Student help or DIY?

I'm in the awkward situation this fall of long-distance supervising/mentoring a student who is doing some work for me. I haven't met her in person, only via Skype. Sam connected us and is technically (but only technically) in charge, as he's the one giving the grade. Now she's emailing him because she's concerned about being able to finish everything this term, he doesn't really know what's going on (though he and I talked about it 2 weeks ago), and I am trying to figure out how to get the best outcome for her and for me.

I admit kind of messed up, because I wasn't checking her work as closely and as critically as I should have at the beginning (even after blogging about checking other students' work...ugh). This was exacerbated since I never see her in person. Basically she took a bunch of photos that are worthless, and they are going to have to be re-done (but probably not by her). On the one hand, I should have looked more closely, but on the other hand, she should be able to assess the quality of a photo, too. It turns out that her setup (which I of course have not seen in person) is less than adequate, so now things have been hung up while she waits for better equipment that I am having shipped to her. And now I might be sending her to buy more stuff at Target just so she can keep working since the other crap hasn't arrived from China.

Part of me feels like I should have never outsourced this project and just done it myself. On the other hand, it's relatively low priority and relatively low stakes, so I suppose it's better I re-learn this lesson now than later. I think this is the last time I'll try to long-distance supervise a project like this. I also need to make a mental note that I need to spend A. LOT. of my time (like, maybe all of it) closely training and supervising students at the beginning of a project.

(This reminds me that Psychgirl wrote a post about how she feels like it would be easier to do research herself because students take forever to pay off.)

In press, almost accepted, and flat out rejected

I've got three manuscripts in various stages of publication right now. One is in press for real this time (I've seen the proofs and found a zillion little typos- very annoying). One is nearly accepted. Sam and I are working on the last revisions, after which it should be accepted. The other one... oh my.

The third one was first rejected without review in the spring, then we revised, aimed high, and resubmitted. We got the reviews back a few weeks ago and they were pretty dismal. They didn't even really give us much that we could improve. My sense is that it's now or never for this particular piece, and I'm not sure exactly where it belongs. My amazing coauthor, in a fit of impending maternity leave madness, turned it around in an afternoon and resubmitted to a different, somewhat obscure journal. So that's back in review. We'll see what happens.

In search of an old post

I have a vague recollection of reading a post a while back (2 years ago? 3 years?) about women in science putting the brakes on their careers for impending motherhood years in advance. I recall the advice being something like, "Go do your awesome science all-out, don't put the brakes on before you've even started, and it won't matter when you take maternity leave because your science will be so badass that they won't doubt your ability to keep it up." Obviously I'm paraphrasing here and I might have gotten part of the message wrong, but is this ringing a bell for anyone else? Was it a post by Isis? I've been searching her blog but I can't find what I'm looking for. Where did I read this???

How to level the playing field for women in science?

I decided to take a class this semester on women in science. We've been reading and discussing articles about different challenges that women face. Next week I'm supposed to present on possible solutions, and I'd love to hear ideas and suggestions from my readers. I'm particularly concerned with what happens to women in science during and after graduate school.

I'll briefly summarize some of the issues we've discussed and the research behind them.

All qualifications being equal on paper, female college graduates (intending to go on to grad school in science) are perceived to be less competent than identical male college grads (Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students). Many excellent bloggers have written extensively about this new research (here, here, and here for starters). It is important to note that both men and women who were evaluating qualifications rated men more competent than identical women.

A similar gender bias exists in single-blind peer review (Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors). This suggests that double-blind peer review reduces unintentional gender bias that subtly discriminates against work by female authors.

In psychology, identical cv's with male or female names found lower rates of hire (at the assistant professor level) and starting salaries for the female name (The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study). 

The emerging story from experimentation is that based solely on their perceived gender, women are perceived to be less competent in science, less likely to get papers published, less likely to be hired, and offered lower starting salaries (pre- and post-PhD). These are issues that affect women regardless of their partnership or parenthood status.

Additionally, many researchers have gathered information from scientists at various career stages about other factors that influence metrics of success (salary, grants, publications, etc.) such as work-life balance and parenthood.

A survey of academics from various fields at different types of institutions from across the U.S. found that among partnered academics, women tend to have partners who work more hours than men (Balancing Parenthood and Academia: Work/Family Stress as Influenced by Gender and Tenure Status). Women are much more likely to have spouse who is employed more than 40 hours per week. They also found that women tend to do a larger share of childcare/housework, even when their spouse is also employed full-time. Very similar results were found in a survey of tropical ecologists by the Organization for Tropical Studies (Dramatic Improvements and Persistent Challenges for Women Ecologists). A good overview on this topic is The family life of academics: gendered priorities and institutional constraints.

Considering the present challenges, what ideas do you have for leveling the playing field for women, particularly in science and academia? What can be done to better accommodate caregiving responsibilities? Do you know of any institutions (e.g. universities/granting agencies) with exemplary policies?

I've heard suggestions (some of which are already enacted to various degrees) such as wider adoption of double-blind peer review (as mentioned above), allowing child care expenses in grant budgets, improving parental leave options (maternal AND paternal), and adjusting the tenure clock. I have to admit that I know little about  tenure clock policies, so I'd love to hear suggestions for readings on that topic.

I worry sometimes that discussion of women's issues focus heavily on parenthood, which can be narrow, presumptive, and alienating for women who cannot or choose not to have children. I'd also love to hear comments from readers outside the U.S. on the pros and cons of their policies affecting women in science in their countries, since my perspective is very U.S.-centric.

I'm purposely not being too specific in terms of solutions other people have suggested, but a 2009 report, Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences, offers many suggestions (especially regarding issues related to parenthood).

Note: I believe that all of the articles to which I linked can be found for free online, but not necessarily via the links I provided. If you can't find any of these, feel free to email me.

Networking win!

A couple of great things have come out networking at the conference last month. One of the things I did was organize a meetup for SFC alumni, and I found out that one of the recent grads who was there got a job offer from an older alum he met at the meetup!

I also received an email from an "ESA friend" (someone who I only know from the meeting) suggesting that we organize a session on our subdiscipline for next year's meeting. We had a brainstorming session via skype, and decided that we aren't going to propose anything this year after all (the deadline is very soon), but we will keep it in mind for 2014.

I love meeting other scientists. Good things happen when we get together!

Advisor fail?

We (the lab) just found out that Herb is going on sabbatical in the spring. That's really the kind of thing we should know more than a year in advance (I think he thinks he told us, but he didn't). Although I've written before about how Sam is functionally my advisor, Herb is still the chair of my committee. He's planning to spend spring and summer in other places (in the US and abroad), but hopefully we can work out a time for him to come back for my defense (and that of my lab mate). In a couple of months we should all have a better idea of what our schedules look like.

And THAT'S why you always check the spam folder

I had an email from someone who saw my talk at the conference but it got flagged as spam and hidden in my spam folder for almost 2 weeks! I wrote this same person an email the other day (about how much I liked their talk) and had no idea they had already written to me. Now I have an excuse to email them again :-)

This time of year

The days are shorter now than I'd like them to be and classes are starting again. I'm not ready for summer to end. We've been in Big City for five years now, and I'm beginning my sixth year of grad school. For a change, I'm not packing up to go to Ukenzagapia like I was this time last year and the year before. I'm finished with field work, and now all that stands between me and my PhD is a lot of data analysis and writing. This might be my last back-to-school season in Big City. Fingers crossed.

Ways to get a postdoc

I'm starting to think that maybe I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to finding "the next thing" after my Ph.D. I need some insight from my wise readers.

How do people finishing grad school get postdocs? Here are ways that happens of which I am aware.

1. They see an announcement and apply.

2. Their advisor (or perhaps a committee member) is able to keep them on as a postdoc.

3. Their advisor actively works their network of people to get them a postdoc.

4. They identify someone they want to work with and write a grant for their postdoc.

5. They get a fellowship that gives them more flexibility than writing a grant for a specific project.

Obviously these aren't hard and fast, but are there any major avenues from PhD to postdoc that I'm missing? What path did you take (if applicable)? What do you think is most common in your department/discipline?

Check, check, check, check, and check again

My army of interns got a lot done this summer, but summaries of the data have shown me that we still have a lot of data cleaning to do. Ugh. I thought I was checking their work enough, but I should have been checking more often and more thoroughly. It's nothing irreparable- just a time-consuming pain.

To take or not to take: Women in science course

I've far exceeded the number of classes/credits required for my program. I'm finished collecting data. I'm ABD. I'm trying to finish next summer. I don't need to take another class.

But this fall my department is offering a graduate seminar on women in ecology & evolution. I'd really like to take it. I think it would be interesting and informative.

I just can't decide if I should do it because I really want to finish next summer. I'd have to do a presentation, write a paper, do readings, and participate in discussions. It would meet once a week. I'm torn. What do you think?

Observations from ESA

What a week! I am so glad I went and also so glad that it's over.

Some thoughts:
-I saw very few ugly posters. Lots of pretty good ones, and a few really excellent ones.
-I saw few ugly slides in presentations. The most memorably ugly slides were by an undergrad, and they weren't that bad.
-I attended mostly solid talks. I didn't see a single truly bad talk.
-I saw some GREAT talks- really fabulous.
-You can pretty much always tell who is presenting that day and who isn't by what they're wearing.
-Presentations listed lots of people in the acknowledgments. I thought I had a lot of people to thank, and mine was one of the shorter ones.
-A few people put the acknowledgments at the beginning of the talk instead of the end.
-There were more citations on slides than I remembered seeing in the past.
-I don't think I saw a single talk run over time.
-The only thing worse than being scheduled at a bad time is being scheduled at a bad time that is the same time as someone famous (you know, famous for an ecologist).
-There were several obviously pregnant women and many infants & children around (with strollers, spouses, grandparents, daycare and/or baby carriers). I find this encouraging for a family-friendly future of ecology.

Overall, I was energized and inspired by the presentations I saw, and proud of ecologists for being able to communicate their research so clearly (in general) . It will probably take me an entire day to go through all of my notes, follow up on contacts, and catch up on email. I've got to digest and summarize some talks for a collaborator who wasn't there and do some thinking about what I've learned about my project. I didn't end up with any great leads on what to do post-PhD, but I was pleasantly surprised at how many people showed up for my presentation, and I gave out lots of cards. I spent time with several friends and acquaintances (from all over my past) and met many new people (even spoke some Ukenzagapese!). Somewhere in there I managed to do some dancing, go for a run, and come down with an unfortunate cold. I'm looking forward to resuming a normal schedule this week and looking forward to ESA next year!

Blogging at ESA

There's growing recognition that there are a wealth of useful tools for ecologists in the social media realm. Jarrett Byrnes just gave a great talk called Taking the ecological conversation online highlighting the usefulness of Twitter, blogging, and crowdfunding (e.g. #SciFund).

Hooray for blogging! My personal interest in blogs has always been the experiences of scientists (the stories behind the science!) and the mentoring that comes out of it, but there's something for everyone.

UPDATE:
Here's a link to the slides from Jarrett's talk.

Superstars

The problem with awesome scientists is that they're just so damn popular that it's hard to have a conversation with them because they're so busy!

Conflicted

I love the Ecological Society of America meeting. It hasn't even really started yet, and I love it. I want to share so many of the exciting things I'm learning, but I'm totally conflicted about the best venue for sharing. Do I blog about it here? Do I tweet about it in my real name? Facebook? G+? The problem with all of these options is that I'm stuck. I feel like I can only share so much as Karina Anirak, but I do have a voice and a story here. If I put myself out there with my real name, that makes it easier to make the connection to this blog. At the same time I feel like I should be developing a presence professionally, under my own name. I'm torn. I've got to figure this out. And soon!