B. Martin wrote:
>In article <359D462B.F0379B94 at nospamsalk.edu>, forsburg at nospamsalk.edu wrote:
>> 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.
Thanks, B. Martin! I wish we could explore this a bit more here. During
my PhD, my female advisor once, after a journal club presentation I had
made, went through with me the questions that had been asked of me, and how
I had answered them. This was a long time ago now, but I still remember a
few things from that session that made it valuable. First, she told me the
good things I had done. She told me that I had answered the question
correctly, or had given good information, and praised me for that aspect of
my answer. Also, I remember that she expressed sympathy about a "weird"
question that I had received and not really known what to do with. She
then told me that I had used too much "jargon" in answering it, and gave me
an example of how she would have answered the question, not using jargon.
This person is one of the best examples I know of of a woman scientist who
manages to be non-confrontational without being a jerk or a bitch, but
still tough academically and intellectually.
I actually think that this issue, "conversational style," gets at the heart
of a lot of the men/women differences that distress us so much. I would
recommend Deborah Tannen's books, especially _Talking from 9 to 5_, for a
thorough and thought-provoking discussion of these issues.
> 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.
I've seen it too, and it is definitely ugly. But what I'm questioning is
the notion that being confrontational with them anywhere else is
necessarily going to help. A breakdown in a seminar is bad, but a
breakdown in a group meeting, in front of your bench mates, isn't
necessarily any better.
I was once sitting in a journal club where the (male) PI's style led to at
one point, a *male* postdoc turning to the PI and saying "what, do I have a
sign on my back that says 'kick me' or something?"
I think this postdoc's response was good, in a way, it defused the tension,
made all of us sitting in the audience laugh, and afterwards it led to some
commiserating amongst the audience, a kind of shared suffering experience.
I think the PI, an excellent scientist and decent person himself, honestly
thought he was being motivated by kindness in his confrontational style.
But my own opinion is that I don't really think that the PI was doing the
people in his lab the service he thought he was doing them. It created an
"us against him" climate in the lab. It made people dread lab meetings,
journal clubs, and parties at the PI's house. It lowered the morale of the
people in the lab and made them less excited about science as an
enterprise.
In contrast, my PhD advisor, whom I described above, was not only not
annoyingly confrontational, but she was great at getting people in her lab
excited about her field and about science in general. And she is a member
of the National Academy of Sciences. In fact, she was one of the people
invited by Hillary Clinton to her summit on early childhood development, to
explain prenatal cortical development to the President! I wish I could
better explain how it can be done, but I'm not as good as she is. I have
seen enough, though, to know that it can be done. And done by good women
without sacrificing their scientific competence.
>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.
Yes! Unfortunately, sometimes one doesn't feel very able.
>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.
I think I agree again with B. Martin here, although I assume she means
"doesn't use," not "does use." Another example: a very competent woman
was interviewing for a postdoc. A PI with an axe to grind with her advisor
came to her seminar, was a jerk to her through the entire seminar, and
after the seminar told her that "if this were my PhD thesis, I would be
ashamed of myself." Some work from that thesis had been published in
Nature, and her committee had voted to give her a PhD from a prestigious
institution, so plenty of people thought this work wasn't shameful. I
personally don't think that there was any excuse for that PI's behavior or
remarks. And I don't think I'm being too touchy-feely or too sensitive by
saying so.
> 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.
As an aside, one thing I've found helpful in dealing with the "sharp give
and take that makes up scientific discourse" is to compartmentalize. I set
aside a mental compartment for "work," where these types of comments, and
my responses, go. I do not, however, take this stuff home with me. I
find other parts of my life where I can leave confrontation behind and be
more feelings oriented: friends, family, church, writing, art, and other
creative work. It is possible, even for people who loathe confrontation,
to take it and learn from it in small, limited doses if they have other
outlets where it doesn't play such a large role.
I haven't found a way, though, to survive on a steady round the clock diet
of it. It is a small, poor, impoverished substitute for passion and love
of one's work, and a pretty unsatisfying way to live life. I ended up
having to leave a relationship where my boyfriend was bringing "the sharp
give and take that makes up scientific discourse" home with him to the
dinner table.
>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.
I agree with you here. But I've also been told that I'm too idealistic.
Karen
