Using Science Networking Sites to Increase the Online Visibility of Women in Science

In this series of posts, I'm talking about various ways women in science (as well as other minorities) can increase their online visibility.  In case you are wondering why this is important, see this post, this post, and this video.  In brief, male scientists tend to have a greater online presence than female scientists.  I'm talking about personal websites, profiles on science networking sites (e.g., ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, Epernicus), science blogs, Twitter and Facebook (used specifically to spread the word about scientific accomplishments), writing articles for Wikipedia (and being the subject of articles), to name a few things.

It's not clear why the gender difference exists, but the lower visibility of women can have a range of negative effects....from perpetuating the idea that women cannot be successful in science...to discouraging girls and young women from envisioning a career in science.  In the past, women in science were overlooked or actively excluded by authors of textbooks, organizers of science conferences, and editors of journals. Because such platforms were controlled by others, women had no voice in promoting their contributions to science and little recourse when their work was overlooked.  Even today, major science journals discriminate against women, although apparently not consciously (see this surprising admission by the editors at Nature published 4 days ago).

Today, we have many options and opportunities to show how women are contributing to science.  The internet has helped to put us on equal footing with male colleagues in having a voice in describing our contributions to science.  We should take advantage of it, not shy away. Various efforts are in fact underway to encourage more women in science to improve their online visibility...from editing Wikipedia articles to establishing blogs chronicling their experiences in science.

Some may be reluctant, thinking that they need IT skills to create an online presence.  However, it's ridiculously easy to set up a scientific profile on a networking site, a blog, or a personal website where you can showcase your publications, your ongoing science projects, and your research group.  If you've got a Facebook page, you already have the know-how to set up a profile on ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, or similar sites.

In the last post, I described Google Scholar Citations as one place to establish an online profile.  In this post, I'll focus on ResearchGate, which is designed like a social networking site....for scientists.  Their website claims over 2.2 million members. On their homepage, the interactive piechart indicates that medicine and biology have the most members and the most publications.  To see how the site works, you are forced to create an account.  So, I'll give you a brief tour that will give you a peek inside without having to sign up.

Once you log into ResearchGate, it automatically identifies publications that you've authored and asks you to check off those that are yours.  Once it identifies you, ResearchGate then searches for other pubs as well as the full-text files and uploads them if available.  You can add a photo and other information to your profile.  Your main contributions page will look like the screenshot below (using the top-cited ecologist from the previous post as an example):

At the top of the page is your "RG Score", which is calculated "based on how other researchers interact with your content, how often, and who they are. The higher their score, the more yours will increase." Selecting the RG Score will take you to a page with additional analytics of your interactions and how you compare to other ResearchGate members. 

Below the profile are two tabs: contributions and info.  Your publications are listed under the contributions tab.  To the right is a running tally of total publications and numbers of articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and other items.  Below that is a listing of followers and people you are following.  Your co-authors are also listed at the bottom of the page. 

Selecting the pub title or the document image will open up another page (below) where additional information is presented about that article, including the abstract, full-text article (if available), datasets, additional text files, and media.  You can upload a pdf of your published article...if you have permission to do so.  ResearchGate seems to add these automatically if they are available somewhere on the internet.  On my profile, I've additionally uploaded "research briefs" (described previously) for each publication; these can be viewed full-screen online or downloaded (and you can see on your analytics page how many times your pubs are viewed or downloaded). 

Topics for discussion are listed under the Info tab; here, people can ask questions and discuss topics.  There are general topics such as "climate change" and "botany", which thousands of people are following, but you can add specialized topics of interest to you.  Anyone can post a question, and others reply, providing, in some cases, links to relevant articles or simply their opinion.  You can see examples of questions in the screenshot below.

Another option is that members can start a "project" with "benches", which allows you invite others to share files and post comments...this would be convenient for a research group with members scattered around the world.

Overall, I found ResearchGate easy to navigate and to upload and organize my publications and supporting materials.  If you prefer your profile to be private and only interact with a select set of colleagues, you can do this by changing the privacy settings.  ResearchGate differs from Google Scholar Citations in that it quantifies a scientist's reputation based on a combination of factors, including publications (and their impact factor) as well as how many others are following that scientist and their interactions with others with high RG scores.  This aspect is interesting because it means that someone with fewer pubs or lower-impact pubs, e.g., early career folks, can raise their RG score by being more social and networking with colleagues, something that women often excel at.  If you're already skilled at socializing on Facebook, then you'll likely be at an advantage here.  Several of my colleagues have profiles on ResearchGate, and from what I can tell, the site has a more equal representation of women (about 48 % according to this reference) compared to Google Scholar Citations.  I also like the option of uploading full-text articles, media, and datasets to share with others as well as a way to track views of your profile or pubs.

On the downside, ResearchGate does not fully explain how they calculate the RG Score (or the contribution "total impact")...at least I couldn't find it.  Also, the emphasis on ranking scientific standing promotes competitiveness, which is can be off-putting, especially to women.  ResearchGate also has been criticized for sending spam to members' coauthors (inviting them to join). You are also encouraged to invite your co-authors to join.  But that's how Facebook and other social networking sites attract members; all you have to do is ignore the invitation if you receive one and don't want to join.  If any of your co-authors has a profile and articles in ResearchGate, however, then you're already in their system, and anyone searching for your name will likely find a page listing some of your publications.

One additional worry might be that such sites will end up being another online time-sink (as Facebook is for some).  I suppose that might be a possibility, but it doesn't seem likely (for me at least).  One could choose to establish a profile on a site like ResearchGate and only periodically visit to add new publications, much like updating a CV.  But for those who like to socialize or want to expand their professional network, this type of site might be a good option.

In addition to ResearchGate, there are other science networking sites such as linkedin.com, and epernicus.com.  Some people have profiles on multiple sites, which increases their overall visibility.  Of course, there are other ways to increase the online visibility of women in science.  In coming posts, I'll talk a bit about those and my experiences with them.   

What About Bob?

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.

Lie to Me

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

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.



 

Dial M for Murder and C for Chemistry

I've been reading some murder mysteries featuring a budding female scientist--Flavia de Luce.  This engaging character is eleven years old and quite precocious.  Her love is chemistry, especially the chemistry of poisons.  Here is Flavia:

"Whenever I was upset, I made for my sanctum sanctorum. Here, among the bottles and beakers, I would allow myself to be enveloped by what I thought of as the Spirit of Chemistry. Here, sometimes, I would reenact, step by step, the discoveries of the great chemists....How I gloried in the antiquated names just waiting to be plucked from its pages: Butter of Antimony...Flowers of Arsenic...'Rank poisons,' Lavoisier called them, but I reveled in the recitation of their names like a hog at a spa."

Flavia's knowledge of chemistry puts her at an advantage in disputes with her two sisters.  During one altercation, she puts her talents to work to lovingly extract urushiol, the essential oil of poison ivy, and mix it with her sister's lipstick, which she recasts using the mold for a .45 caliber bullet.  Then she patiently records what happens in her lab notebook: "Friday, 2nd of June 1950, 9:42 a.m. Subject's appearance normal but grumpy (isn't she always?) Onset may vary from 12 to 72 hours."

However, Flavia soon finds herself embroiled in a murder mystery.  She discovers a dying man half buried in the family cucumber patch and uses her knowledge of chemistry to help the local police figure out how the man died (and who murdered him).  Flavia describes her discovery:

"I wish I could say my heart was stricken, but it wasn't. I wish I could say my instinct was to run away, but that would not be true. Instead, I watched in awe, savoring every detail: the fluttering fingers, the almost imperceptible bronze metallic cloudiness that appeared on the skin, as if, before my very eyes, it were being breathed upon by death. ..And then the utter stillness. I wish I could say I was afraid, but I wasn't. Quite the contrary. This was by far the most interesting thing that had ever happened to me in my entire life."

Rather reminds me of myself at that age. I particularly remember dissecting out the hearts from fish recently caught and holding them in the palm of my hand--and timing how long each one would continue beating after being detached from its blood and nerve supplies. I suppose today I would be referred to therapists who would figure me to be a budding serial killer, rather than a budding scientist.

But I digress. The above excerpts are from the book "The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie" by Alan Bradley.  Yes, a man wrote this....and he did a superb job of creating a delightful and memorable female character. I was impressed with how well he conveyed Flavia's fascination with chemistry and her fearless (and dogged) pursuit of the murderer.

After reading this book, I immediately ordered the next one, "The Weed That Strings the Hangman's Bag". Not quite as good as the first, but still enjoyable.

If you haven't read any of the Flavia de Luce mysteries, I highly recommend them.