Rachel, I believe that the relative success of combining family life and work life is similar for scientists and other highly intensive occupations. It is simply a matter of how individuals manage, their temperaments and their abilities to deal with stress when it arises, as it inevitably will. Some do better than others. Knowing oneself, knowing one's family member's needs, and making commitments for both work and family that one knows one can keep are most important. I might have done better at both work and family life had I understood that better at a younger age, not that I am disappointed with either at this late point in my life.
David McNeely ---- Rachel Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been following the debate Simone Whitecloud inspired concerning babies > in the field. This brought to mind something I was told when I was pursuing > my B.S. in Wildlife Ecology: "You can be a scientist, a spouse or a parent. Two of these things you can be simultaneously great at doing, while the third will suffer." I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement, but I have seen personal relationships tried by professional obligations and professional obligations tried by personal obligations. Particularly in a field that often demands long absences and irregular hours, I can see how this would particularly be true. Though, I have also seen faculty and research scientists with families that seem pretty stable and happy. Is there any substance to this paradigm, and if so, are there realistic ways in which we can change them? I'd love to hear the communities' thoughts on this as it is something that I have often reflected on as I've progressed through my career. Can we have it all? What are the key differences between the ones that are seemingly able to do it and the one's where the challenges become too great? Rachel Guy Project Coordinator, Research Assistant -- David McNeely
