Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
than watching something; and you can take that wherever you want to go with it! ;^) Children will be happy interacting with other children, and don't need Mom and Dad in their face 24/7; maybe 2/7 would work better, and in our jobs, there is really no problem finding that 2. Family is no excuse for non-productivity. In fact, not opinion, using family as such an excuse is somewhat despicable! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:53 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the metaphor The best steel goes through the fire. But what does it imply for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like support for family and other work/life balance issues, what are we selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science would suffer. Would we be selecting for people with iron constitutions that makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but people who might be weak by this criterion could have brilliant minds that would make great contributions. Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less dramatically. I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering how the academic life should be structured. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu I have had both young men and young women (much more often young women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort and do nothing they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, but it seems that those who are given a tough row to hoe early in life, and hoe it, find the challenges of the rest of life a lot easier and get a lot more done than those who have it really easy, and this is as true of Ecologists as any other sorts of professionals. Having to both raise a family, including finding the resources needed to raise that family, represent a very common challenge in any society and it just seems to me that we academics, who are obliged to teach 7-15 hours of classes a week for 32 weeks, mentor some grad students and maintain a research program at the most, have it pretty soft, with plenty of time for family and other obligations. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Clara B. Jones Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:11 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life ...just out of curiosity...are some suggesting that people, in particular, women, should not be surgeons or pediatricians or line-persons for an electric or cable company or members of First Response Teams in, say, Ecology, or soldiers or on-call nurses, say, members of anesthetic support teams, or firefighters or crisis negotiators or specialized rescue workers, say, EMTs or fieldworkers studying crepuscular taxa or safari guides or owners of high-traffic motels or restaurants, say, a 24-h diner on Rt. 22 in NJ, or deep-sea fishermen or CDC epidemiological specialists or priests or mountain climbers or nannies or sanitation workers or medical examiners or Red Cross pilots or members of the US
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I don't think people are nasty because they work hard. In fact, it could well be that people who don't get as much done get nasty/envious and backstab more productive people...but I could be wrong about that! I see work as a much higher level social interaction that say networking. Working with other people to actually get things done is a lot tougher than being friendly and fun at parties. I see the best steel goes through the fire as representing that ability, which comes from motivation. If the issue is productivity then the harder working person, who is so because they want to do the work, will be the more productive. Academics very generally have a lot of free time, and can do a lot of the things we do at our convenience at a place of our choosing. FWIW I would not take a child into the field because it is too dangerous; you are focused on something other than being the caregiver of the child in a situation that has a lot of aspect unfamiliar to the child, but that's JMHO. People who spend a lot of time seeking recognition do get some very transient success with their work, but it quickly dissipates and what stand over time is the well done science that is almost (but not exclusively) done be people who seek the joy of doing the work over the gratification of recognition and social status. If the doing of the work isn't enough for someone, they have unrealistic expectations of life, IMHO. What someone else thinks is only relevant if and when they are involved in the work itself. Gossips are losers. IMHO work is the real social activity we do that makes a difference. It's the doing of it that counts. I don't see the point of spending too much time seeking amusement. Doing something is far more fulfilling than watching something; and you can take that wherever you want to go with it! ;^) Children will be happy interacting with other children, and don't need Mom and Dad in their face 24/7; maybe 2/7 would work better, and in our jobs, there is really no problem finding that 2. Family is no excuse for non-productivity. In fact, not opinion, using family as such an excuse is somewhat despicable! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:53 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the metaphor The best steel goes through the fire. But what does it imply for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like support for family and other work/life balance issues, what are we selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science would suffer. Would we be selecting for people with iron constitutions that makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but people who might be weak by this criterion could have brilliant minds that would make great contributions. Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less dramatically. I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering how the academic life should be structured. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu I have had both young men and young women (much more often young women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort and do nothing they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, but it seems that those who are given a tough row to hoe early in life
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Interesting observations, Robert H., perhaps summed up by the metaphor The best steel goes through the fire. But what does it imply for implementing social policy, or academic policy? Deliberately harsh or downright brutal conditions might be appropriate for training Navy Seals, and tough ghetto conditions might produce the best boxers, but should this apply in academia? Aren't high academic standards and intellectual rigor better tools for training productive scientists? And if these high standards are not accompanied by things like support for family and other work/life balance issues, what are we selecting for? The most ruthless, cutthroat competitors? Such people might be very poor at the cooperative aspects of science, and so science would suffer. Would we be selecting for people with iron constitutions that makes them resistant to ulcers and mental breakdown? Perhaps, but people who might be weak by this criterion could have brilliant minds that would make great contributions. Are we really in danger of making life so cushy for students and scientists that they will grow complacent, slack off on their work, and merely warm their academic chairs? And even if scientific productivity were to fall off a bit, is that the end of the world? I think that harsh conditions, such as those imposed by totalitarian regimes, can boost performance in the short term, but in the long run it is unstable. People hate it and they rebel against it by passive/aggressive non-cooperations,, voting with their feet, sabotage, etc. The history of the twentieth century shows this. And smart, qualified people leaving academia shows it, even if less dramatically. I think these are factors we should bear in mind when considering how the academic life should be structured. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/30 Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu I have had both young men and young women (much more often young women) in my classes who are/were single parents, working and going to school full time and raising children. IMHO they have a much better sense of the urgency of life, and while they are not the top students, the ones that get through do very well, much better (in general) than those who simply live in a dorm or some rental housing of some sort and do nothing they are obliged to do but go to school. JMHO again, but it seems that those who are given a tough row to hoe early in life, and hoe it, find the challenges of the rest of life a lot easier and get a lot more done than those who have it really easy, and this is as true of Ecologists as any other sorts of professionals. Having to both raise a family, including finding the resources needed to raise that family, represent a very common challenge in any society and it just seems to me that we academics, who are obliged to teach 7-15 hours of classes a week for 32 weeks, mentor some grad students and maintain a research program at the most, have it pretty soft, with plenty of time for family and other obligations. Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Clara B. Jones Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 1:11 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life ...just out of curiosity...are some suggesting that people, in particular, women, should not be surgeons or pediatricians or line-persons for an electric or cable company or members of First Response Teams in, say, Ecology, or soldiers or on-call nurses, say, members of anesthetic support teams, or firefighters or crisis negotiators or specialized rescue workers, say, EMTs or fieldworkers studying crepuscular taxa or safari guides or owners of high-traffic motels or restaurants, say, a 24-h diner on Rt. 22 in NJ, or deep-sea fishermen or CDC epidemiological specialists or priests or mountain climbers or nannies or sanitation workers or medical examiners or Red Cross pilots or members of the US Senate from, say, CA or Oregon, or any number of additional tasks and, dare I say, passions...and * life*-skills... On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, karen golinski golinski.li...@gmail.comwrote: I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM until after 10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the at home time of 10 PM-6 AM. It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to work the long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or productive) way to live our lives. On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Please, I'm not sure how it has come down to this but for the record: I absolutely *do* support work/life balance initiatives and models that are family (and couple and single-person)-positive, both inside and outside of academia. On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Jacquelyn Gill jlg...@wisc.edu wrote: Hi Karen, The problem with this framework is that you risk guilting parents (usually women) for choices they are forced to make, or even those they may genuinely want to make, especially if the parents' level of engagement doesn't match what others expect. Like I said earlier, for some people, a mother's choosing to work at all is irresponsible. Framing arguments in this way is ultimately damaging and shifts the burden away from institutions who need to step up and support parents, and instead shifts that burden to parents for whom choice may be relative and is definitely highly value-laden. I don't see the value in reminding people who are probably already very aware that that can't spend enough time with their kids that, in addition for working hard to provide their family at the expense of having a fulfilling life, they're also not really raising their kids. Those choices were probably hard to make. I also still fail to see how that is relevant to a discussion of women in academia-- the overwhelming evidence is that women are leaving academia because there aren't institutions in place to support them, not that women are abandoning their families. Best wishes, Jacquelyn -- G. Karen Golinski, PhD
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
...just out of curiosity...are some suggesting that people, in particular, women, should not be surgeons or pediatricians or line-persons for an electric or cable company or members of First Response Teams in, say, Ecology, or soldiers or on-call nurses, say, members of anesthetic support teams, or firefighters or crisis negotiators or specialized rescue workers, say, EMTs or fieldworkers studying crepuscular taxa or safari guides or owners of high-traffic motels or restaurants, say, a 24-h diner on Rt. 22 in NJ, or deep-sea fishermen or CDC epidemiological specialists or priests or mountain climbers or nannies or sanitation workers or medical examiners or Red Cross pilots or members of the US Senate from, say, CA or Oregon, or any number of additional tasks and, dare I say, passions...and * life*-skills... On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM, karen golinski golinski.li...@gmail.comwrote: I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM until after 10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the at home time of 10 PM-6 AM. It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to work the long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or productive) way to live our lives. On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick search in Web of Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental Sciences and Ecology' for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in front of 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', the USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million inhabitants, while Finland has
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
This all started with a query about how best to bring kids along on fieldwork... It may be helpful to remind ourselves of our predecessors, to be able to believe in our own capacities. I love the story of Dorothea Lange, who had two kids and two step-kids. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange#_ (forgive the Wikipedia source) Excellence is defined in many different ways. Sole-authored research papers is a mighty narrow definition of contribution to the advancement of knowledge, even if it (sometimes) may lead to the promotion of the individual. Seems like we need to work on social skills, too. Keep up the good work, all of you (us). Cheers, Rachel O'Malley Professor of Environmental Studies San Jose State University (and usually quite happy with my job, two kids, partner, thousands of current and former students, and colleagues... I only wish the polis were funding more education and ecology so that everyone who wants to work in this field, could do so). Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:02 PM, karen golinski golinski.li...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM until after 10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the at home time of 10 PM-6 AM. It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to work the long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or productive) way to live our lives. On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
A couple of notes to my post. :) I made a silly assumption that readers would check out the link that David originally posted, and I then re-posted. Without reading the article, my paragraph is out of context. The article follows women and men with at least a B.S. in mathematics, and found that a disproportionate number of women with these degrees do not attend graduate school and do not become professors. It then asked the questions I re-posted (in green which I forgot doesn't show up on this list serve) about why these women leave and where they go. As a woman who fits into that category, I answered their questions about myself. The second is in response to this quote. Conflating the plight of the working poor with the choice of a woman to have a career and a family is false equivalence. Robert Hamilton gave an example of the 6am-10pm parent working fine for the family, and I provided a counter-example. Others may disagree with me, but personally I don't think my example should be discarded simply because my family was part of the working poor. Professors do not make that much money, especially when compared to administrators in academia, or to scientists outside of academia. Additionally, cost of living raises are rare and sometimes non-existent for professors. Many universities are rolling back and cutting health insurance benefits while cost of living (rent, gas, food, commodities, education, etc) is skyrocketing around the nation, and programs put in place to help support families (in retirement or other stages) are being cut by States and the Federal government. My generation of scientists are faced with the additional burden of considerable debt for undergraduate studies, of which congress is voting to possibly double the interest rate on. My point is that my family situation in high school might not be all that different for a sole-bread winner professor in today's America. I maintain my original point, which is that having one parent working gross overtime on a consistent basis only works if either one parent can be home more frequently, or the family is rich enough to cover child care costs. Both of these scenarios are unlikely amongst my generation, and having this high demand of time spent away from family is one factor that drives some of women out of science careers in academia. On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM, R Omalley rachel.omal...@sjsu.edu wrote: This all started with a query about how best to bring kids along on fieldwork... It may be helpful to remind ourselves of our predecessors, to be able to believe in our own capacities. I love the story of Dorothea Lange, who had two kids and two step-kids. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange#_ (forgive the Wikipedia source) Excellence is defined in many different ways. Sole-authored research papers is a mighty narrow definition of contribution to the advancement of knowledge, even if it (sometimes) may lead to the promotion of the individual. Seems like we need to work on social skills, too. Keep up the good work, all of you (us). Cheers, Rachel O'Malley Professor of Environmental Studies San Jose State University (and usually quite happy with my job, two kids, partner, thousands of current and former students, and colleagues... I only wish the polis were funding more education and ecology so that everyone who wants to work in this field, could do so). Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2012, at 3:02 PM, karen golinski golinski.li...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM until after 10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the at home time of 10 PM-6 AM. It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to work the long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or productive) way to live our lives. On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I wonder how a person who is regularly away from home from 6 AM until after 10 PM really raises a family? Most kids are sleeping during the at home time of 10 PM-6 AM. It saddens me to think that people want to silence the discussion of positive models of work-life balance. Just because people have to work the long hours described below does not mean it is a good (or productive) way to live our lives. On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: I must say that I find this conversation somewhat embarrassing, and hope it never gets out into the public domain. I have and have always had friends and neighbours who work 2 or 3 jobs to keep things going. Literally going to work at 6AM and not coming home till after 10PM working jobs at places like Walmart and McDonalds. Lots of people work 8+ hours per say 50 weeks a year, like say my Dad, and had no problem raising a family and contributing to the community. This whole thing is a study in extreme narcissism. How's that for a wet blanket! Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Jahi Chappell Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
While putting resources into science, including ecology, is of course a wonderful, necessary, and valuable thing, assuredly supporting our own families with our presence, time, and energy (and societal resources) is at least as wonderful, necessary, and valuable. Indeed, as many benefits as flow from science and science funding, we know that having strong families and communities makes everyone better off, ceteris parabus, and having strong families and communities requires time and resource investment from everyone. Even granting the proposition that we in the US produce the best and most successful scientists in the world, all accounts indicate that we certainly don't produce the highest average of happy and most secure and successful families in the world. We have a *lot* of those, but alas, our median is likely much lower than our mean, and both are likely behind countries like those Andres analyzed. So much of what so many are lacking are basic needs, connections, support networks, and resources, something depending as much or more on good and participatory governance than new scientific discovery--we need more time for more participation outside our work and research, not less. On 4/27/12 10:22 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick search in Web of Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental Sciences and Ecology' for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in front of 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', the USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million inhabitants, while Finland has produced 1,500. With this I do not mean to say that Finland is better or worse... but just to show that, when the comparison is done 'fairly', maternity leaves do not seem to be hampering Finnish ecology. Productivity can be achieved without equality and social welfare suffering. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick search in Web of Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental Sciences and Ecology' for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in front of 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', the USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million inhabitants, while Finland has produced 1,500. With this I do not mean to say that Finland is better or worse... but just to show that, when the comparison is done 'fairly', maternity leaves do not seem to be hampering Finnish ecology. Productivity can be achieved without equality and social welfare suffering. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world...
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick search in Web of Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental Sciences and Ecology' for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in front of 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', the USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million inhabitants, while Finland has produced 1,500. With this I do not mean to say that Finland is better or worse... but just to show that, when the comparison is done 'fairly', maternity leaves do not seem to be hampering Finnish ecology. Productivity can be achieved without equality and social welfare suffering. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... -- Cecilia A. Hennessy PhD Candidate Purdue University 715 W. State St Pfendler Hall, G004 West Lafayette, IN 47907-2061 lab: 765-496-6868 cell: 574-808-9696
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
This is not meant as a wet blanket, as I encourage family friendly employment practices for all countries and for all occupations. But, I wonder how those figures would look if all areas of science were considered? It may be that smaller economies, and the Scandinavian countries in particular, put a greater fraction of their available resources for scientific research into ecology than do larger economies and non-Scandinavian countries. Is U.S. science more diversified than Finnish or Icelandic science? David McNeely Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're at it, it did the same calculation for all four countries ranked first in gender equality by the Global Gender Gap Report. All four, as far as I remember, provide generous paternity leaves that guarantee job security and can be shared between mother and father. ISI indexed publications in Ecology per capita (countries ranked in order of 'gender equality index') Iceland: 1167 Norway: 1794 Finland: 1500 Sweden: 1361 Not only do these countries do significantly better in ecology 'per capita' than the less family-oriented scientific powerhouses (e.g. USA: 650, UK: 660), but it almost seems that if anything, their ranking in the gender equality index is correlated with their productivity, not an 'impediment' ... safe for Iceland, but do remember that Iceland suffered the largest financial collapse in world history in these last 5 years. Even when this small sample and oversimplified analysis is not proof of anything, I hope it can change peoples' perceptions that countries that have increased social welfare, gender equality and more protective labour laws are less productive. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 27, 2012, at 6:43 PM, Cecilia Hennessy wrote: PERFECT response, thank you so much! If we Americans could stop patting ourselves on the back long enough to realize that other countries have successful ways of doing things too, maybe we could learn from international example and progress more efficiently. cheers! On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... I would simply like to add a quick clarification. I struggled with how to respond to this US-centric statement. There is no doubt that the USA is a scientific powerhouse and I have wonderful things to say about my experience as a scientist there, which has brought me wonderful collaborations I hope last long. However I am not sure it is fair to compare a country of over 300 million inhabitants with another of 5 (Finland). In fact, I took the liberty do do a quick search in Web of Science for articles in the area of 'Environmental Sciences and Ecology' for both countries in the last 5 years. USA showed 204,414 in front of 8,119 Finnish articles indexed in ISI. If one thinks 'per capita', the USA has produced 650 indexed articles in ecology per million inhabitants, while Finland has produced 1,500. With this I do not mean to say that Finland is better or worse... but just to show that, when the comparison is done 'fairly', maternity leaves do not seem to be hampering Finnish ecology. Productivity can be achieved without equality and social welfare suffering. Andres Lopez-Sepulcre Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris alo...@biologie.ens.fr http://web.me.com/asepulcre On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Amanda Quillen wrote: ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... -- Cecilia A. Hennessy PhD Candidate Purdue University 715 W. State St Pfendler Hall, G004 West Lafayette, IN 47907-2061 lab: 765-496-6868 cell: 574-808-9696 -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
many of us higher quality scientists I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a high quality scientist. I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was who do you work for? referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
For those of you interested in pursuing a career in science and having a family, I highly recommend it. Both are extremely rewarding. I am lucky to have been supported in both endeavors throughout my career (I'm still early in my career - I'll start as tenure-track faculty in the fall). I had many examples of how to balance family and an academic career during my PhD. My adviser and many of my professors balanced career and family and I would consider all of them successful scientists dedicated to both teaching and research. In addition, they were humble about their achievements, excited about the achievements of their students and higher quality scientists who had valuable expertise and used it to explore important ecological (and conservation-focused) questions. I am lucky to be joining a family-friendly department. I admire and respect the faculty in the department I will be joining. Along the way, I have been lucky to encounter scientists who advocated for me, gave me valuable advice (academically and personally) and have helped me advance in my career. I have an extremely supportive spouse who is an equal partner in child care. I think that as scientists, it is always useful to question how we can make academia better for research, teaching and service. If faculty are focused on an ailing parent, a child in need of medical attention, or are a caregiver for a friend/relative (some of which a apply to the single scientist), how can we make sure that they have the flexibility they need so that their concerns about personal matters do not worry them during their work? I think these are valid questions and perhaps I've been lucky in finding that flexibility. But I would be interested in pursuing this discussion without assuming that those who deal with matters outside the office are inferior scientists (that could be a whole separate discussion). And if academia is losing brainpower to the corporate world (where some employers offer on-site childcare, lactation rooms, time off for care of parents/children, etc.), should we assess whether this is of concern for future scholarly achievement? Best, Christie From: Steven Schwartz drstevenschwa...@aol.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life many of us higher quality scientists I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a high quality scientist. I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was who do you work for? referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Dear Ecologgers, This discussion about family and science has been very interesting to follow. Whether single or married, childless or not, everyone is entitled to and should stand for nothing less than a balanced life - whatever that means to them. And the definition of success is subjective to the individual. As my wise advisor often reminded me, what is right for one person is not right for another. If at the end of the day you are happy, you are successful whether you use your education at home to improve the lives of yourself and your family or to make grand contributions to the scientific community. I have never in my 40 years regretted sticking to what I believed was right for me even if it was against the advise of others. Only you know what is right for you and if you truly want something you will figure out how to do it. My point is, that it is up to each one of us to make it OK to live our lives the way we want. CR On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Steven Schwartz wrote: many of us higher quality scientists I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a high quality scientist. I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was who do you work for? referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Indeed, CR, what a lovely and mindful summary. I am reminded of Bhutan's adoption of Gross National Happiness as an alternative Index to Gross National Product(ion) as an example of the creative impact mindful people can have on the collective whole, when the need for change is noticed and tended to. On 4/13/2012 12:18 PM, Cynthia Ross wrote: Dear Ecologgers, This discussion about family and science has been very interesting to follow. Whether single or married, childless or not, everyone is entitled to and should stand for nothing less than a balanced life - whatever that means to them. And the definition of success is subjective to the individual. As my wise advisor often reminded me, what is right for one person is not right for another. If at the end of the day you are happy, you are successful whether you use your education at home to improve the lives of yourself and your family or to make grand contributions to the scientific community. I have never in my 40 years regretted sticking to what I believed was right for me even if it was against the advise of others. Only you know what is right for you and if you truly want something you will figure out how to do it. My point is, that it is up to each one of us to make it OK to live our lives the way we want. CR On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Steven Schwartz wrote: many of us higher quality scientists I don't often post here but that is about as arrogant a statement as I have read. It is that kind of thinking that has made me distance myself from much of the ESA community. I have authored or co-authored 30 papers and would never dream of casting myself or anyone else as a high quality scientist. I'm not sure of the size of your ego but I a dose of modesty might be in order. And as for hard work equalling reward, there is just as much chance involved as there is effort. I have seen too many hard working ecologists suffer at the hands of fate and who you worked for or know. At my first ESA meeting, almost 30 years ago, I was taken aback when the first question people had for me was who do you work for? referring to my PhD advisor. Not anything about what I was studying or the quality of my work. Things haven't changed nor will they. I'm only sorry I never knew the right people or went to the right school. SSS
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among the best and most successful scientists in the world... Because maybe that isn't true and things could be better another way. After grad school, I left academia for the private sector. I make more money and get more respect from my colleagues and I have more free time than in any postdoc I've ever heard about. Now I get to have a baby at a biologically appropriate age with paid leave and excellent health coverage. Surely I'm not alone in this. Why would our brightest scientists subject themselves to the other system if they have a choice? Perhaps many of them didn't. Maybe I don't have a bunch of publications, but my research gets immediately incorporated into products and powerful people listen to what I say. That kind of impact is very rewarding. There is another way, people. Amanda Quillen, Ph.D. http://www.AmandaQuillen.com/ On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, Clara B. Jones foucaul...@gmail.com 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 lopezsepul...@gmail.com Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 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 lopezsepul...@gmail.com wrote: In my experience, it all depends on the country and how easy funding agencies, research institutions
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
-- Forwarded message -- From: Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu 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 lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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 Cheers, Kris Callis
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 g...@nmsu.edu 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
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 lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
One problem not addressed here so far is that science is very competitive for jobs, publication, and grants. Let us imagine two young scientists with similar intelligence and education beginning their careers: Case 1. This person has a spouse who assumes most of the responsibility in the domestic sphere (house-keeping, child-rearing, bill-paying, shopping, lawn-mowing, etc.), provides support to the scientist however needed, and has no career choices to conflict with the scientists'. Case 2. This person has a spouse whose career is also demanding, can only do some of the domestic and child-rearing chores, and who may insist on taking a job in another state, requiring the scientist to move or make some other major adjustment. Obviously, the scientist in Case 1 is at a competitive advantage. Of course, there's nothing new about stating this; feminists have been pointing it out for many years. This may be what the person Rachel Guy quoted meant. It's not that the person with the more balanced life does inferior science; indeed, this persons' broader experience and different perspectives may lead to science that is more creative, leading to greater insights into nature and greater increase in knowledge. Fine, but that doesn't mean Case 1's career will go better. Much scientific advancement and career advancement is achieved by plodding along doggedly. This alone can result in more publications, grants, etc. The scientist of Case 2 simply has more time for grinding out scientific product. I don't want to be to cynical, but it seems to me that, all else being equal, the person who focuses his/her life only on science is going to have a more successful career, perhaps at the expense of being a narrow and boring person. These are the choices that anyone in a competitive career must face, and I don't see how institutional and societal accommodations will ever completely eliminate this disparity. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/11 Elizabeth elizabethm...@gmail.com I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
In this era of an extremely high number of spousal hirings, who is considering Case 3. The scientist with no spouse? or even Case 4. The scientist with a non-academic spouse, or Case 5. The scientist with no spouse BUT does have children? Who looks out for the unmarried in our society? On 4/11/2012 6:21 PM, Martin Meiss wrote: One problem not addressed here so far is that science is very competitive for jobs, publication, and grants. Let us imagine two young scientists with similar intelligence and education beginning their careers: Case 1. This person has a spouse who assumes most of the responsibility in the domestic sphere (house-keeping, child-rearing, bill-paying, shopping, lawn-mowing, etc.), provides support to the scientist however needed, and has no career choices to conflict with the scientists'. Case 2. This person has a spouse whose career is also demanding, can only do some of the domestic and child-rearing chores, and who may insist on taking a job in another state, requiring the scientist to move or make some other major adjustment. Obviously, the scientist in Case 1 is at a competitive advantage. Of course, there's nothing new about stating this; feminists have been pointing it out for many years. This may be what the person Rachel Guy quoted meant. It's not that the person with the more balanced life does inferior science; indeed, this persons' broader experience and different perspectives may lead to science that is more creative, leading to greater insights into nature and greater increase in knowledge. Fine, but that doesn't mean Case 1's career will go better. Much scientific advancement and career advancement is achieved by plodding along doggedly. This alone can result in more publications, grants, etc. The scientist of Case 2 simply has more time for grinding out scientific product. I don't want to be to cynical, but it seems to me that, all else being equal, the person who focuses his/her life only on science is going to have a more successful career, perhaps at the expense of being a narrow and boring person. These are the choices that anyone in a competitive career must face, and I don't see how institutional and societal accommodations will ever completely eliminate this disparity. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/11 Elizabethelizabethm...@gmail.com I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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 alo...@biologie.ens.fr 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
I've been thinking of chiming in before and will do so now. As someone who is now a grandmother, I can say yes - you can do it all, but not exactly all at the same time. Kids do not stay babies that long. You can cut back when they are, and when your kids are a bit older, you can plunge back into field work and career. It's also vital to have a spouse who does his 50% of the child rearing. I advise anyone wishing a balanced career and family life to choose your spouse carefully with this in mind! 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
[ECOLOG-L] Scientific accomplishments Causal and Inhibiting Factors? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life
Honorable Forum: Observations about causal and inhibiting factors in scientific accomplishments: The more you generalize about a population, the less you know about any individual in that population. --Henry Geiger There are a lot of variables that figure into such conclusions, and picking the most relevant ones may not match the most obvious ones. What is needed is enough data to demonstrate causation, but even then there's the specter of bias in selecting which phenomena to observe, weighting, scoring etc. Ironic, eh? WT PS: I've recently alluded to a single example of a single (anecdote is the singular of data) scientist couple who seem to have reconciled their family and professional lives pretty well, raising two (so far) healthy and bright children in the process. This leads me to believe that there might be an infinity (for practical purposes) of approaches, none of them particularly easy, but some quite rewarding, especially if one's attitude is more about making the best of what one has to work with and calling it good than having expectations of perfection, both from oneself and the context one finds oneself in. Life is a crapshoot, and some of us get lucky and some of us just get with it, and all of us suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune to greater and lesser degrees. - Original Message - From: Martin Meiss mme...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life One problem not addressed here so far is that science is very competitive for jobs, publication, and grants. Let us imagine two young scientists with similar intelligence and education beginning their careers: Case 1. This person has a spouse who assumes most of the responsibility in the domestic sphere (house-keeping, child-rearing, bill-paying, shopping, lawn-mowing, etc.), provides support to the scientist however needed, and has no career choices to conflict with the scientists'. Case 2. This person has a spouse whose career is also demanding, can only do some of the domestic and child-rearing chores, and who may insist on taking a job in another state, requiring the scientist to move or make some other major adjustment. Obviously, the scientist in Case 1 is at a competitive advantage. Of course, there's nothing new about stating this; feminists have been pointing it out for many years. This may be what the person Rachel Guy quoted meant. It's not that the person with the more balanced life does inferior science; indeed, this persons' broader experience and different perspectives may lead to science that is more creative, leading to greater insights into nature and greater increase in knowledge. Fine, but that doesn't mean Case 1's career will go better. Much scientific advancement and career advancement is achieved by plodding along doggedly. This alone can result in more publications, grants, etc. The scientist of Case 2 simply has more time for grinding out scientific product. I don't want to be to cynical, but it seems to me that, all else being equal, the person who focuses his/her life only on science is going to have a more successful career, perhaps at the expense of being a narrow and boring person. These are the choices that anyone in a competitive career must face, and I don't see how institutional and societal accommodations will ever completely eliminate this disparity. Martin M. Meiss 2012/4/11 Elizabeth elizabethm...@gmail.com I am struggling with this. I finished my MS in Wildlife Biology when my baby was 7 months. She's going on 15 months now and I haven't been able to find any work in my field. I'm limited to a job that has no travel and is in town where my husband has his job and we have our house. This makes for very slim pickings. Elizabeth Ray On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Andres Lopez-Sepulcre lopezsepul...@gmail.com 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
