Some of the email that have emerged in this threat have been the most depressing I have seen on Ecolog in a long time - with some notable bright spots.
I would like to encourage all starting out graduate students and scientists - you are our future and please don't be discouraged by what you are hearing! There are now more female graduate students in college and both men and women are embracing healthier lifestyles that do not involve working 80+ or even 40+ hours per week. I know some colleagues who share a single faculty appointment and have a great family, many outside of work of work pursuits, and contribute fabulous science and teaching. Do they produce as much as someone working 80+ hours a week? Individually probably not. Is the quality there - sure! What a bunch of malarkey that our science quality suffers because we are not workaholics. As others pointed out, working too much can be counterproductive. I remember breastfeeding my baby and making notes on my blackberry about some future ideas to pursue for research - when I had the time and energy. Did I take my baby to the field - no. But she sat with me in my office while I worked on publications, had conference calls, etc. Now I have a 4 year old and I feel the biggest impediment to productivity in my life if the vastly increased administrative load that comes with supervising people and being a research team leader, federal budget cuts many of us are experiencing, and lack of visionary leadership in some parts of our agency. These issues, more than anything, will lead to poor quality science, not the fact that almost every week I take a few hours off to participate in my daughter's life. But, as my earlier post indicated, I do not think I can have it all. I cannot work 40+, 50+ etc. hours a week and have a quality life with my family (some people can though - all depends on how much down time you need). I am willing to accept that, and the fact that I might not climb the ladder as fast as someone working more... People now want much more out of life and they want to try to find a balance - whether that is having kids, rock climbing, skiing, pursuing their artistic side, etc. This will only lead to more well-rounded and perhaps more insightful and creative people. Maybe instead of having "giants" in the field who dominate our science with what can eventually become dogma we will have a variety of well-rounded voices that are being heard. Maybe it is a good thing not to have a bunch of "senior" or "giant" scientists that take over the journals, have a zillion graduate students and postdocs, and whose thinking influences a discipline for 20 years+. Ever heard of diversity??? Maybe another type of model will serve our science better...it will certainly be better for humanity... My advice to women and anyone entering the field - find an advisor, institution, supervisor etc. that will support a healthy lifestyle and your goals. Accept that you might NOT be perceived as the most productive person by some of your peers who follow the old model...but do quality science...contribute to the field...but most of all...be HAPPY! And don't give up! Becky Becky K. Kerns, Ph.D., Team Leader/Research Ecologist Ecosystem Dynamics and Environmental Change Threat Characterization and Management Program, PNW Research Station 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 541.750.7497 -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Claudia Ford Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 9:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd.: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life What a great and important conversation to have. If any of us ever said, however, that everything about any current system was fine and did not need to be questioned or challenged - and too bad for us if we want change, as we should accept the status quo and not want anything different. Well. No, I do not think that we would have become scientists. Challenging our current systems and our understandings about those systems is exactly what science, among most other things, is all about. Claudia On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> wrote: > ?????????????? Clara simply said everything about the current system > as she sees it is fine, and those who find it does not provide > effectively for them to participate and contribute because they have > family responsibilities, well, too bad, they knew the system when they > started, and should not want anything different from what they saw. I > saw nothing in her post that challenges the current system. Rather, > she challenges those who find fault with it to retreat from it and > give up on the notion of participation and contribution. > > David McNeely > > ---- "Williams wrote: > > It sounds like Clara is challenging the current theory and > > questioning > it but I don't see that she has in any way perpetuated dysfunction. > > > > Facts indicate that woman have been and are still discriminated > > against > but this doesn't explain all the variation we see- not by a long shot > I don't think. > > > > I am not saying I agree with Clara, but wow, your statement, Silvia, > > is > very dogmatic. Clara presented ideas to be considered and opinion to > help inform the collective. Silvia rather, sounds much more bombastic > with the intent to stifle her- that is unfortunate. > > > > Mark > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Silvia Secchi > > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:43 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - > > Balancing > your personal and professional life > > > > Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do > > not > question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a > dysfunctional professional environment. > > > > Silvia Secchi > > Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois > University Carbondale > > > > > > On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" > > <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Andres: 1. ...i think i really do "hear" what you are saying, and > > > i > "get" > > > that the advantages afforded to professional females (including > > > females in research science careers) in some countries are > > > beneficial to them and their families... > > > 2. ...however, what level of Science are these females doing... > > > 3. ...is their productivity, including the quality of their > > > research, equivalent to that of USA men who work, say, 80+ h/week... > > > 4. ...is the quality of work being done in the countries you cite > > > equivalent to what would be required to achieve "senior" (i;e., > > > professorship [+]) status in the US... > > > 5. ...i don't think i know what the answers to the above questions > > > are; however, i suspect the answers are "no"... > > > 6. ...from what i do know, however, i THINK that collaborative > > > research is acceptable in Europe to a degree that it is not in the > > > USA where, it seems to me, females who rely on collaboration are > > > often/usually perceived as "hitch(h)iking" on a senior person's > > > research projects...though this strategy may, indeed, purchase > > > senior status in the USA, it often does not translate to > > > reputation or > respect (indeed, there are exceptions)... > > > 7. ...following from the threads on this topic in the past few > > > d...i think i "hear" females saying that they're not competing for > > > the sorts of positions that i describe above...so be it...as one > > > respondent put it, after a baby came her "priorities > > > changed"...again, so be > it...SORT OF... > > > 8. ...what i mean by SORT OF is that i don't see a problem with > > > USA females changing priorities UNLESS they've received funding or > > > made other commitments under the guise that they want to be senior > > > scientists *as defined in USA*... > > > 9. ...several female respondents have pointed out that female > > > graduate students, post-docs, etc. are "grown-ups" capable of > > > making their own "rational" decisions...all good...then they > > > should be prepared to assume responsibility for their > > > decisions...understanding *the realities of USA science that they signed > > > up for*... > > > 10. ...what is the Plan B for these girls that will fulfill their > > > commitments *(to USA science)* when they switch priorities... > > > 11. ...what is their plan for purchasing UNDIVIDED, UNINTERRUPTED, > > > SINGLE-FOCUSED, LONG-TERM, OFTEN UNPREDICTABLE TIME required to > > > accomplish the sort of senior science *as defined by USA standards*... > > > 12. ...some females & minorities assert that the structure of USA > > > science needs to change...for a variety of reasons... > > > 13. ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing > > > among the best and most successful scientists in the world... > > > 14. ...more important, in my opinion...is that "RATIONAL" > > > grown-ups of whatever sex or sexual orientation or personal status > > > sign up for this system & need not only to have their eyes open > > > but need to step up by not changing the rules unilaterally in mid- > > > or late-stream...clara > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: Andres Lopez-Sepulcre <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your > > > personal and professional life > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > Andres, do you have any ideas about how we can import that > > > Finlandian model > > >> to the U.S.? And how to get more universities and other > > >> employers in the U.S. to recognize the need to provide for professional > > >> couples? > > >> Thanks, David > > >> > > > > > > Ufff... this discussion may become more political than ecological... > > > the problem, as I see it is more fundamental. How willing are we > > > to pay higher and more progressive taxes, socialize higher > > > education (and health care), punish job instability, remove > > > undergraduate and graduate student fees (in fact, undergraduates > > > are paid in Finland!!) or increase graduate student/post-doc > > > salaries and benefits at the cost of reducing those of professors...? > > > > > > > > > ---- Andres Lopez-Sepulcre <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> In my experience, it all depends on the country and how easy > > >>> funding agencies, research institutions and governments make it. > > >>> I have experience in several countries: Spain, USA, France and Finland. > > >>> They each have their good and bad points on that respect. Fore > > >>> example, while the USA and Canada tend to be pretty good at > > >>> opening jobs for couples, which helps enormously the two-body > > >>> problem, I find that some European countries offer better > > >>> conditions to be a parent. For example, in Finland and Sweden > > >>> the government offers paid maternity and/or paternity leaves of > > >>> at least 10 months. Since this is a 'stipend' independent of the > > >>> scientific fellowship or contract, it essentially means that if > > >>> they had 3-years of funding, they now will have that + 10 months > > >>> (i.e. the grant or contract > 'slides' forward). > > >>> Moreover, there are good free or cheap daycare services and even > > >>> sometimes, daycare or family-housing in field stations. The > > >>> conditions are so good that I have never seen such a high rate > > >>> of graduate students pregnant or with children as in those countries... > > >>> and they are consequentially doing better than average at > > >>> keeping women in science. Of course, many countries (like Spain, > > >>> my > > >>> home-country) fail in all aspects. > > >>> > > >>> Andres Lopez-Sepulcre > > >>> Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> http://web.me.com/asepulcre > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Rachel Guy 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 > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > clara b. jones > > -- > David McNeely > -- Claudia J. Ford [email protected] <[email protected]> 401-215-4774 *"If you want to walk fast - walk alone; if you want to walk far - walk together." African Proverb* ** This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
