In article <359D462B.F0379B94 at nospamsalk.edu>, forsburg at nospamsalk.edu wrote:
> Evans Kelly L (4klt5 at qlink.queensu.ca) replied
> >
> > I prefer the non-confrontational mode of teaching rather than the
> > challenging, stick-up for yourself, trial by fire mode. I think the
> > non-confrontal mode accomplishes the same goal of teaching the student to
> > think critically, but without making them question whose side your one.
>> Yes, but like it or not, the way science is done is by confrontation,
> trial by fire, and constant negative feedback. At some point,
> students (and others!) have to learn to deal with that, and being
> shielded from it doesnt help them develop the skills they need.
To some degree, I agree with you but supporting the confrontational style
too strongly is giving in too easily to conformity which too often directs
the scientific community. When in a position of some (however limited)
influence, it is possible to guide a student through the confrontation
without doing it yourself.
> Otherwise, they may give their first
> real seminar, and someone in the audience will ask an aggressive question
> and the student will break down. I've seen it, and it is ugly. And
> more than anything, that mwill destroy someone's confidence. The world
> is a mean place; you have to learn to deal with it.
Or you could work to change the world as far as you are able.
> This does not mean I advocate making people feel embarrassed or miserable,
> espcially in public, but asking pointed questions in group meeting and
> giving constructive criticism without being all touchy-feely about it is,
> IMHO, absolutely necessary. I agree with Deirdre! No one benefits
> if I just wander along holding their hands saying "there there."
> We're educating these people to be our colleagues. That
> means they have to be able to join into the spirited arguments that
> make scholarly life. If you cannot defend your ideas, no one will
> take them seriously.
Non-confrontational does not equate to 'touchy-feeling' in my experience.
It is not a black and white issue. Non-confrontational obviously involves
the use of directed questions, but does use the dismissive tone so often
popular with the old-boy network.
> > Furthermore, I find learning from example much more effective (i.e. when
> > in lab meetings, journal club, the mentor talks out loud so that I can
> > follow the thought process) than telling the student to go think about it
> > some more.
>> But that can also be a crutch. Teaching people to think independently is
> very difficult, and if you always lead them by the hand, they aren't
> going to know how to get there by themselves.
You state this as a conclusion. Have you tested this assertion or is it a
matter of belief? Remember as students are guided (not led), they do see
the example you set in how you deal with your colleagues. This teaches
them more about the community interactions than confrontations in
meetings.
> Even the best intentioned
> student can get lazy if they know you are always going to give them the
> answer/write the paper/ interpret the results when they say, "I Can't".
> And then what happens when they go off to postdoc for
> sharp tongued Dr Bigshot, who expects them to be independent? Who do
> they think will explicitly guide them through postdoc and professorship?
Students can get lazy, but they don't HAVE to. Give them a chance, they
may surprise you.
[Some Snippage]
> The point is,
> you have to recognize that people are trying to help you to
> learn it! No one wants to make you unhappy, but no one wants you to
> be completely unprepared for the sharp give and take that makes up
> scientific discourse.
If your response is no different from those who don't care about the
students, then you have accomplished very little. Students will have
difficulty perceiving any difference between you and the jerks. You erode
the confidence of students just by showing them that there is no other
way.
This is a very poor way to get the community of science to evolve. No
wonder yound scientists, particularly women, drop out at every juncture in
the pipeline. The science community should not be developed only of those
who are willing to deal with the shit, but also have those who will not
put up with the old-boy style.
My views are probably too idealistic for many of you and may never happen,
but I don't quite believe that not trying is the appropriate response.
B. Martin
