Karen Lona Allendoerfer (ka143 at columbia.edu) writes
> Bharathi Jagadeesh wrote:
>> >But
> >strong opinions are what science is all about!
>> I thought that testing hypotheses and gathering empirical data were
> what science was all about. I find that people's strong opinions get in the
> way, more often than not, of getting at what the data actually says. The
> stronger their opinions beforehand, the more likely they are to see what
> they want to see in the data.
I disagree. I think caring passionately about what you are doing
(="strong opinions") and being willing to engage in spirited
argument (in its best sense) is part of being a scientist. Not
to the exclusion of being willing to change, but it is in the
discussion that the ambiguities get exposed and the need for changes
become apparent. That is scholarship.
> I found this post extremely interesting, but mostly it left me full
> of wonder at the differences in human perceptions, experiences, and
> opinions. I know that I never would have come to the conclusion that any
> aspect of modern society, including science, was getting too civil or that
> people were now wrongly "too afraid" of stepping on other people's toes.
> What I see are small, halting steps being taken towards people being able
> to get along with each other better; that things are a lot better now than
> they used to be, and that this is a cause for rejoicing, not complaining.
I don't think that is quite Bharathi's point. The concern is not that
people are getting too civil (would that it were the case!). The concern
is that some use "civility" to exclude people--if you aren't worth
taking seriously, then they dismiss you. Politely, so politely.
They don't consider it worth arguing with you. That excludes your
ideas and accomplishments. It's the INCONSISTANCY that is the problem.
...
> While there's clearly no all-or-none man/woman split, I think that
> in the larger population, the viewpoint that we actually need to be
> concerned that science (or life in general) is getting too tame, is less
> common among women than men. I think this could be one big explanation for
> why women drop out of "the pipeline." There are more women than there are
> men (although these exist in both genders) who simply don't enjoy a life
> filled with what they perceive as conflict and "strong opinions" at that
> level.
But strong opinions do not necessarily mean conflict. Disagreement does
not necessarily mean a knock down drag out fight. It is possible to
have legitimate differences of interpretation or opinion; until we
have further evidence we cannot know which is correct. Perhaps debate,
rather than argument, is the term to use.
....
> In addition, it does make me wonder, what the point of actively
> trying to increase women's participation in science on a large scale
> actually is. If the effect is to shoehorn them into a social arena that
> they tolerate rather than enjoy, and which makes others uncomfortable
> because they have to watch what they say, is anyone well-served?
> I personally think that women should be in science because they are
> as good as and/or better than men at testing hypotheses, generating ideas,
> gathering data, working hard, and so forth. Because they are intelligent
> and creative. But also because I think that the communication style more
> common among women (with exceptions, of course, in both genders), in
> general, a more egalitarian, less confrontational one, is *good* for
> science (and society), and will eventually help change the larger culture
> for the better.
Yes, I agree. However, you still have to be able to get into
the system and have them pay attention to you in order to effect change.
That means walking a terribly fine line between improving things
(and probably getting labelled as a troublemaker, or, gasp, a feminist!)
and playing the game by their rules so you can stay in the system.
And, as long as there is a tendency to exclude the quiet, different ones,
and an unwillingness of women to try to get into the system,
we will continue to see poor representation of women and leakage from
the pipeline. I don't see a clear solution to this, aside from continuing
to sacrifice myself on the barricades and hoping others do too so those of
you coming up behind will get a little higher up the ladder.
You people may think that I am loud, opinionated, and "one of them".
Trust me, by "their" standards , I am not. And the academic ivory tower
at any institution gets pretty lonely when there are almost no
women in it, and so few willing even to try.
--
-susan
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
DON'T REPLY to the email address in header.
It's an anti-spam. Use the one below.
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
S L Forsburg, PhD forsburg at salk.edu
Molecular Biology and Virology Lab
The Salk Institute, La Jolla CA
http://pingu.salk.edu/~forsburg/lab.html
Women in Biology Internet Launch Page
http://pingu.salk.edu/~forsburg/bio.html
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
"These are my opinions. I don't have
time to speak for anyone else."
:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;
