Does anyone else find it ironic that an evolutionary biologist would value a publication over offspring?
-----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Amy Parachnowitsch Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ADVANCE-NEWS] The Children they Never Had During my last year of my PhD, I, along with a few fellow graduate students, had lunch with a prominent evolutionary biologist who had been invited to give a talk at our department. As we discussed our research, this senior professor suggested a follow-up experiment to extend my research. I had also thought about this previous to our conversation and agreed it would be interesting and important. However, I said that I was to graduate and wouldn't be doing another field season. This was met with a little disdain (or at least that was how it came across) and the question "Why not?". When I explained that I had personal/family reasons for not continuing for another (6th) year as a PhD student and that I had recently had a baby, the reply I got was "But can you publish that?" My biggest disappointment was that instead of telling this famous professor that it was a jerky comment, in the moment, I felt I needed to defend myself and my choices. I'm sure that others have received subtle or not so subtle comments to suggest that they should either not have children or at least not yet (post doc is the best time, you can have kids when you get tenure, etc). Or that if they do have children it should not at all influence the choices they make about their career. In a profession that requires so much of our time and generally an ability to move to where the jobs are, I think we need to appreciate that life and career choices are intertwined. Families are generally two career these days, whether or not both are in academics. Therefore, choices about where and when to move seem often a mix of what may be best for your own career as well as your partners, in addition to other family considerations. If we force women and men to choose between family and career, we will inevitability lose good researchers and possibly the ones we retain will be miserable. On a side note, this comment got me thinking about how we decide when a PhD is finished. There is probably always another experiment around the corner that would make your research even better, or there should be if you're doing it right. So in a system where there isn't a year limit to your PhD, it seems to me that it is often outside factors that determine its length. For example, getting a post-doc, your partner finishing/etc, other life factors or your committee getting fed up of you. I'm not sure what is best but surely we can't always do that one last experiment or no one would ever finish. Amy Parachnowitsch Research Fellow Plant Ecology Uppsala University On 20 September 2011 01:46, David Inouye <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> You might find this piece (link below) at Inside Higher Ed interesting. It >> provides an overview of the first of a series of scholarly papers by Elaine >> Howard Ecklund (Rice) and Anne Lincoln (Southern Methodist) on women faculty >> members and their choices regarding children and career, careers outside of >> science, and other issues. It's worth a look. >> >> >> <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/09/female_science_faculty_mu ch_more_likely_than_male_counterparts_to_wish_they_had_more_children>htt p://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/09/female_science_faculty_much_m ore_likely_than_male_counterparts_to_wish_they_had_more_children > > For more information about the ADVANCE program at the University of > Maryland: > www.advance.umd.edu >
