with their work. You may ultimately think that there is something inherently wrong with you because you seem to be the only one experiencing these difficulties. You may find yourself, the victim, being blamed for the actions of the perpetrators. No matter what you do: ignore the problem, suffer in silence, or take official action against your tormentors, things continue to get worse. Your friends and once sympathetic colleagues begin to avoid you....they join the "blame the victim" camp.

Second, just because blatant discrimination against women has been mostly curtailed (at least in Western countries with laws against it), doesn't mean that cryptic or unconscious bias does not exist and does not have an equally devastating effect on women in science. By cryptic gender bias, I'm talking about those people (both male and female) who believe women to be unsuited for traditionally male fields, such as science, technology, engineering, and math. Or, they may intellectually accept the right of women to work in those fields, but think that they cannot succeed without "extra help". They may hold personal or religious beliefs about the traditional roles of men and women and find it difficult to think and act differently in the workplace. Such people know better than to voice these thoughts in the workplace, but proceed to act upon them in various ways (e.g, "forgetting" to tell you about an important meeting). Those with unconscious bias toward women are perhaps the most damaging because they don't recognize that what they are doing undermines women ("But I was just trying to help her design her project!") and blindly blunder along trying to be "helpful" and "supportive".

I know such bias exists, because I continue to experience it and to hear from other female scientists who also experience it.

Third, everyone (male and female) must be on the alert for gender bias because it hurts all of us...and scientific progress...when anyone is prevented from achieving their potential because of conscious or unconscious bias. We should also keep in mind that although women in some countries have equal rights as men under the law, this is not necessarily the case in all parts of the world. One of my goals in writing this blog is to make others aware of gender issues, not just in the US but in other countries, as well as to explore solutions.

Finally, the fact of gender bias is supported by numerous studies, many that I've mentioned in previous posts and that are readily found in the published literature. So I won't be restating those statistics to justify discussing gender bias in the science fields. At least a portion of the readers of this blog are having some problems stemming from gender bias (or gender-related issue such as work-life balance). I know this because I can see what search terms are used to lead readers to this site and which posts are most frequently read. That knowledge is all the incentive I need to continue writing about gender issues.

In the following posts, I'll review the four most common forms of gender bias.

Large Numbers

2011-06-14T12:52:00.021-05:00

I saw this video a while back and was impressed with how well it conveyed how large a trillion dollars is.

Most of us have difficulty performing math involving large numbers in our heads. However, it's an ability that anyone can learn and may be useful to enable the average person how to evaluate policies and make decisions. People fail to make calculations when it involves large numbers; consequently, they may make decisions based on "gut feeling" rather than facts. However, there are shortcuts to making calculations involving large numbers:

One method involves the power of 10 and exponents. To multiply (or divide) large numbers and get a ball-park answer, one can add (or subtract) the exponents. The number of digits in a number equals the exponent. If the first digit is over 3, add one half. If you want to divide 22 billion by 45 million, then convert to 10 to the 10 (1 billion = 9 zeros; 22 billion adds another digit) and 10 to the 7.5 (45 million = 1.5 digits plus 6 zeros). Subtracting, we get 10 to the 2.5, which is about 500 (the exact answer is 488.89).

Students might also find such methods useful on exams where the multiple choice answers differ by orders of magnitude.

Summer Reading

2011-06-11T11:33:00.004-05:00

I'm always on the lookout for novels with a female scientist as the protagonist. I just finished reading State of Wonder by Ann Patchett. This is the first novel I've read written by Patchett, who has published several books, some award-winning.

In State of Wonder, the story is told from the viewpoint of Dr. Marina Singh, a medical science researcher working for a pharmaceutical company based in Minnesota. The company is funding another researcher, Dr. Annick Swenson, to develop a new fertility drug; Swenson's research is based in the Amazonian rainforest where the drug is apparently being extracted from a tropical plant source. When Swenson, who is an irascible and independent scientist, fails to respond to inquiries about the project's progress, the company sends Anders Eckman, Marina's long-time colleague and research partner, to the Amazon to find out what's going on with the research project. The company CEO eventually receives a letter from Swenson stating that Eckman has died of a fever and has been buried in the jungle. At the urging of Eckman's wife, along with orders from the company, Marina agrees to travel to the Amazon to find out what actually happened to her friend and colleague as well as what is going on with the research. The rest of the book tells the story of Marina's odyssey through a remote rainforest of primitive Brazilian tribes, science intrigue, and personal discovery.

The characters are complex and interesting, and the story has many twists and turns that keep the reader turning pages to find out what happens next. Several surprises await the patient reader. There are several ethical dilemmas that are explored: profit-driven drug development, the use of indigenous people as experimental subjects, and self experimentation by science researchers (a stereotype, but done in a novel and sympathetic way). Patchett writes about these ethical issues in an intelligent and non-proselytizing manner. Best of all, the novel has two "strong female" characters, who provide contrasting scientist personalities: the (apparently) emotionless and driven, older female scientist (Swenson) who has succeeded in science through grit, perseverance, and a single-minded focus on her work vs. the younger, sensitive, and caring scientist who fled into research after a disastrous obstetrical mistake she made as a medical intern.

Those of us in scientific research will identify with one of these characters (or aspects of both). Swenson, who is nearing the end of her career and life (she's seventy-two), is the more interesting character whose true motives and personality are gradually revealed. She initially appears to be completely lacking in any concern for the people around her and so totally focused on her research goals that she has isolated herself in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest (some reviewers describe the novel as "Heart of Darkness" meets "The Mosquito Coast" with a bit of "Medicine Man" thrown in). I imagine most readers will dislike the Swenson character and her behavior. Having had to deal with many bureaucratic types interfering with my research, however, I understood and empathized with Swenson. I don't agree with all the choices this character made, but could understand them.

The Marina character will likely resonate with many female readers. She seems to be a very caring person and highly empathetic to other people's feelings. She's a flawed person, however, who is adrift emotionally and extremely lonely. Her story is not only one of a search for what happened to her friend and colleague, but an internal journey of self-discovery and redemption. I could identify with aspects of Marina's personality, but found her to be a character quite unlike me and my personality. From a science standpoint, she is clearly a "lab person", not comfortable in a field setting--at least not initially. She survives, however, and quickly becomes acclimated to life in the jungle. Having seen this happen with people in real life, I found this aspect to be quite believable (but imagine some readers will not).

There is a lot of symbolism in the novel: dreams and their depiction of subconscious fears and needs; the suffocating Brazilian rainforest with poisonous animals, extreme heat and humidity, and a mysterious indigenous people who hold the key to medical discoveries. These elements are woven skillfully into the story and contribute to the overall character development and story background. I won't go into details because this may reveal too much.

So if you are looking for a good book to read this summer, State of Wonder, is one I can recommend. Even if you don't like the story or the ending, you will find a number of aspects to ponder about later. This is a great book for a reading group, with lots of ethical issues to discuss as well as an interesting story to dissect.

Let me know what you think...

Madame Who?

2011-06-05T14:58:00.000-05:00

A colleague described something surprising (to him) the other day. He had attended a Ph.D. student's general exam recently at which the student was asked to name a female Nobel laureate (in science). She could not name a single female recipient....not even Marie Curie, who received two Nobel prizes for her work in physics. Another member of her committee (not my colleague) had asked this question. When the student was unable to come up with a name, the professor mentioned Madame Curie. The student had never heard of her.

My colleague expressed shock that this student, a female, was unaware of who Marie Curie was and seemed to know of no other female laureates. Apparently, my colleague and other male committee members could name several: Barbara McClintock, Carol Greider, Ada Yonath were some of the names mentioned. I've asked similar questions at student exams, e.g., to name five famous female scientists and what their contributions were. Previous posts on this topic are here and here. In most instances, the student can name at least one or two women, usually Marie Curie. Curie's story is so well-known, it's hard to imagine anyone going through school and not ever hearing about her.

My colleague was perplexed and apparently thought I (being a woman) could shed some light on this student's failure to answer the question. I was stumped at first, partly because I did not know the student. I said that it did seem unusual that a female student of science would not know who Marie Curie was. I asked my colleague why he thought this student had failed to hear about Curie during her schooling or any other female laureate (not to mention making an effort to learn about them on her own).

He did not have a good answer, but speculated that knowing about famous females scientists was not important to this student. Perhaps.

Another possible explanation (or contributing factor) in this case is that the student's field is one that is not recognized by the Nobel prize. Not being in medicine, physics or chemistry, she might not pay much attention to awardees or to their contributions. That's just a guess. I would bet that a male student (in this same field) would have difficulty naming more than one or two male Nobel laureates. They would probably guess Watson and Crick or Einstein, but not likely know less famous recipients. How many of us know the names of recent recipients of the Nobel (outside our fields) and the details of their discoveries?

What I wonder is whether this professor asks this question of all students. Does he ask them to name any Nobel laureate, ask male students to name female laureates, or does he ask only females to name a female laureate? My colleague did not know since he had never served on a committee with this other professor before. Is it fair to ask the question of female students and not male students? Is it unfair to ask a female student to name only female Nobel winners, since there have been so few of them? I think this professor thought he was asking an easy (and fair) question. He probably assumed that she would at least know of Marie Curie.

The motive behind such questions is to gauge how broad the student's knowledge is. Students should be familiar with major discoveries in their field as well as in other fields of science and who made them. I would expect a student of science to have some knowledge of well-known scientists--at least be able to name a few Nobel laureates (male or female) and why they received the honor.

When Nerds Grow Up

2011-05-26T23:59:00.006-05:00

I wrote a post, Socially-Inept Scientists, some time ago about how scientists as a group might be less socially adept than the wider population. It seemed to strike a chord with readers and is the top-visited post. I followed up with a poll, which has been running for about 30 weeks, to determine how scientists vs. non-scientists view themselves in terms of social aptitude (see nav bar to right).

My earlier statement was not meant to imply that scientists are all lacking in social skills or to impugn those scientists who (like me) tend to be introverted. It was based more on my belief that scientists are often intensely focused on their work, a characteristic that often goes along with social awkwardness. Not always, but enough to be noticeable. In fact, our society has adopted a widely-used term to describe such people: nerds. The definition of a "nerd" is "an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit" Wikepedia. The description goes on to say "Nerds are generally considered to be awkward, shy and/or unattractive by most, although this is not always true."

When I was growing up in the 1950's, the terms used to describe such people were "drips", "squares", or "brains". These names were applied to those of us who made good grades and were interested in certain subjects that most everyone else found to be strange, complicated, and/or boring (science, math, physics). These are all derogatory terms that stereotype people, of course, and those branded with such a name were often the target of bullies. Nerd girls can be particularly vulnerable, as depicted in the film "Welcome to the Dollhouse".

We were not in the popular crowd, were not "cool", and typically existed at the margins of our teenage social web. We were often not very physically attractive or graceful (hence we did not date much and avoided sports). A few of us who had "normal" siblings or who managed to make friends with one of the "in crowd" were sometimes more readily accepted by our peers.

What happens to nerds when they grow up? Answer: they often become adult nerds. Some, like Bill Gates, go on to become multi-billionaires, but still never shed their nerdy persona. That's why those commercials featuring a "cool" guy (Hi, I'm a Mac) and a nerdy guy who looks a lot like Gates (Hi, I'm a PC) are so spot-on. One of these commercials, in case you missed this ad campaign by Apple, even pokes fun at the PC (nerd's) inability to communicate (with an attractive female):

So even Bill Gates, with all his success, is still depicted as a socially awkward person (although I doubt he stays awake at night worrying about this). In spite of the mean spirited theme of these commercials, most people find them amusing, especially Mac owners (a number of ad campaigns revolve around stereotypes or parodies of stereotyping, e.g., the Geico caveman commercials).

Anyway, all those other nerds in high school grew up and many became scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. Some, like me, overcame our social awkwardness (more or less). Others did not or even got worse. Of course, there were those who were not "nerds" growing up, but also became scientists. The point is that the scientist population receives a lot of those people who were "nerds" in childhood. Their single-mindedness and intense interest in intellectual topics predisposes them for careers in STEM fields. They are certainly less likely to become social workers or politicians.

Which brings us to the poll. The results are quite interesting (if unscientific). Note that many more scientists voted than non-scientists, so we must take these findings with a grain of salt, so to speak. Most of you (scientists and non-scientists) seem to be Impostors, i.e., socially awkward, but can fake social aptitude. In both cases, about 36% of respondents checked this category. Another 8 to 10% selected other socially-challenged categories (Wallflower and Social Outcast). More scientists (43%) than non-scientists (28%) selected one of the top two categories (Social Butterfly and Congenial Comrade). The third category, Split Personality, which should be considered in the socially-inept group, was selected by 11% of scientists and 22% of non-scientists.

So, what does this say about the social aptitude of scientists? Well, first, it's clear that over half of you (55%) think you have some problems. The other half think you are socially adept. Second, the pattern for scientists is fairly similar to that of non-scientists, with minor differences. This outcome suggests that the social skills of scientists are similar to that of the wider population. However, it's possible that the half who think they are socially-adept are over-estimating their social skills and the half who think they are socially-challenged are under-estimating their skills. We would have to poll your friends and colleagues to see if they agree with your self-assessment.

I found it most interesting that the majority of both scientists and non-scientists selected the Impostor choice. I added that category at the last moment, because as I was making up the choices I realized that none of the categories was what I would select for myself. In other words, Impostor is the category that best fits me. It's especially interesting in light of the recent posts I've written about the "impostor phenomenon", which women more than men tend to experience. Even though that's about feelings of inadequacy about one's professional skills, it could also encompass social skills.

I don't think we can make too much more out of the poll, given its limitations. But it was fun to see how people responded. I'll leave it up to those who study these things to tell us whether scientists on average differ from the rest of the world in social aptitude. In the meantime, if you are feeling socially-challenged, especially in professional settings, you can reread the original post, which has some suggestions that might help.

I'll be moving the poll to the bottom of the page after this post. Thanks to everyone who voted!

Image Credit: Modified image and a video from a commercial by TBWA\Media Arts Lab for Apple Inc.

Quest for Equality

2011-05-24T23:51:00.016-05:00

I often wonder about our ancient ancestors and what were the real roles of men and women in ensuring survival of early humans. I was reminded of this recently when I saw an ad for a film I watched many years ago (1981)--one that was quite interesting and entertaining. It remains one of the most unusual and thought-provoking depictions of prehistoric humans (although one can quibble about the science and postulated interactions between humans and pre-humans).

In the film, "Quest for Fire", a group of prehistoric tribesmen (Homo neanderthalensis) embark on a search for fire. Lacking fire-making knowledge, primitive humanoids depended on finding natural sources of fire or stealing it from other clans. After being attacked by another group (Homo erectus), their official fire tender (an especially clutzy guy) loses their fire source. Consequently, three other male clan members are selected to find or steal another fire source. During their adventure, they barely survive encounters with sabre-tooth cats, mastodons, cave bears, and cannibalistic groups. Eventually, they meet up with a female (Ika) from another, more advanced group (Homo sapiens). The trio rescue her from the cannibals, and she tries to persuade them (non-vocally, since they have no common language) to return with her to her tribe. One of the males (Naoh) decides to follow her....

To make a long story short, Naoh discovers that this tribe knows how to make fire. The scene in which he realizes that it's possible to start a fire by "rubbing two sticks together" is pretty touching. The trio eventually return to their clan. One of the most hilarious scenes occurs when they hand over a new fire source, carefully packaged in a hollowed-out piece of wood, to the fire tender. Unfortunately, the clan has been hanging out in a marsh, and the clumsy fire tender, in his extreme excitement over getting a new fire source, stumbles into the water and douses the embers. One wonders how many times this has happened over human history: an incompetent man in charge of an extremely important task (see previous posts about the Dunning-Kruger effect).

Not to worry. Our hero proceeds to show his clan how to make fire. Drumroll.... Unfortunately, Naoh never actually practiced the fire-making technique--he only saw it done by the Homo sapiens tribesmen. After an unsuccessful and embarrassing attempt, he is about to give up, when Ika (who has followed him) takes over and makes the fire. They live happily ever after.

I was impressed that this film actually had such a scene and others--in which a woman was shown to be superior to a man (in more ways than one). If you've read my previous posts about Hollywood depictions of women, you know that such films are rare.

Some anthropologists suggest that the Paleolithic was the most gender-equal time in human history. Archeological evidence indicates that male and female members of prehistoric groups both participated in decision-making and that some females were of high status. That makes sense to me. For a group to survive, all the members would have to have multiple skills, especially basic survival skills, and to be flexible in allowing anyone who was especially good at some task to use that talent to promote the success of the group. That egalitarian approach should have provided an edge over groups that may have had more restrictive gender roles in which an individual's inherent skills were not necessarily realized (lowering their overall competitiveness with other groups).

Anyway, it makes one think about gender roles in modern human cultures, the future survival of our species, and whether our Paleolithic ancestors have something to teach us with respect to the advantages of an egalitarian society.

Image Credits: modified images from "Quest for Fire", International Cinema Corporation (Trivia: this film won an Oscar for best makeup).

Lie to Me

2011-05-20T11:28:00.000-05:00

In the previous post, I posed a hypothetical situation in which a post-doc, Jim, suffers from overconfidence in his abilities, and despite Jim's obvious deficiencies, the lab director thinks he's a valuable contributor to the research project you lead.

If you've read previous posts, you will recognize that Jim (and possibly the lab director) suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. People with this condition are unskilled and incapable of accurately assessing their abilities as well as those of others. The reason is that the skills required to be competent are often the same skills required to evaluate that competence. They tend to greatly overinflate their performances relative to those of others. The more ignorant they are, the greater their confidence in themselves.

In the hypothetical situation described above, the project leader is caught between a rock (Jim) and a hard place (lab director). You have laid out Jim's deficiencies, backed up with ample data, for both Jim and the director...only to have both of them ignore your logical argument and restate their illogical position about Jim's competence. Their reaction is due to their overall inability to make logical judgments and to recognize that they have this problem.....a vicious cycle that is difficult to break. The more logic you throw at them, the more firmly they adhere to their mistaken opinion and confidence in that decision.

Most of us in science are pretty logical people; so when confronted with such illogical behavior, we go a little nuts. We simply cannot understand how someone can totally ignore the evidence in front of them. We make the mistake of thinking that if we just produce enough evidence or a clear-enough argument, that we'll prevail. However, that is not going to happen with people like this. Think about religious zealots or climate deniers....nothing you say is going to change their minds. You have to approach such people with a clear understanding of their psychology, not based on your preconceived notions that everyone is as logical as you are.

What does work? Research has shown that training, for example in social reasoning, helps improve Dunning-Kruger folks' cognitive abilities. How does that help you, as a project leader? You're not a psychologist; nor do you have time to be training someone who should already have skills in logic. Quite a conundrum. I don't think there is a really good solution to this situation.

If I had control over this person's position, i.e., was Jim's supervisor, I would place him on probation and clearly outline what outcomes are expected for all tasks, set deadlines for those outcomes, and spell out the consequences of failure. The plan would be detailed in such a way as to leave no wiggle-room for Jim to blame external factors, if he fails. Both of us must sign this performance plan, acknowledging our understanding of what's expected and the consequences. If he protests, I would reply that since he is so confident in his abilities, he should have no problem meeting these basic expectations (which I have set up for all others on the team). If Jim manages to improve and meets his responsibilities, then things will have been improved for the team, and everyone wins. If Jim fails, then I have documentation to take steps to dismiss him; but I won't feel badly because I've been totally fair and upfront with him.

However, in the hypothetical situation posed, I would not have control over Jim's position, and I also have to deal with the director who suffers from the same cognitive deficit as Jim. In this situation, I would want to get Jim off my team so that his performance no longer harmed me or others. Here is one possible tactic: I would suggest to Jim that he should have his own project to run and that he should run the idea by the director. I would support Jim's proposal when the director asks my opinion. Convincing the director should not be difficult, given his lack of logic skills and being Jim's biggest fan.

The key will be to have Jim report directly to the director rather than to me. If the director tries to make me oversee Jim's project, I have two possible responses: 1) I cannot be in charge of Jim's performance unless I'm made his official supervisor (in which case, I can put the previous plan in motion), 2) I state that I have my hands full leading my own project and cannot be expected to handle a second project, and/or 3) I remind him that making me responsible for Jim's project defeats the purpose of giving Jim his own project. Hopefully, this would not be too much logic for the director to handle.

Assuming I can pull this off, I will no longer have Jim on my team. Even if this means more work for the team...well, we already were having to redo his work. And the director will eventually see for himself Jim's incompetency. If not, then I might want to start looking for another job--because the director is probably not judging my performance well either.

Some might feel that the above plan is unfair or underhanded. Actually, this problem with Jim is due entirely to Jim's incompetence and to the director's failure to deal with it. The two people responsible for the problems the research project is experiencing (mistakes, slow progress, low morale) should have to deal with them, not me and not the other productive team members. The latter situation is what is unfair. My plan takes the false beliefs of Jim and the director and forces the two of them to deal with the consequences.

So to summarize how to deal with someone suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect:

1. Don't make the mistake of assuming they think like you do. Trying to use logic doesn't work because they do not think logically.
2. Focus on their overinflated beliefs and take advantage of them in formulating your strategy.
3. Don't cover for them when their incompetency causes problems.
4. Find a way to make them responsible for the consequences of their incompetency.

Image Credit: Jon Wilkins 2011; Creative Commons; http://www.darwineatscake.com

Lost in Translation

2011-05-18T08:27:00.000-05:00

What would you do if faced with the following situation?

You are part of a research team that is involved in a large project. One of the team members, a post-doc, is very enthusiastic and outgoing. Jim exudes confidence in his abilities and contributions to the project. Unfortunately, Jim is a total disaster in the lab, and his writing is abysmal. Worse, he is blissfully unaware of his incompetence, despite repeatedly being shown his mistakes. As project leader, it falls upon you to clean up Jim's mistakes, reassign work (that has been compromised) to other team members, and revise his reports. Jim's manuscripts have to be completely rewritten from scratch, but he still expects to be listed as first author and behaves as if the revised version is his work. The other team members have become resentful of Jim and complain to you often.

You cannot replace Jim because you do not have the authority; only the lab director can dismiss someone. The lab director is totally enamored with Jim, whose overconfident behavior has convinced the director that he is one of the most valuable members of the research team. The director is also a person who lacks the metacognitive skills (or time) to accurately assess Jim's real competency. You have tried to convince the director that Jim's performance is substandard and is hurting the group's progress, but he remains adamant in his confidence that Jim is competent. The director believes Jim has just made a couple of mistakes, which could happen to anyone.

What would you do? See the next post for how I would respond. In the meantime, take a look at the video below for a nice explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect...and see if it suggests any solutions.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Being an Impostor

2011-05-14T15:01:00.001-05:00

This post is a continuation of the previous discussion of the "impostor phenomenon" and the "Dunning-Kruger effect". To review, people suffering from the former condition don't believe themselves to be qualified, despite ample evidence as to their skills and qualifications, and worry about being uncovered as an impostor. The latter condition is characterized by over-confidence, completely out of proportion to actual skills (the greater the incompetence, the higher the confidence). For more details, see the previous two posts.

You can also test yourself as to your "impostor" tendency here.

In this post, I'd like to explore how someone with a tendency toward "impostor phenomenon" (IP) might learn to avoid such negative feelings and associated behavior. The basic problem, according to psychologists, is that such people fail to internalize their accomplishments and skills, and so view themselves as less capable than others. I can imagine that this condition might arise through various personality traits and environmental factors during childhood. One particular interaction that occurs to me is how much a person depends on the approval and affirmation by others--too much reliance on accolades from others might predispose someone to the condition, for example.

Even if you are thinking that you don't have this problem, consider this: our self-image changes over time and in response to our surroundings and how others treat us. One thing is certain in life, and that is change. I think most people can remember one time or another when they felt inadequate and were worried about being able to accomplish a task, do well on an exam, or live up to expectations (of parents, advisers, employers). I pointed out in the previous post that students are susceptible to IP upon being thrust from school into a job where they are expected to be fully competent (after years of being told they are not yet competent). I experienced this feeling upon completing my Ph.D., but it faded with time. I can imagine this could strike anyone at any point in their career--going from one job to a new job, for example.

There may be a couple of ways to deal with IP--both of which helped me.

I mentioned above the reliance on others for affirmation of one's skills. Therein lies one possible source of help: surround yourself with people who are supportive, who reaffirm a positive image of yourself, and who encourage you to view yourself realistically (by pointing out your obvious skills and accomplishments when you express doubts, for example).

Obviously, it would be better if you were not reliant on others to avoid feeling like a fraud, but it's not likely to be easy for you to change this aspect of your personality without extensive therapy. However, you can avoid people who make you feel worse and seek out people who are supportive. However, that will likely get you only part-way to squashing any impostor feelings.

Another method that I found helpful was to remind myself often about my own accomplishments. I've read about accomplished scientists (with IP) who would frequently reread one of their best papers to remind themselves just how good it was (therefore, how good they are). People with IP tend to be highly accomplished, so having such reminders is usually not a problem. I've also done this on occasion when I was feeling wobbly about starting a new and challenging writing project. By reading something I had previously written, which was published in a good journal, helped me internalize the fact that if I was capable of doing it once, I could do it again--no sweat. Anyone can use this approach --with a paper they've written, an exam they aced, or a great blog post they wrote that got a lot of positive comments!

For more on stories of female scientists suffering from IP and strategies for overcoming IP, see this article at Naturejobs.

Image credit: modified photo from davcorp.com

A Perfect Storm

2011-04-26T18:20:00.001-05:00

This post continues the discussion of the Dunning-Kruger effect--a condition in which a person who is incompetent is unable to recognize their deficiencies and tends to hold an over-inflated view of their skills. I contrasted Dunning-Kruger with the "imposter syndrome" in which the person is unable to internalize their accomplishments and fears being discovered to be incompetent or unqualified.

Feminists have focused on the imposter syndrome as an unfortunate reaction suffered by some women working in fields dominated by men (although either gender may experience it, e.g., as students). It occurred to me that the contrasting syndrome--Dunning-Kruger may also pose a problem for women in STEM fields.

As a woman in science (especially government science), I encounter people who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome--or something that seems very close to it. Their performance is woefully sub-standard, yet they exude supreme confidence in their abilities. In the past, I was completely mystified as to how such people could maintain such an elevated opinion despite being told repeatedly that their performance was poor (these are the students who insist that they are "A" students despite scoring consistent "Cs" on exams). I now understand that their overall gross incompetence includes the lack of skills needed to accurately evaluate their performance and that of others. Once these people get into the workforce, they continue to over estimate their capabilities and contributions, as well as the performance of people they work with. Despite explicit evidence to the contrary (lack of progress on projects, inability to write or publish anything of substance, lack of creativity), some manage to get ahead (or at least avoid being fired), in large part due to their overconfident behavior and/or the inaccurate assessment by others who also lack the necessary skills to recognize their incompetency.

So how might someone with Dunning-Kruger, who is poor at assessing competence in themselves and others, have an impact on women in STEM fields?

Lacking the necessary cognitive skills to accurately judge competency, Dunning-Kruger sufferers look for other signals to guide their opinions of themselves and others. One easy option is to put people into neat categories to which certain general attributes can be ascribed (race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status)...in other words, stereotypes. Stereotypes make it much easier for such people to judge people and their performance. Gender X is good at skill A, but poor at skill B. Younger people are better at skill C than old people. Members of a specific group may rate others of their group highly (because of their own high opinion of themselves).

We can see this behavior in action among members of the "old boy network" (I don't for a second believe that this entity has gone extinct...only underground). Implicit in the "old boy network" is the acceptance of other males as worthy of perks, recommendations, and support. A male, who acts confident, is typically gauged to be competent--regardless of his actual performance. If one fails at a task, it's rationalized that he "just had a bad day" or that some external event caused the failure. All the members of the "old boy network" talk in glowing terms about each other, further enhancing their self-images. If a male newcomer is somewhat less grandiose in his self-diagnosis, the persistent back-slapping by other males may lead to a more pompous attitude ("if everyone thinks I'm so great, it must be so!").

The combination of coworkers who have overinflated views of themselves and superiors who cannot adequately assess other people's skills creates a "perfect storm" situation for a woman in science.

Someone unable to accurately evaluate other people's competencies may be more likely to make a mistake about the performance of a woman who is working in a non-traditional field. Evidence as to her superior abilities may be completely ignored, because their erroneous perception is based on something else (e.g., stereotypes). If she makes a mistake, she's automatically judged to be incompetent, because a single error is easier to focus on than putting it into the larger context of her overall skill set and previous performance. If she has a tendency toward imposter syndrome, then this unrealistic treatment will greatly exacerbate her condition. If she is surrounded by an old boys network, then she'll have to be very strong indeed to avoid feeling diminished and marginalized.

On the other hand, if this same female finds herself mostly surrounded by people who are skilled at assessing true capabilities, then she will likely be accepted as highly competent and will be less affected by those colleagues who hold exaggerated views of themselves.

Beyond the Imposter Syndrome

2011-04-14T08:36:00.002-05:00

I came across a blog post at "On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess" in which the blogger, Isis, announces that the "imposter syndrome" is a scam. In case you've not heard of it, this condition is one in which the person secretly feels like an imposter in their field, despite being highly competent and successful. They are afraid that eventually everyone will find out that they are not a real scientist. Graduate students (in general) and women in STEM fields seem to suffer disproportionately from this problem.

Anyway, Isis expresses frustration over how many women are moaning about suffering from this condition. I think the concern here is that women will attribute any failure (to land a grant, to publish a paper) to this syndrome and this behavior will, consequently, enhance the belief that they are imposters. I also suspect that those who have read or written a lot about the imposter syndrome have become weary of it and think that there is nothing new to be learned.

However, I think there is more to be understood about imposter syndrome and its opposite, the Dunning-Kruger effect, which I think of as the "overinflated ego syndrome". The Dunning-Kruger effect is one in which the person overestimates their abilities...and the more incompetent they are, the higher their level of confidence in their abilities. At first glance, it seems incomprehensible that people who constantly make mistakes or fail to meet performance expectations would paradoxically believe that they are competent or skilled. However, the mental skills required to be competent at any task (e.g., ability to assess what steps to take to accomplish the task, to gauge standards of performance) are the same skills needed to accurately evaluate one's own competence.

Kruger and Dunning summarize the key features of such people:

They tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
They fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
They fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy

Thus, people who are generally incompetent are unable to gauge their own performance correctly and tend to over-inflate their performance (in their minds) relative to the performance of others. Ehrlinger et al. provide the following example:

"..to produce a grammatically correct sentence, one must know something about the rules of grammar. But one must also have an adequate knowledge of the rules of grammar in order to recognize when a sentence is grammatically correct, whether written by one's self or by another person. Thus, those who lack grammatical expertise are not in a position to accurately judge the quality of their attempts or the attempts of other people. In addition, because people tend to choose the responses they think are most reasonable, people with deficits are likely to believe they are doing quite well even when they are, in reality, doing quite poorly."

Sufferers of the imposter syndrome are just the opposite. In psychological terms, imposter syndrome is a condition in which the sufferer is not able to internalize his or her accomplishments and skills. They are highly critical of themselves and tend to over-inflate the performance of those around them. If we use graduate students as an example, we can see the dynamics involved in creating the imposter mindset. Students are in a subordinate position from virtually every standpoint. They interact with people who are obviously competent and superior (professors) and who constantly tell the student (in various ways) that they are not yet competent at the skills required to succeed in their field of study. When the student is thrust into a position of responsibility (they graduate and get a job), they may find it difficult to transition from the "incompetent" to the "totally competent" mindset. They may go on to develop "imposter syndrome".

These two syndromes are neatly summarized in one of my favorite sayings: "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Charles Darwin.

Of course, these are two extremes along a wide spectrum of mental states. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, perhaps with more women toward the imposter end and more men toward the inflated ego end (I have no data, just more than 40 years of observations). We may shift between these mental states over time, depending on our history and new situations. I recall feeling like an imposter right after attaining my Ph.D., but this faded with time and experience. I can envision someone taking on a job in a new field and initially feeling like an imposter...at least until some experience in the new position is gained. You can probably think of many other examples.

So what does all this have to do with women in science and does this information lead to any insights as to how we may solve some of the "challenges" we face? More in the next post.

Hot Female Scientists

2011-04-12T00:15:00.002-05:00

Just when we think we are making progress...toward a time when women are viewed as other than sex objects...we find that not much has changed. Why do I say this?

I was recently reviewing the stats on this blog to see what people were most interested in. In the stats option, I can see what the top key phrase is that leads the most visitors to this blog. You guessed it: "hot female scientists". Searching on those key words returns about 56 million hits. My blog post (Are all female scientists white, skinny, and "hot"?) is number 9 on the hit parade. One wonders what the guys who are searching for links to pics of hot women think of my post. I'm guessing they are puzzled for a brief moment and then click on the next link.

I did discover a post, in which a blogger apologizes for compiling a list of 15 sexiest female scientists (partly tongue-in-cheek...he included P.Z. Myers in the list). After readers complained, he took down the post and apologized. His apology is eloquent and convincing--I recommend reading it. It affirms my impression that a lot of the sexist remarks and related behavior are perpetrated by guys who don't realize the impact of what they are doing. Not that that excuses them. It just puts them into a slightly different category from the misogynists who deliberately undermine women. I'm guessing that this blogger is young and inexperienced... and never stopped to think about what he was doing.

His reaction showed that we can change the minds and behavior of this group of men. We can do this by not immediately jumping to conclusions about motives and taking the time to calmly explain the effect of their actions.

Nature Calling

2011-04-09T08:14:00.000-05:00

The phone rings. You answer and it's a writer with Nature News who wants your opinion on an upcoming paper to be published in one of the Nature journals. You agree, and an embargoed copy is sent to you.

Upon reading the article, your first thought is, "How did this ever get past the reviewers?" You've never heard of the authors, who have never published anything of note on the topic.

Then you see that the authors have commented on an aspect (which they did not actually research) that is your area of expertise. Their statement goes something like this: "We know very little about Phenomenon X...due to the lack of research on the topic." They fail to cite your work or that of other researchers who have, in fact, published extensively on Phenomenon X.

Your response options:

a. Be gracious and compliment the authors for focusing attention on an important topic, endangered habitat/species, etc.

b. Be critical of the work and point out inaccuracies and false assumptions in the work that compromise the conclusions.

c. Ignore the findings of the paper and plug your own work.

d. Decline the request.

What would you do?

Whatever you do, you want to do it quickly if you wish your comments to be included in the news article. Journalists work on short deadlines, something that scientists often fail to appreciate. In this case, the news article is published by the journal that published the scientific paper. So they are likely not looking for extremely critical comments, which reflect badly on their decision to publish the paper. However, you want to provide an honest opinion--that's what they are asking for.

If you feel you cannot say anything positive about the paper, then option (d) is probably the best course of action. If you can say something positive, lead with this statement ("this work calls attention to a very important topic"). You can then say that there are still some aspects that need further research and/or that were not addressed in this paper. At this point, you may be able to mention your own work ("several researchers, including myself, are actively pursuing this aspect").

Another tip is to say something unusual or colorful. Such quotes are often used over more mundane ones. This all assumes, of course, that you wish to be quoted. There are advantages and disadvantages to being mentioned in a news article. You should carefully consider the consequences, depending on the situation. In this specific case I describe, the advantages usually outweigh any downside (commenter's profiles and links to their websites are usually included in Nature News articles).

Another option, not included in the choices above, is to write a rebuttal letter. This course of action is certainly one that would allow you to control what is printed as well as being able to fully expound on your criticism. I've never written a letter like this. However, I have written a "Reply" paper...one that was in response to a criticism of one of my papers (the journal published criticisms and replies in the form of short papers instead of letters). I described this experience in a previous blog post.

In general, however, I think there is a danger of critical letters to the editor sounding like "sour grapes". My reaction to a paper with which I disagree is to publish my own paper that addresses the points of contention. It's a better use of your time and energy.

An Awful Waste of Space

2011-04-07T15:40:00.000-05:00

Remember these lines from the movie, Contact?

Eleanor Arroway (as a young girl): "Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?"

Ted Arroway (Ellie's dad): "Don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space."

The idea is that the Universe holds many worlds that support life, including intelligent beings. Carl Sagan, of course, was the scientist and science communicator extraordinaire who promoted this message. The concept is sometimes called the "principle of mediocrity", i.e., that Earth is a common rocky planet in a typical solar system, positioned in a typical galaxy...hence, there are likely many other such planets in many galaxies scattered throughout the Universe. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program featured in the movie Contact exists based on the assumption that someone is out there listening. Of course, this message resonates with the UFO and alien abductee crowd (who never seem to question the wisdom of aliens who return these witnesses to Earth after their "physical exams"....and other illogical alien behavior).

I think something like 50% of Americans believe we have already been visited by aliens, despite the absence of a single piece of evidence. A corollary belief is that when we finally deplete the resources on Earth, we will simply move to some other Earth-like planet...again, despite there being no evidence that such a planet exists. Hollywood (and science fiction) has contributed to these beliefs. Recent films such as Avatar create imaginary worlds so realistic that it's hard for some young viewers to separate fantasy from reality. The idea that there are many civilizations out there in the Universe has become ingrained in our culture.

In this post, I'd like to explore these ideas from the standpoint of how it influences our decisions about protecting the Earth and its resources. In particular, are there other viewpoints that would influence people to be more appreciative of what we have on our little planet.

In fact, there is an opposing hypothesis: the "rare earth hypothesis", which states the alternative that Earth is instead a rare anomaly in the Universe. I've just finished reading "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe" (2000) by Ward and Brownlee. It's been around for a while, but I had never read it. The authors argue that the emergence of complex life, particularly sentient life, has a low probability due to the combination of astrophysical, geological, and evolutionary events required to facilitate it. Obviously, that rare combination can occur...here we are. The point is that life on Earth arose from a series of serendipitous events, without which, complex life would not have evolved or would have been extinguished prematurely (the probability of worlds with microbial-level life is higher).

There are convincing arguments to support both hypotheses. You can read Rare Earth or get the Cliffs Notes version on Wikipedia. (For another viewpoint, see What Does a Martian Look Like? The Science of Extraterrestrial Life).

However, what catches my attention about the rare earth hypothesis is the notion that life can be easily snuffed out by any one of a variety of cosmic occurrences. The geologic record documents at least 5 major events in the Earth's past in which mass extinctions have taken place. Some scientists estimate that 99% of species that once existed are now extinct. Some extinctions are attributed to cosmic collisions; others to huge climate swings. You see where I'm going with this...

At this point in time, we know only one planet that can support life--Earth. There may be others out there, but no evidence so far...and even if there are, we don't have the technology to reach them in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable. We know that mass extinctions are part of Earth's history and that some were caused by climate extremes (Snowball Earth, Runaway Greenhouse). We also know that human activities are altering the Earth's atmosphere and biosphere.

I'm sure that Sagan, in proposing the large estimate of habitable planets, was thinking mostly of supporting space exploration and astrobiology...not about the possible effect such a belief might have on how we view Earth and its resources. Yet here we are facing some serious questions about climate change and other issues.

Hollywood movies typically have happy endings with groups of humans surviving apocalyptic events in subterranean shelters or some other ark-like system (Deep Impact, 2012), humans colonizing other planetary systems (Avatar), or more advanced alien civilizations sending blueprints for transport of humans across the Universe (Contact). These are entertaining stories that convey a compelling message about human resilience and persistence. We naturally identify with the survivors, not those unfortunate people who succumb to the meteor impact. Government plans for response to such events also send the message that these catastrophes are survivable. However, one only needs to consider how we handled lesser events (Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf oil spill, Japan tsunami) to see the reality that our current abilities are insufficient to meet a global-level disaster.

Are there people on other planets? Don't know. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like we should treat our planet (and each other) better.

Image Credits: Film clip (introductory sequence) and modified stills from the movie, Contact (Warner Bros.)

You Are Not in Kansas Anymore

2011-04-03T08:09:00.002-05:00

I mentioned in earlier posts that I had been doing fieldwork recently in a remote location (think jungle, mosquitoes, scorpions, bucket latrines, no refrigeration, no TV or internet). Spending time in a tropical forest and away from "civilization" is an experience that simultaneously makes one appreciate the variety and abundance of life on our planet as well as the comforts that we in developed countries tend to take for granted. A single hectare of tropical forest may contain hundreds, even thousands, of species of plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria. Walking through the forest and stopping in front of a massive old tree, I was reminded of the movie, Avatar.

If you've been following this blog, you've read my previous review of Avatar and sexism in movies by James Cameron. I was pretty critical in those reviews, but there's another aspect of Avatar that I've wanted to explore.

In the months after the release of Avatar, a number of people began posting comments on various forums about how the movie affected them. Some said it changed their lives and how they view the world. Others became sad or depressed, presumably because their lives did not live up to the fantasy world created in the movie. Some posters even stated that they'd contemplated suicide (it's hard to tell if these are real or fabricated statements). Although a lot of those who had strong reactions to the movie were very young and impressionable, some were adults. Their words indicated that they yearn for the life of the Na'vi, the imaginary indigenous people of Avatar. The depressed are being advised to shed modern conveniences that harm the environment and to live "closer to nature". That way, they can take an active role in creating their own world (instead of sulking in a dark room in front of the TV or computer).

In case you haven't seen the movie, the Na'vi live close to Nature; they are 10 foot tall, blue, cat-like humanoids with "bones reinforced with carbon fiber", and have coming-of-age rituals in which the inductee acquires a flying dragon, which becomes their steed for life. At the beginning of the movie, we see that life on Pandora is quite dangerous. The evil antagonist, Colonel Quaritch, eloquently describes the situation to new recruits:

"You are not in Kansas anymore. You are on Pandora, ladies and gentlemen. Respect that fact every second of every day. If there is a Hell, you might wanna go there for some R & R after a tour on Pandora. Out there beyond that fence every living thing that crawls, flies, or squats in the mud wants to kill you and eat your eyes for jujubes."

This message is driven home as Jake Sully, the human protagonist, is almost killed four times during his first day in the jungles of Pandora. He survives, of course, to become one of the Na'vi, fall in love with a Na'vi princess, and ultimately shed his paralyzed human body for a new, Na'vi-like avatar body. Later brushes with death are presented as exciting adventures, which only add to the fantasy of a perfect world. The movie experience thus yields a sense of adventure, wonder, and happy endings and never hints at reality.

Perhaps it's for the best.

Real life in the gritty, parasite-infested tropical forest is somewhat less pleasant than one would guess from watching Avatar. Most people I know would not last two minutes in the bush before they would run screaming back to air conditioning, iced drinks, bug-free manicured lawns, entertainment on demand, and all the other trappings of civilization.

What movies like Avatar do accomplish is to get young people excited about nature and about preserving the natural world.

On the one hand, I'm sad that it takes a fantasy world (patterned after the Amazon rain forest) to make people care about the only world we know that has life--Earth. On the other hand, I'm glad that people are moved by the environmental message. I'm with Cameron in believing that people don't get motivated by just talking or reading about Nature. They need to vicariously experience it without all the danger and discomfort. People are especially affected by stories that touch them emotionally.

And Avatar accomplishes this.

The technological breakthroughs that allowed the creation of a believable world populated by fantasy creatures are quite simply amazing. The reactions to the movie reveal how effective such a story-telling approach is...especially with generations who never knew a world before CGI.

One might wonder if such fantasies simply set young people up for disillusionment. However, I recall being excited and fascinated by the original Star Trek TV series. My imagination was fired up about what life might be like on other worlds and whether I might one day travel to those worlds and study the life found there. And Star Trek had very clunky special effects; even I thought they were corny at the time. Nevertheless, the series influenced a generation of young viewers. Even though our original, idealistic expectations about space travel were never realized, some of us succeeded in achieving our dreams of becoming a different type of explorer--a scientist.

With its incredible special effects, Avatar may have a profound impact on the current generation.

Avatar's success in this regard also has a message for those of us who are concerned about attracting young people (especially girls) to science. People pay attention to compelling stories that 1) they can understand, 2) are memorable, and 3) affect them emotionally. I'll bet young fans of Avatar can answer correctly more questions about the ecology of Pandora than about our Earth. What do you think?

Photo Credit: Avatar, 20th Century Fox; AnotherBigDamnTree, DrDoyenne

Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History

2011-03-27T18:11:00.001-05:00

The title of this post is a widely-repeated statement made by a feminist historian, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. This saying is from an obscure scholarly article Ulrich published years ago and has appeared on T-shirts and bumper stickers over the years. It caught my eye recently...as the title of a book in which Ulrich tries to explore the topic in greater depth (Vintage Press, 2008). I've not read the book, but apparently it focuses on three prominent women in history plus shorter anecdotes about other women who've made contributions to society, but remain relatively unknown.

Anyway, seeing Ulrich's statement made me think about the pressures on girls and women to be "well-behaved". What do I mean by this?

Men are expected to misbehave (at least occasionally) and are quickly forgiven; we even have phrases that acknowledge this expectation: "boys will be boys". Boys and men can be rowdy, aggressive, impolite, arrogant, sloppy, etc., and no one holds it against them. They may be shameless self-promoters, bragging about their accomplishments, no matter how minor. It's in their nature. We forgive them...and even find their misadventures endearing.

Women, on the other hand, are pressured to "behave well" under all circumstances. I'm not talking here about misbehavior of the type depicted in spring-break videos, e.g., "Girls Behaving Badly", but about women who speak up when faced with sexism or other unfair treatment, who don't remain quiet when their contributions are overlooked in favor of a male colleague's, who don't politely wait for someone to acknowledge them or their accomplishments, or who even fight back when treated inappropriately.

As I've described in previous posts, women of my generation (growing up in the 50's and 60's) were held to a certain standard of behavior (and career choices). We were expected to be modest, quiet, polite, submissive, and well-groomed at all times. A single indiscretion could have long-lasting repercussions.

I don't think things have changed that much. Yes, women can now participate in activities and have rights that were not ours in the past, but we are still bombarded with advertisements and images of what is expected of girls and women...both physically and behaviorally. Much of this information is internalized early in our development, and we willingly police ourselves to conform to what is apparently expected of us as females.

Those of us working in a traditionally male profession find ourselves in a Catch-22 situation. If we behave modestly and politely, our work is overlooked, and recognition goes to those who are not similarly burdened. If instead, we are assertive, strong-willed, independent, tenacious, out-spoken, and proud (positive attributes of our male colleagues), we risk being branded as being "difficult", "uncooperative", "stubborn", "overbearing", "angry", or (horrors) not a "team-player".

Our experiences in this regard vary dramatically among workplaces. This, I suspect, is often the reason for the very divergent experiences of women in science fields. Some laboratories are populated by supportive superiors, colleagues, and staff who view women as being equally capable as men. Other workplaces have one or more individuals who believe otherwise and can make life miserable for female scientists, especially if they happen to be successful and productive.

Sometimes I wonder if such misogynists see women (who succeed in a male-dominated field) as ill-behaved (and thus need to be reprimanded)? Girls were once taught that they should not outshine their brothers, boyfriends, or husbands. A woman should do her job... but not so well that she outperforms her male colleagues? If she succeeds by adopting behaviors acceptable in male colleagues, is she viewed as somehow violating social standards? I'm only speculating here, as it's difficult to put myself into the minds of such men (and some women) who hold a double standard.

Anyway, since this is Women's History Month, it seems appropriate to resurrect Ulrich's prediction about good behavior and its outcome...as well as a reminder of those women (Susan B. Anthony) who did "misbehave" and in so doing, garnered the rights we enjoy today.

Why Scientists Are Never Certain

2011-03-22T10:48:00.002-05:00

Scientifically-proven is an oxymoron. In most scientific fields, it is impossible to prove something, e.g., that all birds fly. We might survey a thousand species throughout the temperate zone and conclude that, yes, all birds fly. Unless we’ve examined every bird that exists in the world, we cannot say that we’ve proven anything. Instead, we proceed by trying to falsify a scientific hypothesis. This approach encourages scientists to design rigorous experiments. We search for environments in which birds might not fly and soon discover penguins, ostriches, and other flightless birds. So we amend our hypothesis that “all birds fly” to “most birds fly”. The discovery of flightless birds raises further questions about bird evolution and adaptation to certain habitats. Other hypotheses are less easily falsified. Complex systems, such as ecosystems, and their workings are more challenging. We chip away, a few data points at a time. Sometimes a pattern emerges, which may become the basis of a generalization.

We never stop trying to disprove even widely-accepted concepts. Scientists attempt to replicate previous findings, and in the process sometimes overturn the original result or uncover new information, which adds to the overall picture. In the process, we continually gain new knowledge, which allows us to modify our initial conceptual model. If instead, we announce that something is finally proven and that we are certain, knowledge stops accumulating. Scientists know that their knowledge about a certain topic is limited and that there are many unknowns yet to be revealed.

The average person rarely understands these concepts and is frustrated when scientists don't express certainty about a subject and equivocate in their answers to questions. They assume that the scientist, who does not convey certainty about a topic, simply does not know or is confused, is not competent, and/or lacks confidence in their knowledge. However, the good scientist is prepared to shift her viewpoint when new evidence is unveiled. This flexibility does not necessarily mean that what scientists thought before was incorrect. It means that what was previously correct, given the state of knowledge at the time, may be modified in the future with new data.

Scientists state their level of certainty based on statistical probabilities. We are 95% certain that an observed phenomenon is caused by human activity. There's a 5% chance that our observation is due to some other process. The average person interprets the lack of absolute, 100% certainty as a weakness...as evidence that scientists don't really know the cause of a particular phenomenon. However, what if an average person was told that without surgery to remove a malignant brain tumor, there is a 95% chance they would be dead in 6 weeks. Would a person gamble on the probability that there is a 5% chance that they won’t die and refuse surgery? I doubt it.

Such confusion by the public is often exploited by certain interest groups.

The book, “The Merchants of Doubt” describes how special-interest groups raise doubts in the public’s mind about climate change by highlighting disagreements among scientists about specific points, the lack of complete data on a specific topic, or changes over time in what scientists accept as a valid explanation for some phenomenon. Interestingly, the authors document that the people (some are former scientists) who are behind the climate denial machine are the same people who worked for the tobacco industry (smoking is not harmful) and who were behind the denial of the existence of the ozone hole as well as acid rain. Their basic approach is to plant the idea that there are data on both sides of the issue (neglecting to mention that one side has failed to publish their research in refereed journals and/or was funded by the very industry being investigated). This strategy creates confusion over issues by a public that is scientifically illiterate.

When scientists remain silent in response to unscientific claims by doubt-mongers, the public may conclude that the non-scientific viewpoint is correct. Or worse, that the scientific community is perpetrating a hoax on the public. It’s difficult to convince scientists to speak out—for various reasons, not the least of which is the possibility of becoming a target.

Symposium for Early-Career Women

2011-03-16T10:08:00.005-05:00

Still in the jungle feeding the bugs, but here's another link to an announcement for a workshop for early-career women in science:

"WEBS (Women Evolving Biological Sciences), an annual three-day symposium aimed at addressing the retention of female scientists and issues related to the transition of women from early career stages to tenure track positions and leadership roles in academic and research settings. Past WEBS symposium in 2007, 2008 and 2010 were huge successes. Early career participants as well as our senior scientist panelists reported feeling inspired and equipped with new connections and tools that they expect will help them in their career in the years to come."

Movers and Shakers

2011-03-14T10:06:00.001-05:00

I'm in the jungle doing field research and have intermittent internet access, which is why my posting has fallen off of late.

However, you might be interested in this link at the website of the International Society of Ecological Economics, Solutions, which is running a special issue on Women Shaping Our World.

Constraint Satisfaction

2011-03-04T20:37:00.004-06:00

The concept of constraint satisfaction concerns the constraints that must be taken into consideration when solving a problem or making a decision...the satisfaction occurs when these constraints are met, which leads to a satisfying solution. Stephen M. Kosslyn, the author of Image and Mind, discusses this concept and provides examples.

The insight that this concept holds is that there are usually just a few ways that a problem may be solved--due to the constraints. It turns out that by imposing constraints, you can increase creativity in reaching a solution. The reason is that your options become so limited by the constraints that you are forced to seek creative solutions to the problem. An example might be seen in a TV show on the Food Network...shows in which chefs compete with each other to create the best dish. The contestants often are given challenges in which they are restricted to certain ingredients (sometimes quite strange ingredients such as mango, octopus, and cornmeal). Similarly, TV shows feature fashion designers who are given challenges to, for example, create a cocktail dress out of plants (leaves, flowers, etc.).

The audience is intrigued because they think, "How can anyone possibly make something that tastes good or is fashionable out of that?" In fact, some of the most delicious or spectacularly beautiful creations come from these challenges in which the contestants are restricted to a few ingredients or materials. I sometimes watch these shows because the process the chefs or fashion designers go through to realize their creations is fascinating. You don't have to be particularly interested in cooking or fashion to learn something about creativity.

There is a lesson here for those of us in science. When our options are greatly restricted, we are forced to get creative, which may lead to an elegant solution. Perhaps we even may discover a new method to address a particular problem. Those of us who conduct fieldwork in remote locations are often faced with constraints. We plan ahead, of course, and bring whatever instruments, supplies, and so forth that we anticipate will be required to accomplish our research. But then, an instrument breaks down, your assistant falls ill, your original experimental design does not address the actual situation, or any other number of constraints. If you are in a remote rain forest, you cannot run to the local Home Depot or Radio Shack to purchase replacement parts. You are forced to improvise, to rethink your research plan, to seek out local guides...to be creative in arriving at a solution to the problem. You think to yourself, "My original plan is unworkable. What can I do given the constraints of the situation?"

It's quite amazing to be in this situation and to think of a creative solution, which eventually leads to a result that far exceeds what you had originally anticipated. I can think of several studies that I conducted under such constraints...situations in which the original plan had to be completely scrapped. The end result was an insight that would have otherwise never been realized. The journal articles that resulted from these situations are some of my most popular (based on citations) and with which I am most satisfied.

I can imagine a new TV show in which scientists are dropped into a remote setting and given a bag of miscellaneous, everyday items and a scientific question to answer. I realize there have been other shows of this nature, but the participants were typically given unlimited resources to solve the problem. The difference with my example is that the challenges would occur under very constrained conditions so that contestants would have to be creative. An interesting twist might be to have a team of Ph.D. scientists competing with a team of non-scientists. You might think that the scientists would have an unfair advantage, but not necessarily. Studies show that a diverse group of people (with different educational backgrounds) often out compete a group of Ph.D.s. The losing team would be forced to vote off one of its members (would it be the weakest link or the strongest?). It would be interesting to see if the teams evolve to produce groups that are more or less creative, more or less cooperative, and more or less successful in the long-run. An added benefit would be that the audience would realize that science is not just about high-tech instruments or can only be conducted by highly-trained scientists, but is accessible to anyone who grasps the scientific method and is creative.

Video credit: Moseguaards Cloth Simulation (Alexandra Institute), which involves something called iterative constraint satisfaction (about which I know nothing, but the video was neat).

Memory Overload

2011-02-26T09:35:00.002-06:00

The other day, while working in my office, I had an experience that we all have from time to time.

I usually have my laptop open to a manuscript I'm writing and also have my desktop computer turned on to check email or to use the internet to search for information. As I was writing a sentence on my laptop, I realized that I needed to do a quick fact check. I turned and scooted my chair over to my desktop computer to search for the information I needed. As I moved to do this task, I glanced at my watch to gauge how much time I had until lunch...and had a few other random thoughts. This all happened in a span of 1 or 2 seconds. By the time I touched the mouse connected to my desktop computer, I had forgotten why I was switching from laptop to desktop. Annoyed, I turned back to my laptop and looked at the last sentence I had written...and this, of course, jogged my memory, and I quickly performed the necessary search.

When these things happen, I put them down to a "senior moment". People often experience this when they are doing some activity in one room and decide to take a moment to do something else in another room. By the time you reach the other room, you've forgotten why you went there in the first place. How often have you opened the refrigerator to get something and end up standing there staring, trying to remember what it was you wanted?

These events happened to me when I was younger, but not frequently. It still doesn't happen frequently, but when it does, it is scarier now. From reading about the brain and cognition, however, I know that what is happening has to do with short-term memory and that it is not uncommon to fail to incorporate certain information into short-term memory---hence these memory lapses. We are told not to worry if you forget where you put your keys; only if you forget what your keys are for is there likely a serious problem.

Some think that these little lapses increase as our memory system becomes overloaded with information. With the vast amounts of information coming into our brains via digital communication systems and electronic toys, we are perhaps suffering from cognitive overload. At least I hope that's the explanation. It certainly makes sense. I often feel that to learn some new fact....really learn it and retain it, get it into long-term memory...I need to make room for it by eliminating some other bit of information. I don't remember feeling this way when I was a student, despite the fact that I was learning and memorizing lots of things. There seemed to be lots of capacity in my brain. But during my student years, the information overload we are now experiencing was still years away....

I've also noticed that older people sometimes have difficulty performing a task (e.g., driving) and talking about a complex topic. Their attention is split between two fairly complex operations, and they have trouble performing one or both well. The term multi-tasking is often invoked as a positive process, i.e., the ability to multi-task is seen as being advantageous. I doubt that it is. In fact, I would suggest that your short-term memory is being overloaded while multi-tasking so that whatever you are doing, especially if it depends on learning something new, is being negatively affected by the other distractions. It may not feel this way to you because the effect may be subtle, e.g., taking you ten percent longer to complete the primary task than if you had no other distractions.

Anyway, I've decided that I need to minimize the cognitive overload by focusing on one task at a time, paying attention to what I'm doing at that moment, and not mentally running in multiple directions.

The Disadvantages of Irregular Writing Schedules

2011-02-15T17:58:00.002-06:00

How many of you were either explicitly taught or learned by imitation (of your adviser or some other mentor) that you should begin writing only after you have all your data in hand?

That was the procedure I was taught. I was further advised in my current job (government) that the accepted procedure for PIs was to conduct research projects in five year cycles, with the first three to four years devoted to design and conduct of the research followed by a year (or two!) of analysis and writing. This particular schedule was designed by bureaucrats who don't write or publish themselves. They were quite adamant that this was the way to do research and publish it. I ignored this advice.

I give the above example to illustrate an extreme case of putting off writing for years. This extreme schedule would sound like professional suicide to most scientists. If you think about it, though, this pattern is is not unlike the schedule students follow in their dissertation work: several years of data gathering and analysis, followed by an intense period of writing--often compressed into a few months at the end of their program. Writing something every three or four years clearly affects overall productivity. Less obvious is that irregular writing can have a serious effect on one's ability to write well. Imagine if you never wrote anything substantive (other than email or minor documents not meant for publication) for three years and then were faced with a large writing project (the product of years of research). This is a recipe for disaster...or at least a bad case of writer's block. No wonder that many Ph.D. students find themselves paralyzed at the point they begin writing their dissertations.

The Ph.D. student then goes on to a post-doc position in which they are expected to conduct and publish at a shorter time interval, e.g., two years. Some succeed, but many fail to publish according to expectations (in my experience). After this, they (may) find themselves in an academic or research position in which it's expected that they publish three or more papers or reports per year. Many attempt to continue the writing schedule they learned in graduate school: spending most of their time conducting the research, then madly writing for a short time at the end of the project, otherwise known as "binge writing". Those who continue the binge writing approach, which worked during graduate school (sort-of), find it increasingly difficult to meet more ambitious writing goals. Some work never gets published; as these unpublished works pile up, our guilt and frustration mount over time.

If you don't write on a regular schedule, you may find yourself struggling to produce something other than a pedestrian manuscript. Since most of the top-tier science journals reject 80% or more of submitted manuscripts, weakly-written manuscripts don't have a chance (and may even be rejected by mediocre journals that are trying to improve their impact factor rating). Those scientists who who regularly hone their writing skills and put as much (or more) effort into crafting compelling papers as they do in designing and conducting their research are going to take up that limited journal space.

Just as a musician must practice constantly to sustain and improve their skills, so must a writer. As I'll explore in later posts, good technical writing (or any writing, for that matter) requires constant practice, improvement, and exploration.

Unfortunately, many scientists fail to recognize how an irregular writing schedule affects their overall productivity, their writing skills, and their self-confidence. How do we break bad writing habits, especially if such habits are common among your peers and encouraged by your mentors? Well, we've already started by first recognizing that binge writing is counter-productive.

In the following posts, I'll look more closely at this and other barriers to productive writing and some skills a technical writer must develop to ensure a long career of productive, enjoyable writing.

In the meantime, see this list of books for guidance on writing. The list is designed for students preparing their thesis or dissertation, but contains suggested reading that is useful for anyone at any stage of their career. Interestingly, the list contains two books that I've recommended in this blog: If You Want to Write by Barbara Ueland and How to Write a Lot by Paul Silvia.

Three Easy Steps

2011-02-14T19:21:00.001-06:00

We're talking about good writing habits. In the last post, I emphasized the importance of developing and sticking to a regular writing schedule. In the next few posts, we'll take a closer look at how scientists learn to write...in particular, how they develop a writing schedule.

As I look back on my science career, my satisfaction over the body of work that I've published is somewhat dampened by the knowledge of all those papers (and books) that were never written. I've got the data; it's filed away in lab and field notebooks, spreadsheets, and half-finished manuscripts. In fact, I would estimate that for every paper I've published, there are five more that were never written. Most of my colleagues who are the same age would admit to the same. A lot of the unpublished data were collected during and just after I finished my Ph.D. I was bursting with ideas, questions, and energy. In some cases, these were side-projects that I carried out alongside a primary research goal. In others, they were stand-alone projects that were separately funded. All of these studies were completed, but the work was never written up--for various reasons. Often, it was lack of time--more specifically, lack of a period of time scheduled in the project for writing. Back then, I thought the writing should take place after all data were collected. A typical project might have three months set aside at the end of the project, which was designated for writing things up. However, what usually happened was that I had to spend those three months completing some aspect of the research, redoing some analysis, writing the next grant proposal, and/or initiating the next research project. There never seemed to be time for writing manuscripts.

I now think that I could have taken most of this research to its logical conclusion--publication--if I had only developed better writing skills and habits early on. In the last post, I made the point that having a regular writing schedule (e.g., 2 hours per day, every weekday) was essential for sustained productivity. Part of the problem I had during my early research years was that I believed what I had been taught about how to write up research. My graduate advisers taught me the following procedure: design the study, conduct the study, write up the study. In that order. Only when I had all data in hand should I begin thinking about writing. Three easy steps, taken in sequential order. Sounds logical. It was never suggested to me that I could (or should) begin writing the moment I had an idea for a study.

Binge Writing

2011-02-11T07:57:00.000-06:00

Now that I've gotten my thoughts about bureaucratic insanity, government accountability, and related topics off my chest (for now), I'd like to take a break and return to a more useful topic--writing.

I've just finished reading the book "How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing" by Paul Silvia, who is a psychologist. He does research and publishes it, as well as writes books about psychology....and writing. This is a great book for beginning writers, especially those who have a bit of fear or misconceptions about the writing process. Silvia provides practical advice, encouragement, and specific tips for being productive and getting your stuff published. Although he is writing specifically from the viewpoint of a psychological researcher, his points are applicable to any technical science writing.

Some of his advice I've covered in previous posts (check out the Useful Posts list on Writing Strategies in the nav panel). His best piece of advice, with which I wholeheartedly agree, is to establish a specific time each day to write (e.g., 8 to 10 am every Mon., Wed., Fri.). This approach means that you decide on this time and stick to it no matter what. You don't schedule meetings, allow interruptions, take phone calls, work in the lab, or read email during these hours. If a student wants to schedule their general exam at 9 am on Wednesday, for example, you tell them you cannot meet during the hours you've set aside for your writing... and stick to it. People may accuse you of being rigid, selfish, or weird. So what? Simply say that you are available between the hours of 10 am and 5 pm and all day Tues. and Thurs. (or whenever). That's plenty of opportunity to schedule non-writing activities.

Wannabe authors usually express disbelief that the secret to productive writing is setting and sticking to a regular schedule. But that's the secret. This approach also does more than just ensure that you spend sufficient time writing each week, it ensures that you practice writing on a regular schedule. As I've talked about in previous posts, deliberate practice is the secret to becoming an expert at something--whether it's sports, music, or writing. It takes about 20,000 hours of deliberate practice to become an expert at some skill. People who become published authors of fiction often kept journals and/or wrote stories as young children and developed the habit of writing daily at an early age. That kind of discipline not only leads to becoming an accomplished writer earlier than most, it establishes a behavior pattern that ensures productivity in later years.

If you are serious about increasing your writing productivity, you cannot ignore this advice.

Unfortunately, many of us (scientists) engage in something called "binge writing". We believe that we need large blocks of time in order to write. Consequently, we put off a writing project until that large block of time appears on the horizon. Some people target holidays, the weekends, or sabbaticals as the time to tackle a writing project. This is a mistake according to Silvia. Part of the reason is that binge writing is exhausting. Something that exhausts us becomes a chore. We tend to avoid chores, to procrastinate, or to fear our ability to finish on time. Another reason is that we rarely are able to complete a large writing project (e.g., a technical paper) during one of those fabled "large blocks of time". Then we are dependent upon another "large block of time" (or several) to complete the job. The result is a file drawer full of half-finished papers, book chapters, and books. Sound familiar?

I know what some of you are thinking at this point: "I manage to write without a set writing schedule and do get some papers out."

My response would be, "But are you happy with your productivity? Do you find yourself proclaiming to colleagues and co-workers that you have gotten caught up with all your writing tasks and met all your goals for the year (getting your papers finished and submitted)? Or do you more often say (wistfully) that you got some writing done last week (last month, last year), but not as much as you'd hoped?"

Another aspect of binge writing is that writers do it during times they could (or should) be doing something else....like being with family, enjoying their vacation, or relaxing. The regular writer only writes during their scheduled writing hours, e.g., 8 to 10 am weekdays. Then they are done. Their evenings and weekends are free. They do not look forward to holidays as a time to tackle a writing chore, but instead to relax and enjoy themselves. They don't feel guilty about not writing on the weekend, because they finished their writing goals for the week at 10 am on Friday.

My recent experience with blogging has convinced me of the value of a regular writing schedule. I have regularly written posts for this blog--an average of 2.2 posts per week for the past two years. When I started, I had no idea what I was doing or what I wanted to say, and was pretty inexperienced with respect to the blogosphere. All I knew was that for a blog to be successful, it had to keep moving forward--like a shark that has to keep swimming to stay alive. I had to post something at least a few times per week, every week, to keep the blog alive. A couple of posts per week doesn't sound like much, but the volume of material accrued over two years is easily equivalent to a book (maybe 2 books). Even though I did not write a post a day, I did write something almost every day. Each evening I would open up a draft post and add a bit more to it, or revise, or look up information or links, or move some material to a new draft post, or create images to illustrate the post. This regular activity has generated an amazing amount of material.

In the process of blogging, I naturally developed a writing pattern that is a departure from my usual binge writing of scientific articles.

Before I began blogging, I thought my writing productivity was pretty good (considering my field of ecology and long-term studies). I've published around 75 journal articles and book chapters. That sounds like a lot of writing, but is it? If we use an average word count per article of 6,000 (excluding lit. cited), then I've written about 450,000 words over the past 30 years. Most of these words were written in a "binge writing mode", which I described above. That's 15,000 words per year, on average. Now consider my blog posts: 213 posts at an average of, say, 1000 words per post = 213,000 words in 2 years or about 100,000 words per year!

I was amazed when I did these calculations. Granted, there's a big difference between writing a blog and a science article. But in terms of getting one's thoughts organized and writing the narrative in a logical and compelling manner, the two are pretty similar. The most important difference is that I wrote my science papers in bursts of activity. I often sacrificed weekends and holidays to work on papers because I thought I could write only when I had a large block of time. Not surprisingly, I would have to set aside an unfinished writing project until the next big block of time and then waste time getting reacquainted with the project--figuring out where I had left off. This pattern would be repeated several times until I finally finished. I would be sick of the paper by then.

In contrast, I blogged at a fairly steady pace of 2,000 to 3,000 words per week, on average. I had a regular writing schedule and looked forward to it. I might spend only 15 to 30 minutes per day writing a paragraph or two or jotting down some notes. But it added up. And it did not wear me out.

I think my blogging experience has put the final nail in the coffin of any residual inclination to binge write.