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.   

How to Increase Visibility of Female Scientists

In this series of posts, I'd like to focus on how women in science can increase their online visibility.  This strategy was a topic of discussion at the SpotOn London 2012, held November 11.  In the last post, I listed some of the resources SpotOn was gathering to assist women in improving their online science profiles, which are here, in case you missed it.

One of the simplest ways to create a professional online presence is to develop profiles on websites such as ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, and Epernicus.  Although someone can have a website or webpage that summarizes their professional accomplishments, these networked sites provide some options and advantages that a personal website cannot.  They are similar to social networking sites in that others can "follow" a specific scientist whose work is of interest. If you want to keep up with what the lead scientists in your field are publishing, you can "subscribe" to their profiles on Google Scholar or ResearchGate and they can subscribe to you. Subscribers are notified of new articles.  If you have a profile, you will be notified of new citations to your published papers.  ResearchGate offers the option to post full-text articles and supplementary information alongside each citation, which a follower can read online or download.

I have profiles on the first two and can describe how they work.  In this post, I'll focus on Google Scholar Citations.

Google Scholar Citations (GSC) is a fairly recent offering (2011), which is described as "a simple way for authors to compute their citation metrics and track them over time".  GSC is more than a tool for tracking one's citations, however.  Authors can create public or private profiles with options to show a photo, primary affiliation, email address, key words, and links to their professional websites.  Below that is a summary of citations, which shows the total number of citations your publications have received (all time and previous 5 years), your h-index, and your i10 index (the h-index is the largest number h such that h publications have at least h citations; the i10 index is the number of publications with at least 10 citations).  There is a summary graph showing numbers of citations per year over your publishing career.  Below that is a list of all your publications, each one showing the title and citation details, year published, and number of times cited.  The title is hyperlinked to a more detailed page showing the pattern of citations for that publication over its lifespan.  The number of citations is hyperlinked to a search page listing all sources that cite that publication.

As I've described previously, GSC does a good job of identifying publications belonging to a specific individual.  However, it's essential to carefully examine all publications ascribed to you to ensure they are correct.  Any incorrect entries are easily deleted, however, and missing publications can be added to your profile. On the downside, citation metrics are notoriously prone to error and various statistical biases.  The search option by discipline results in a listing of author profiles ranked by total number of citations, which encourages comparisons based on a single number (total citations).  See the screenshot below for the first ten profiles in the field of ecology:

Notice they are all male.  In fact, there seemed to be fewer women with online profiles in GSC than men, even in fields where women are well represented.  I conducted an in-depth analysis to see if my impression was correct. I searched for all individuals with public profiles in GSC who listed ecology as their field of expertise (search term = label:ecology).  I scanned through all 1700 entries starting with those individuals with the highest number of citations and counted all male and female entries (note that there is a third category (indeterminate) for individuals whose gender could not be conclusively ascertained from their photo or name).  The following breakdown shows the absolute number (top panel) and proportion (bottom panel) of male vs. female profiles by citation category (ranked from lowest to highest).

Out of 1,700 profiles for ecologists with public profiles in GSC, only 332 women are listed (19.5%).  In the top 100 authors (i.e., people with the most citations), there is only one female; there are no females in the group with >10,000 citations.  However, the proportion of females increases with decreasing numbers of citations.  In the group with fewer than 100 citations, including students and postdocs, the proportion of females is 41%.

It's not possible to determine why there are so few females with profiles on GSC.  Ecology is a discipline that has many female participants.  The Ecological Society of America, for example, has a 40% female membership (greater than 50% for age groups 21-30 years old). The profiles for physics, mathematics, astronomy, zoology, botany, and other sciences were similarly skewed toward the male gender (especially at the highly cited end of the spectrum).  In some cases, the 50 to 100 top-cited scientists were all male.

The impression one gets is that there are few females impacting science. This is certainly not true.  It's possible that women are less inclined to post public profiles on sites such as GSC.  Perhaps males are more inclined to compare themselves to their competitors using citation metrics, especially if they've totted up a high citation ranking.  Perhaps papers authored by women are less frequently cited (not supported by analysis of ecology papers, however).  Perhaps men tend to submit papers to higher impact journals that are more likely to be cited.  Whatever the reason, the paucity of female profiles on such sites adds to the overall impression that women are not major players in science.

In the next post, I'll look at ResearchGate, which is quite different in its emphasis compared to GSC.

Women in Science Resources

The SpotOn Blog is developing a toolkit of useful resources for female scientists wanting to raise their online profiles (note that some of these resources are useful for male scientists as well).  This effort is a really good one because it encourages women to get their names, their work, and their stories online.  As I've tried to emphasize on this blog, women must be their own advocates and make sure their voices are heard.  The Web is a great place to promote your accomplishments, advertise your skills, and generally make yourself more visible.

The resource pack has links organized into the following categories:

Important websites where every female scientist should have a profile

Other websites where it could be interesting for a female scientist to have a profile/be listed

Women in science on Twitter

Good tips about science communication

Where to create my blog

Good places to get a post hosted

Online communities

Everyone is invited to add links to useful blog posts, websites, twitter lists, and other online resources.

Beyond the Elevator Speech

In the last post, I talked about the "elevator speech" and why it's important to have one.  I described an experience that made me realize few students are trained to explain their research in terms that the average person can understand and appreciate.  Such an ability is not only good for an individual scientist (e.g., making a good impression on a potential employer or talking to the press), but it's good for science and the public's impression of scientists.  When scientists are unable to explain their work in everyday terms or relate it to the average person's experience, then the public may conclude that the research area is esoteric or not relevant to them.

During fieldwork, I've frequently come into contact with the public.  I've been approached by local fishermen, land managers, tourists, and various bystanders who ask what I'm doing and why.  I always take the time to talk to them and explain the importance of my work.  And I always answer carefully because you never know when the questioner might be someone of influence (member of Congress, local politician, land owner), which has happened to colleagues.  I'm especially circumspect if they happen to be armed (which has occurred to me a few times).  

I was confident about myself, but wondered about my research group.  So a number of years ago I decided to test them to see what they might say to a member of the public about our work.  I routinely held lab meetings and required semi-annual progress reports by group members.  Each person (student, technician, post-doc) would get up and give a short presentation about their project, and then I and other team members would ask questions or provide constructive criticism.  At one of these progress reviews, I told the group that I wanted to do something slightly different.  After the last person's presentation, I said, "OK. You've explained your work in terms that we understand.  I want you to pretend that you are out in the marsh doing your research and a local fisherman has stopped you and asked what you are doing.  How would you explain your work in everyday language?"

Well, you can probably guess what happened.  If you read the last post, you may have guessed that everyone proceeded to spout off an incomprehensible explanation, even more convoluted and abstruse than their scientific presentation.  It was as if the challenge of explaining things to a non-specialist caused a brain malfunction.  This outcome turned out to be highly entertaining, and before long, we were all in stitches.  The succeeding speakers, who had laughed uproariously at the first person's attempt, did no better.  The more they tried to explain, the worse it got.

Despite the hilarity, I was horrified at what my team might be saying to members of the public they encountered in the course of their work.  At the end of the meeting, I told the group that I wanted them to think about this and by the next progress review to have a short, simple explanation of their work to present to the group.

I could see that they all expected a repeat of the first exercise:  to stand up and say a couple of sentences.  They would be ready for that...no problem.  So I came up with a slightly different plan.  I enlisted the help of one of the administrative staff, a woman who agreed to dress up and act like a local fisherwoman, which would create a more realistic situation.  When the next progress meeting convened, I asked the group if they had their speeches ready.  They all eagerly responded that they were ready and confident.  I told them that I had invited a local fisherwoman to help with the exercise.  A few of them looked stunned, but soon began laughing when they saw it was a staff member.

However, she played her part perfectly.

When the first person started explaining their project on sea-level rise, she immediately interrupted and said she did not understand what sea-level rise was.  Did they mean vitamin C?  She proceeded to ask questions of each speaker, forcing them to explain unfamiliar terms and asking why they were studying those particular topics.  She soon had everyone flustered and stammering.  It was another eye-opening experience.  Whereas the first exercise revealed the lack of a good elevator speech, the second one showed that just having a canned elevator speech is not sufficient in a real world situation, with real people who ask difficult questions.

Some of my research group really liked the exercise and went on to become quite good at explaining their science to lay audiences.  Others were less enthusiastic and did not seem to understand the reason or the need for the exercise.  My goal was to get them (and me) to start looking at our research from an outsider's viewpoint and how best to explain it.  Turns out, it is very difficult to forget what we know about a topic and see it through the eyes of the non-expert.  

How good are you at explaining your work?  How do you know?  A good place to start is with your friends and family (assuming they are not in science).  You can not only practice on them, you can ask for their feedback as to how you are doing.  At family gatherings or similar events, you will run into people who will ask what you've been doing lately.  You can then try out your elevator speech, tailored for the non-specialist.  If your speech is short and intriguing, it will stimulate questions.  With experience, you'll learn what works and what doesn't.  You'll eventually develop responses appropriate for different situations and audiences.

Then, when you run into that Important Scientist or Potential Future Employer at a conference and she asks you about your work, you will know exactly what to say.

How to Create a Research Brief

In the last post, I talked about factors that may (or may not) increase the citations of your papers.  Some of the bibliometric studies report correlations that have led to dubious recommendations about how an individual researcher can increase their own citation rate.  For example, one study found a correlation between numbers of references in a paper and the subsequent citations that paper garners.  A Nature News article took that finding and suggested that researchers might improve their citation rate by including more references in their papers. Such strategies rarely work because the observed relationship may not be due to cause and effect and, in any case, reflects statistical outcomes involving thousands of papers.

So what does work?  In this post, I'll be talking about some strategies that are more likely to attract attention to your publications and that simultaneously provide other benefits.

Why Worry About Citations?

But first, some of you may be wondering why anyone would worry about how many citations they have.  Citations provide an indication, along with other metrics such as the h-index, about what impact your work has on your field of science. Citations are important because most search committees and tenure review panels use citation information (e.g., in Thompson-Reuter's ISI Web of Science or Google Scholar Citations) to assess a candidate's credentials and potential for success.  Whether you like it or not, think citation metrics are valid or not, they will likely be used at some point in your science career to assess your qualifications for a future job or promotion.  Not knowing your citation rate or h-index is like a student not knowing their GPA.  Without that information, you have no way of gauging how you stack up against the competition or how much you may need to improve.

As long as review panels emphasize such metrics, we will have to be at least cognizant of, if not proactive about, our citations.  Being proactive does not mean trying to "game" the system, as some of the bibliometric studies seem to suggest.  Instead, it's much better to seek valid ways to promote the visibility of your work, which will lead people to your publications and hopefully to cite them.  I'm going to take the results of one of these bibliometric studies and show how you can take the concept and apply it in a more useful way to promote your work.

Some evidence suggests that open-access papers garner more citations than papers requiring a subscription to access.  The implication is that when more people can easily acquire and read your paper, the more likely they are to cite something in that paper.  However, many scientists lack the funds to pay for open-access for all their publications.  Some may think that a less expensive option is to offer their papers as pdfs on their personal websites.  There are two problems with this option.  First is that it's unlikely that your website (and your papers) will show up on the first page of an internet search of your topic of research, unless you are working in a really obscure field.  Second, and more importantly, unless you have the journal publisher's permission, posting pdfs of your published papers on your website  is copyright infringement.  When you signed that copyright agreement with the publisher of the journal, you gave over that right to the publisher.

Is there anything else you can do to attract attention to your papers, perhaps increasing citations of your work?  The answer is yes.  Some people post the unformatted manuscript version on their own website or in an article repository.  Through these versions, others can access the content of the work without paying the subscription fee to the journal.  However, there is another way, which is the topic of this post.

A Better Idea

You can create an attractive, informative, and interesting brief, which describes the essence of a paper, along with some key photographs or other images.  The image above illustrates an example of a template I've used to create a one-page brief for a number of my past publications.  I used Pages, which is an Apple application, to create this template, but PC users can use Microsoft Publisher or a similar program.  These applications have a number of templates to choose from and come in a range of visually pleasing designs.  They are very easy to use and to modify for your purposes.  They can be one pagers or more, but generally shorter is better.

The briefs that I've created for my publications typically contain the abstract or a summary of the paper along with a sentence or two stating the take-home message plus several photographs or figures.  Note that it's important not to use any graphs or other figures from the published paper unless you get permission from the publisher.  However, I've found it easy to pick one of the many unpublished photos or other images from my media library to illustrate my briefs.  Most journals will allow an author to post the abstract of a paper on their website because these are usually publicly available anyway (as long as you provide the journal citation along with the abstract).  So adding the abstract to your brief is usually acceptable (however, if you are not the author, using an abstract this way is not advisable).  If you think using the abstract verbatim might be challenged by a publisher or is just too technical, then it's relatively easy to write another, less technical summary.  Within the brief, I provide the citation information and create a hyperlink to the journal page where the full paper is published.  I also include links to my websites and my email address where someone can contact me for a reprint of the technical paper.

Click on the above image to see the additional instructions for creating a brief with this template.

You may be thinking that this is a lot of effort that takes too much time.  However, I found that once I created the template, that I could complete a research brief in five to ten minutes, depending on how long it took me to find appropriate photographs.  The process involved four steps:

1. I find three photographs to illustrate the paper (you might choose to show only one photo).  I have an extensive media library of photographs I've accrued over the past 40 years, so there's no problem with choices.  I usually only need to modify the size of the image so that the brief is not too large.  Then, the images can be dragged and dropped into the photo placeholders.  This takes only a few minutes.

2. I add the paper title, authors, and journal citation in the appropriate places (along with the hyperlink).  A couple of minutes.

3.  I copy and paste the paper's abstract into the main text box and resize to fit. Another minute or two.

4.  I then think of a sentence or two to summarize the significance of the work or the take-home message and type that into the appropriate text box.  That may take a few minutes.

And that's it.

Once the brief is finished, it can be exported as a pdf or jpg, which can then be posted on a personal website.  I've created briefs for around twenty of my recent publications and posted these on my professional profile website.  On the webpage where my publications are listed, I've put a thumbnail of the research brief alongside the relevant citation.  When the viewer clicks on the thumbnail, the brief opens up in a high resolution image that can be read online.  I also provide a link that allows the brief to be downloaded as a pdf.

What Are the Advantages?

The beauty of this approach is that images or pdfs (as opposed to text) can get your brief listed higher on a search engine ranking.  For example, if there are a lot of text-based listings for the topic of your research, your paper is likely listed on page 41 of a Google search.  On the other hand, if there are no or only a few images associated with your research topic, then your brief (posted as a jpg file) will more likely show up on the Google Image page.

Even if you don't want to go to the effort of creating a research brief for every one of your journal articles, just posting a thumbnail photo alongside each text citation will get your work noticed by search engines looking for images about a topic.  You want to be sure, however, to include appropriate keywords in the file name as well as any other tags or alternate titles associated with that image so that Google can associate it with you and your research.

Another idea is to post an image of a conference poster, which offers similar information as your publication, but in a non-copyrighted format.  You can create a one-page flyer, similar to the ones people often offer as poster take-aways, and add it as a thumbnail image next to the journal citation in your publication list.  Because it is visual and clickable, people will have immediate access to the key information that is in the journal publication.  Again, you want to include somewhere on the poster image a link to the journal article, your professional website, and email address.

By the way, videos about your research are very effective in getting a high ranking by search engines, especially when your topic has mostly text-based listings.  I've created and posted several videos about my research on YouTube and professional multimedia galleries.  When a search is conducted for the topic of my research, the Web listings do not include links to any of my technical papers on the first page, but the only videos listed on the topic are mine and show up on the first page of a Google search.  So anyone (especially students) searching for information on the topic of my research will see the link to my video, likely click on it (because it is visual and potentially interesting), and ultimately be led to my technical papers, which are listed at the end of the video and in the text description accompanying the video.  On my webpage listing of publications, I have a link to these videos alongside those relevant citations.  At this point, so few scientists use videos to describe their work, that this strategy will put you in a league of your own.

The feedback I've gotten, especially from students, is that they really like these one-page summaries and videos. They bring the dry, sometimes esoteric, information in the technical paper alive. The photos and video footage appeal to the current generation of students who are accustomed to acquiring their information from audiovisual media.  They obviously appeal also to visual learners and to those students and scientists in other fields who want to know more about a topic, but not enough to read the technical paper.

So in addition to making your publications more visible to those likely to cite it, this approach will also help you reach a broader audience.  Explaining your research in a way that is interesting and understandable by non-technical audiences will help promote the value of science to the general public and to familiarize the public with the scientists behind the research.

Another advantage of developing audiovisual communication products to accompany your technical articles is that they can fulfill the "broader impacts" criterion required by some funding agencies (e.g., NSF).  In addition to having a clear plan to address the "broader impacts" criterion, successful proposals include evidence that the PI has previously developed materials that, for example, explain the significance of their work to broader audiences such as the general public or policymakers.  Having created semi- or non-technical fact sheets, podcasts, interactive graphics, and videos to explain your technical work shows review panels that you have the capability of meeting the broader impacts criterion.  I'll talk more about this aspect in future posts.

The Double Bind

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.

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.



 

Everyone Knows How Important I Am

Really?  Are you sure?  You may know that your publication record is stellar and that your H-Index is the highest in your organization, but does that mean everyone else is aware of your scientific credentials and output?  Maybe not.

We've been talking in this series about self-promotion and how it is often necessary to take control of our reputations.  In doing so, we must overcome our resistance to something that feels like boasting (a no-no drilled into us by our parents).  Self-promotion is not bragging as we often think of it, i.e., shameless self- aggrandizement. Most of us can think of someone who exaggerates their accomplishments in an effort to appear more important or capable than they really are.  That is not what we are striving for.  Instead, what we are talking about is speaking up and telling others about our accomplishments in a way that is not obnoxious and that leaves people with a positive impression of us.

In this post, I'd like to talk a bit more about the notion that our work (e.g., numbers of publications, invitations to give talks, awards & honors, etc.) will speak for us--that there is really no need for us to advertise these facts.

I was disabused of the notion that my superiors were well aware of my standing in the scientific community and what benefits my research provided for the organization when my direct supervisor was overheard asking another scientist if my research was highly regarded (by the broader scientific community).  The co-worker's response was something along the lines of, "You're kidding, right?"

No, he wasn't kidding.  He really didn't know.....because he did not read the literature, did not go to major scientific conferences, could not distinguish between a paper published in the South Florida Naturalist and Nature, and generally did not know what science issues were currently relevant....in other words, he was a typical science manager in my government agency. 

I was shocked at first.  Then totally mystified.  The explanation I finally settled upon (in addition to the above reasons) was that he was an interim supervisor from another department and with whom I had had no previous interactions.  He was in the position temporarily and had not had a chance to pore over my CV and those of the other scientists now under his purview.  Did he ever change his mind?  No.  The reason was that I never gave him any reason to change his perception of me.  First of all, I did not consider it to be that important and made no effort to discuss his apparent mistaken perception of me (how embarrassing would that be?).  During the one or two performance reviews that he conducted with me, I tried to emphasize my accomplishments, particularly my publication record, but this seemed to fall on deaf ears.  I had already been pigeon-holed, and nothing I said was going to matter.

I consoled myself with the thought that my scientific colleagues outside the insular world of the government thought highly of me and my science contributions.  You might be thinking about your own situation along the same lines.  Your post-doctoral adviser or other supervisor may seem unimpressed with you and ignores your accomplishments---but you assuage your disappointment by telling yourself that you are making a name for yourself in your field and will be famous one day--that'll show them.

The only problem with this idea is that your colleagues (who think so highly of you) don't have control over your job, your salary, your promotions, and your resources.  Fortunately for me, my position (and associated salary level) is evaluated by an external panel of peers based on my scientific record.  Even so, local decisions are made regarding lab space, funding, support personnel, and other items important to one's success as a scientist--which has a feedback effect on my evaluations.

So how would you go about changing people's impression of you? Let's consider one really easy way.

Think about those lab meetings or faculty meetings that we all attend during which most everyone is moaning and groaning about the bureaucracy or lack of resources or something.  Your inclination will be to join in the whinathon--to show solidarity with your oppressed colleagues--or because it simply feels good to complain.  This won't get you anywhere.

Instead, what if you use such opportunities to tell about a success you had dealing with some difficult client or an idea you have to reduce the negative impact of a new policy on scientific output?  If you consistently apply this approach during staff meetings and in interactions with supervisors and co-workers, it's very likely that your image will gradually change.  When everyone else is looking like a bunch of whiners, you will be viewed by superiors as a leader who's able to overcome obstacles and is a valuable asset to the organization.

I know what you're thinking:  "But my lab is so screwed up, and there are so many things that drive me up the wall, I can't help but complain."  I sympathize.  Most of us find ourselves at one time or another during our careers in what seems to be an intolerable environment.  Sometimes there is not much we can do to change the situation.

However, we do have some control over how others view us.  And that is what this series is all about.

But He's Stealing My Thunder!

You work hard, are creative and come up with great ideas.  The only problem is that someone else in your lab is getting credit for your work.  Things were fine initially.  You did your work, and the lab director seemed to recognize your contributions.  Then Boyd arrived.  He was a one-man PR machine.  Initially, you were amused at his blatant self-promotion.  Then he was assigned to head up a project, and you were told to work on his team. You soon discovered that he was taking credit for your innovative ideas and was telling the lab director how he was having to do everything to keep the project on track.  He was always in the director's office bragging about something or asking for funds to attend some conference (just him, not the rest of the team).

You finally work up your courage and go to the director to complain.  You sit there explaining how all the creative ideas and progress on the project are due to your efforts, and that Boyd is misrepresenting his role. You also complain about how Boyd is always getting to go to conferences to present the project's findings.  When you finish, you notice that the lab director is scowling.  You think, "Alright. He's displeased with Boyd stealing credit for my work!" 

However, the director says, "I find what you're saying hard to believe--I see no evidence that what you are telling me is true.  Boyd has been keeping me updated regularly on the project's progress.  He's a real go-getter and a team-player.  I've sent him to conferences to deliver papers on the project's progress--because he's the team leader. Are you questioning my decisions?  In fact, I've never heard a peep out of you about the project.  There's no room in my lab for professional jealousy.  I suggest you focus on your assigned work and spend less time worrying about what Boyd is doing."

You stumble back to your office in a daze.  What just happened?  How could the director be so blind?

The problem with dealing with people like Boyd is that you can't cancel out weeks or months of PR by simply complaining that he's stealing your thunder.  The only way to fight credit theft is to develop your own PR campaign--one that makes it difficult for others to claim credit for your work.  Here are some ideas for combating credit theft:

1. Develop a good self-promotion plan, which includes bragging points that can be trotted out instantly.  The place to start is to answer the list of questions posed in the previous post.

2. Prepare a regular update of your accomplishments and plans for the upcoming weeks and send it via email to your boss or adviser.  This way, there is a written record of your ideas and contributions.  If Boyd happens to claim credit for some idea that you've previously mentioned to the boss, s/he's more likely to question Boyd as to whose idea it really is.

3. Meet regularly with your boss or adviser to reiterate what you've stated in your regular progress reports.  You can be subtle about this.  Include some data, graphs, or models in your report that you use to point out some potentially interesting new avenue of research or a possible modification in the overall plan. The idea is that you are keeping the boss informed and are seeking his/her input as to how best to proceed.

4. During lab meetings, speak up.  Explain some new idea or insight you've had about the project.  You have to plan this ahead of time.  Be sure to begin with some statement about your long experience in your particular field or previous experience that gives you special insight into the problem.  In other words, contribute your ideas in front of witnesses so that Boyd cannot easily claim credit for them.

5. After lab meetings with the director and team members, send an email to the lab director summarizing the ideas you have mentioned....and cc everyone in attendance.  You would be amazed at how easily it is for someone like Boyd to rewrite history...if it's not documented in writing.  If anyone attributes your ideas to Boyd, you can pull out your email from the archive and use it to re-emphasize your role in the development of the idea.  You might say something like, "I agree that taking that approach is a great plan.  If you recall, I suggested it at our May lab meeting, and the entire team has been great at taking my idea and implementing it.  Good work!"

6. Work up the courage to ask for rewards for your hard work--to be sent to a conference to report your team's findings or to be the one selected to summarize the team's progress at the next client meeting.  You can justify such requests by saying that you would really appreciate the leadership experience--and that this will benefit the lab's overall expertise in dealing with clients.

7. Finally, if you can stomach it, periodically compliment Boyd in front of the boss.  Such an action will make you appear to be more of a leader and not just a jealous member of his team.

You can probably think of some other techniques along these lines to counteract credit thieves.

What On Earth Was I Thinking?

So there you are sitting in the conference room on the first day of your new job.  It's an "all-hands meeting" of the organization, and the Director announces that there is a new employee.  She looks at you and says, "Jane, how about introducing yourself to the group and telling us a bit about what you bring to our lab?"

Gulp.  You hadn't counted on this.  You thought you would have a chance to get your bearings and a feel for your co-workers before being put on the spot like this.  You stumble through a litany of your educational background and some other things.  You finally sit down, thinking, "What on earth did I say? Did it sound as ridiculous as I think it did?" After the meeting breaks up, you slink out, trying to avoid eye contact with anyone.

This wouldn't have happened if you had been prepared beforehand (long before) with your brag sheet.  I'm not talking about boasts of how great you are.  I'm talking about a description of yourself based on your understanding of what makes you unique and why people should pay attention to what you have to say.  Of course we know our history, our accomplishments, and our special skills.  But it takes planning and practice to develop an effective spiel that can be produced at a moment's notice and that sounds spontaneous and honest.

How do you start to develop your bragging talking points?  A good place to begin is to write out detailed answers to common questions asked during interviews or upon meeting new people.

1. Why did you go into science and how did you end up in your specific field?
2. What are you working on right now (and why should I care about it)?
3. What was the most important thing you learned in your last position and why do you consider it to be important?
4. What early experiences did you have growing up that have proved helpful in your career?
5. Have you any special skills or hobbies--that others would find interesting or might also be involved in (mountaineering, scuba-diving, fossil-collecting)?
6. What do you love most about a career in science?
7. Can you tell me about an experience you had working as part of a team or leading a team?
8. What professional service activities or volunteer work are you involved in (be specific about your contributions--e.g., volunteering for the "Make It Right" foundation to rebuild the 9th Ward in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina)?
9. Do you have any examples of problems you've solved or innovative methods you've developed?
10. What are the five most interesting places you've ever visited?

These are just a few suggestions to get you started.  You can tailor these 10 or create additional questions to develop a full spectrum of information that you can draw upon.  You may think that this exercise is unnecessary, but give it a try.  You might be surprised at what you think of when you actually write down the answers to these questions.

What you are looking to accomplish is a unique picture of yourself and what makes you tick.  Don't just write down the facts, provide examples. Tell a story.  Bring in the human-interest details that bring your story to life.

OK, so now you have a collection of interesting anecdotes about how you helped eliminate the Guinea Worm in Niger volunteering with the Carter Center; had a new species of insect named after you by a taxonomist you assisted as an undergraduate student; or during your dissertation fieldwork, had Colombian guerrillas help you break into your car after locking your keys inside.

Maybe you don't have anything as extraordinary as these examples.  No problem.  You might explain that you are a plant biochemist, and that your field trips are to the local grocery store to buy spinach, which you use to study plant membranes.  Or you might explain how you started out wanting to be a doctor, but after working in a hospital during college realized that you could not stand being around sick people--and went into botany.  Everyone has an interesting or funny story to tell about their education or jobs.

Don't overdo it, though.  Formulate sets of facts and stories for different situations: interviews, conference mixers, introductions, etc.  You need only one extraordinary, interesting, or funny story per conversation to illustrate your work ethic, perseverance, honesty, creativity, or whatever might be called for in each situation.  The key point is that these stories celebrate your uniqueness, and people will tend to remember you because of them.

Next post considers situations in which you might use your brag list.

Bragging by Proxy

This is the next installment in a series on self-promotion, aka bragging.  People who are reluctant to brag about themselves may feel OK when others do their bragging for them.

Most of us have/had proud parents who took every opportunity to tell anyone who would listen about how clever, cute, wonderful their little Jimmy or Cathy was.  They even continue doing this after we reach adulthood: "My daughter's a famous scientist who's working on a cure for cancer!" No one questions the right of parents to be proud of their children, and everyone listens patiently while people extol the virtues of their little geniuses.  We, the children, may feel a little embarrassed at times when Mom announces for the zillionth time to a total stranger how her daughter is doing research that may save the planet.  But we don't try to stop her because we are secretly thrilled that someone thinks so highly of us and is announcing to the world what we, without social constraints, would do ourselves.

Young children who have not yet learned to restrain their self-adoration will often announce things like, "My family is richer than yours!" or "I'm getting a pony for my birthday....and you're not!" A common theme of this bragging is to announce the child's superiority over others.  Most children quickly learn from their parents, however, that this self-aggrandizement is not socially acceptable: "Heather, don't say that! People won't like you if you brag about yourself."  Our parents take up the baton and do our bragging for us, however, so we soon learn that we can still get the attention we crave by letting someone else do the dirty work for us.

I never realized how important my own parent's unqualified cheerleading was until they were gone.  I remember thinking at my father's funeral a few months after my mother's, "Who's going tell me how great I am now?" My parents were not excessively vocal about me and my accomplishments, although they were clearly proud of me (later in life at least--they weren't so sure in the early years when I was keeping snakes and spiders in my bedroom).  I never anticipated how much I would miss having someone who thought so highly of me--no matter what.

In our professional world, our bosses, teachers, mentors, and advisers take on the role of proud parents.  Sort of.  These people don't give their unqualified approval just because we work for them.  We have to earn their respect, which is not always easy.  In some cases, it proves impossible.  No matter how good we are, our adviser or boss never seems to be impressed.  How do we react to this failure to recognize our greatness?  Usually, we feel rejected and resentful and begin behaving badly.

Is there some other way to deal with this situation?

One alternative is self-promotion.  You can find ways to convey your worth to your superiors, coworkers, and others in the workplace.  Continue to exude enthusiasm for your work and tell anyone who'll listen about how excited you are about your recent breakthrough or an invitation to speak in a special symposium.  The key is to be genuinely excited about it.

Don't be a pest about it, though.  And reciprocate.  Ask your co-workers or fellow students about their accomplishments.  Tell them how happy you are about their successes.  Then it's easier for you to say, "I know exactly how you feel.  I was so excited about getting my first NSF grant that I couldn't sleep!"

Some people think that if they brag about others or nominate them for awards, that they will reciprocate.  Don't count on it.  Even if they do, it may backfire.  And be especially careful about mutual arrangements designed to advance your career.  I remember, many years ago, helping my boss assess applicants for membership in a prestigious scientific academy.  He was on the selection panel and had 50 to 60 applicants to evaluate.  I had the idea to collate various data about each applicant--on their publications, etc. into a table to make it a bit easier to compare everyone.  One item I included in the table was the name of the person who nominated each applicant.  Lo and behold, there were two guys who had nominated each other.  Their resumes were respectable and both had had a chance to be inducted--before I uncovered their plan.  My boss, upon seeing this, immediately disqualified them both. 

I've had colleagues ask me to nominate them for some award or other honor.  My experience is, however, that when you have to solicit someone to put you up for an award, it is likely that you don't have the credentials to succeed (otherwise, people would nominate you without any nudging).  And if you ask a colleague or friend who is reluctant to nominate you, they may feel put upon to write a recommendation that they do not wholeheartedly believe in.  They may do their best, but will still be limited by your resume--they are not going to exaggerate on your behalf.  So, if you do ask such a favor, be certain that you qualify and that your nominator is just as enthusiastic about you as you feel you deserve.  If they hesitate at all, you should withdraw your request.

In the long-run, however, it's best to manage your reputation primarily through self-promotion.  There may be occasions in which others will sing your praises.  If these come your way, accept the compliment, possibly keeping a record of their statement.  For example, if you are a scientific consultant and a client makes glowing statements about your work, you might use their words in your next performance review.  When asked by your boss to summarize your projects for the preceding year, you might say something like, "My work for Company X was highly regarded.  The CEO personally said, 'Mary's design was critical to the successful outcome of the project.  I'll definitely call upon her in the future to help with similar problems.'"

In the next post, I'll cover some ways to get started building an effective "brag sheet".

Is Bragging Necessary to Succeed in Science?

Women are usually reluctant to brag about themselves and look askance at men who are natural self-promoters.

This post is part of a series about self-promotion, why it may be important to your career, and how to go about it in a way that is not obnoxious.  You may be thinking that bragging is unseemly and unnecessary.  You may be thinking that if you are good at your job, people will take notice.  Let's examine these ideas.

Envision your workplace and those people who stand out from the crowd and whose work is always mentioned when the head of the lab, department, or agency describes your organization's strengths and accomplishments.  Do you think the stand-outs are recognized simply because they do good work and everyone just "knows" about it?

I doubt it. The more likely explanation is that they are good self-promoters who have carefully crafted their reputations.

Is self-promotion necessary to succeed in science?  Well, no, but it probably helps.

Consider a hypothetical scenario:

Mary is a post-doctoral researcher working in a large lab alongside many other talented, ambitious scientists.  She is quietly confident in her abilities and goes about her work with an assured air.  Indeed, Mary is a promising young scientist with a bright future and who believes that her hard work and accomplishments are recognized by everyone in the department.  She rarely talks about herself, preferring to let others sing her praises.  One day, the director of the lab shows up with an important visitor (a program director from a major funding agency).  

They stop in front of Mary who's working at her lab bench, and the director says, "This is Dr. Whitcomb. She's working on a very interesting problem." 

She looks expectantly at Mary and says, "How's the experiment going?"


Mary hesitates, then humbly says, "Oh, it's going slowly, but we're making progress. Rick helped me with a difficult extraction, and Sally's going to show me a shortcut that should speed things up." Mary's voice trails off as she notices the lab director frowning.  The visitor is looking around the room, clearly not paying attention.  

Wordlessly, they move on to one of Mary's lab mates, Rick, who begins to enthusiastically describe his project.  He starts by explaining the goal of his work and its relevance to the lab's overall research program.  He then explains how just that day he solved a particularly difficult methodological problem--which, by the way, may have broader application.  His tone is sincere and confident and he's clearly excited about his work.  Rick is genuinely proud of his accomplishments, and his enthusiasm is contagious.  

What did Rick manage to do in his brief conversation?  He demonstrated that he's enthusiastic about his work, is a problem-solver and innovator, knows how his research fits into the overall scheme of the lab's program, and is understandably proud of his accomplishments.  Did it sound like bragging? Probably not.

Now, when the lab director later discusses her grant application with her visitor, who among the lab's post-docs do you think will be mentioned as a likely candidate to head up the proposed project?

Not Mary.  Furthermore, when Mary eventually sends in a grant proposal of her own and it lands on the desk of the visitor from the funding agency, do you think he'll remember her in positive terms, if at all?

In this post, we've taken a brief look at two hypothetical scientists, equally talented in their field.  One, however, is more skilled at self-promotion.  It's easy to see how Rick's self-promotion, consistently and subtly applied, will build a positive image for him that will lead to career opportunities.  Mary, on the other hand, may find that she is more often than not overlooked--especially when the competition is someone like Rick.

In the next post, I'll talk a bit about having others do our bragging for us--and whether or not this is a sound approach.

To Brag or Not to Brag

You just got word that you've landed a prestigious grant.  Do you:

a) keep the news to yourself and only reluctantly admit your good fortune when pressed?

or

b) shout the news from the rooftops?

This is a trick question.  Most people think that these two extreme options are the only choices, but they don't have to be.

My previous post got me thinking (again) about self-promotion--the pros and cons.  If you remain quiet, hoping that people will notice your accomplishments, you risk being overlooked when plum assignments or jobs come along.  On the other hand, if you talk about your successes and put yourself in the spotlight, you may alienate colleagues.

Women are particularly sensitive (in general) to the criticism of being a bragger.  My generation was taught that it was not "lady-like" to talk about yourself.  A lot of this revolved around not "up-staging" your brothers, boyfriends or husbands.  Women were more likely to attribute their successes to other people and to smile modestly when complimented.  Men seemed to be natural at self-promotion.  They strutted around (peacocks come to mind) with chests puffed out.  I was somewhat mystified as to how they managed to get away with this behavior, but had no real desire to emulate them.  I was content to let my accomplishments speak for me.

Only in the past few years have I begun to question this viewpoint.  Actually, an event triggered my change of mind.  I was chastised by a male superior for submitting an announcement of a prestigious award I had just received to our public relations office--because I "might make co-workers jealous".  I was flabbergasted.  After recovering from the initial shock, I told him that his statement was a classic put-down designed to keep women out of the spotlight.  I pointedly asked why he had not similarly criticized male co-workers for announcing less important accomplishments.  Then I offered to send him literature on gender inequality in the workplace.  I've subsequently proceeded to file other newsworthy items whenever I could (and encouraged other females to do the same).

I think there is a middle-ground when it comes to self-promotion.  However, since such behavior does not come naturally to me, I'm still struggling to refine my skills in this area.  Fortunately, I have a good role model.  My husband is one of those self-promoters who sneaks up and wins you over without your ever realizing what he's doing.  He doesn't go around bragging about himself, but instead knows how to connect with people and to convey an air of trustworthiness and confidence.  When he talks, he comes across as honest and authentic.  So when he mentions some recent accomplishment, it seems to be a natural part of the conversation, and not a brag bomb dropped onto the listener.

Our world is a competitive place and is constantly undergoing change.  If people in your university or department don't know who you are and what your accomplishments are, you could find yourself left out of important meetings, passed over for promotion, or on the list of people who wouldn't be missed in the event of layoffs.  You may feel safe because you keep your adviser or immediate supervisor updated regularly, but they could leave the organization.  Would other decision-makers in your organization have the same high opinion of you?  

In the upcoming posts, I'd like to explore this topic, trying to work through some of the ways in which women can promote themselves--without seeming to be obnoxious or self-serving.

Gaining an Edge

I'm preparing a talk on how to give outstanding presentations entitled, "Rise to the Occasion". So I thought I would mention some of the ideas I will be presenting.

First off, there are a lot of books and articles that focus on techniques, but my talk is less about techniques and more about ideas and approaches to giving presentations. Many people view preparation of presentations as a mundane chore, and, not surprisingly, it shows in the product. My view is that being an effective speaker is a way to differentiate yourself from the crowd. Science is very competitive, and being an effective speaker gives you an advantage.  There are so many things in science that we cannot control, but learning to be a better, more effective speaker is entirely within our control.  Of course, many science practitioners fail to see the importance of being giving excellent talks (some of the older crowd seem to deliberately give poor talks, as if it is expected of a top scientist).  They can get away with it, but if you are a student or post-doc, giving a poor presentation at an important conference or job interview is the kiss of death.

When you stand up in front of an audience, it is your chance to tell the story of why your content is important and why it matters.  Giving a memorable talk is a way to gain an edge over others who either don't bother to develop their speaking skills or who are too fearful to do so effectively.  In some cases, people don't want to stand out and be different and so remain mediocre so as to "blend in". 

For women, who are often at a disadvantage in science fields and find it difficult to "promote" themselves without being criticized, becoming a really good, even great speaker is a way to excel, to surpass expectations, and to surprise people.   

My talk is divided into three parts: preparation, design, and delivery.

There are two important questions to keep in mind when preparing any talk, and you should ponder them from the start.  The first is: what is your central point?  This may seem obvious, but it's surprising how many presentations you will hear that do not answer this basic question. The second is: why does your message matter to the audience? This may also seem obvious, but some speakers find it difficult to answer.  Pondering these two questions is the beginning of putting yourself in your audience's shoes.  They are thinking "so what?", and if you don't answer that unspoken question, they will likely conclude that your information is irrelevant to them.

Another "big picture" point to keep in mind is to strive for simplicity, brevity, and clarity in preparing your presentation. Resist the temptation to cram lots of information into your presentation, clutter up your slides with decorations, excess text, glaring colors. The more clutter, bulk, and erudition confuses the audience's perceptions and stifles their comprehension. Simplicity allows clear and direct attention to the point being made--and that point is more likely to be remembered later.

To check the clarity and brevity of your message, imagine yourself in an elevator with a stranger explaining what your talk is about. Can you get your core idea and why it's important across in 30 to 45 seconds? If you do this before starting to design your slides, it forces you to make your presentation content tighter and clearer; it also gives you a quick spiel to use at the conference mixer.

Next post, I'll give a few more broad guidelines to keep in mind when preparing your presentations and then move on to design.

Lights, Camera, Action!

Over at FemaleScienceProfessor, the discussion has been about videotaping of speakers at conferences and seminars. The question was whether readers had been videotaped before and if so, did they mind.

I once gave a seminar, which was part of a special series featuring distinguished women in my scientific field, and the organizers videotaped the seminars and kept them on file as part of a program in women’s studies. I was asked for my permission, which I readily gave. I was also at a recent conference (in another country) and was videotaped by the local media during part of my presentation (as were other speakers).

This type of recording (along with posting of PowerPoint files on the Web) appears to be a trend that is increasing at scientific conferences and workshops. As a speaker, should you be concerned about being videotaped? What are the advantages and disadvantages of being video- or audiotaped during speaking engagements?

In some cases, videos of talks are used to promote the society or whatever organization is responsible for the taping—they may post the video on their website, for example. People who could not attend the conference would be able to view talks they missed. This option draws visitors to an organization’s website.

I am somewhat ambivalent about this practice. On the one hand, I don’t mind helping out a scientific society create content for their website or perhaps to use the tapes in an instructional manner. Also, I (and my research) may enjoy broader exposure by having a video or audio of my talk posted on a society’s or another organization’s website. On the other hand, I may not want my new ideas or unpublished data floating around the internet. If the talk was not a success, I might not want a permanent record of the failure.

What to do if you are approached by a videographer at a conference?  You may be asked only if you mind being videotaped, but are given no details as to how that video will be used or if it is going to be posted on the internet. If it’s not obvious, however, I think that you should ask the videographer how the video or audiotape will be used. If you are not given a satisfactory answer, you can refuse permission to be taped. If the videographer does explain to your satisfaction, then you should ask for a copy of your videotape (more about how you might use it later). You can make this a prerequisite for allowing yourself to be taped.

The main disadvantage that I see in having your presentation videotaped, particularly for novice speakers, is that the presence of a camera or microphone can add substantially to the speaker’s nervousness. Anyone who has had a video-camera pointed at them and who was told to “act naturally”, often finds themselves behaving very “unnaturally”. It’s not uncommon for people to feel very self-conscious on camera, if not absolutely tongue-tied. If it is your first conference presentation and you are very nervous about it, you might not want to have this added stress. If you are given the option to decline, be honest and explain why you don’t feel comfortable being videotaped. Most people will understand and comply with your wishes. If your request is ignored, complain to the conference organizers or session chair.

Interview seminars may be videotaped so that faculty who were unable to attend the live talk will have an opportunity later to view the presentation. This video might be disadvantageous to the interviewee if she was extremely nervous and did not perform well. The search committee would have ample opportunity to review the performance and content of the talk at their leisure, instead of relying on their memories. On the other hand, if her performance was stellar, the existence of a tape will likely reinforce the good impression she made.

More universities and other scientific organizations are posting podcasts and videos of their scientists explaining their research. So, it may be a good idea to get some experience speaking in front of a camera. Also, seeing a video of yourself speaking, especially delivering a scientific talk, is very instructive. You may be completely unaware of how many times you say “uh” or that you tend to rock back and forth when nervous. People can tell you that you about these distracting behaviors, but it really takes seeing yourself do them to make you really aware of how bad it is.

I know some people cringe at the thought of seeing themselves on camera and would never consider using video as a tool to improve their speaking skills. I understand the feeling, but would not let that stop me. It’s relatively easy to videotape yourself, and then you can view it in private. A colleague routinely videotaped her students practicing for a conference talk. She said it was amazing how quickly they improved after reviewing the tape and their performance on camera.  She said that before she used video, the students often did not believe her comments about their performance.

But it is really useful to have a videotape of yourself giving an actual talk at a conference. Your performance may be totally different in front of a real audience, as opposed to the practice session with your advisor or fellow students. There may be problems with how you connect (or not) with the audience or other issues that are not apparent in practice settings.

So, if the conference is videotaping speakers, it might be worthwhile asking for a copy to review later. You could also ask your advisor or colleague to videotape your performance.  For an example of how useful this might be, see this previous post about giving presentations.