Penny-Wise

May 02 2012 Published by under [Etc]

I keep seeing these articles in which members of government (henceforth MOG) suggest that faculty in higher education are underworked and overpaid. They keep suggesting ways we can be leaner and more efficient, invariably turning to technology and the internet.

Click for source

Here's a a thought: Let's harness technology to make our government more efficient. All MOGs do all day is talk; to each other, to their constituents, to lobbyists, and to advocates. Surely they can do that via email or Skype. Constituents and advocates try to persuade MOGs by educating them about their issues; education no longer requires face-to-face interaction, right? And lobbyists? Just add a Paypal button and the bucks can still flow in.

Think of how much we could save on buildings and government employees. Seems like those "smaller government" MOGs should jump at the chance to cut their staffs and costs. They would no longer have to pay for those DC residences and clubs since they could stay in their home districts.

What's that,  you say? You need that personal connection? There is value in meeting face-to-face? Government requires that human interaction?

 

Share

One response so far

A Brief Interlude

Apr 30 2012 Published by under Women in Medicine, Women in Science

First, a hearty thanks to all who read my posts from Experimental Biology. Blogging a meeting was a challenging yet fun experience. It enhanced my experience, and I hope it gave those "reading at home" some new information.

I flew home on Wednesday and went out again on Thursday for a committee meeting in Washington, DC, arriving back in Oklahoma on Friday about midnight. I am now covering the inpatient service until Thursday...when I leave town again.

I have another post or two from EB waiting for me to organize my material.

In the meantime, I finally solved a problem over on my site Academic Women for Equality Now. I wanted to share a 10+ MB PDF that contains women leadership scores for every college of medicine (COM) in the US. That file exceeds the upload/download capabilities of my web host. Today's post over there provides links to access the file in Google Docs. I hope you will all click on over and download the file. If you work at a COM in the book, please share it's status with your leadership. I hear a lot of COM deans et al state that their place is doing fine. They have female faculty and some in leadership positions. Until they see where each COM stands in relationship to the others in the country, they can't really know how they are doing.

Stay tuned; I will be back with more science and other stuff later in the week.

Share

No responses yet

Waltzing Matilda Needs to Run!

Apr 03 2012 Published by under Women in Science

I posted over at another of my sites about an interesting paper I read on the Matilda Effect in STEM awards.

Not this Matilda

Who is Matilda? She's related to Matthew of biblical fame. Lines from this gospel essentially state that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In STEM disciplines, this means that more successful senior people get more grants, awards, and accolades, even if younger, less-known investigators propose similar ideas. Matilda refers to the tendency of people to recognize the work of men (like Watson and Crick) but marginalize the contributions of women (like Rosalind Franklin).

So click on over and read about this study of awards to men and women in a variety of STEM fields from 1991-2010. People still blame the lack of women in the pipeline, but this work suggests that hypothesis is wrong!

 

Share

No responses yet

Speaking of Mentors: You Also Need Sponsors

I did make an LOL cat for today's retread

The past 24 hours featured a great deal of stress and little sleep. The book review on tap for today is not going to happen.

Since we were on the topic of mentors, and the potential for over-mentoring, a previous post from one of my other sites came to mind. Enjoy!

And hope I get some sleep tonight.

This post originally appeared August 25, 2010, on PascaleLane's Stream of Thought:

The September [2010] issue of Harvard Business Review includes a fascinating article by Ibarra, Carter, and Silva examining the reasons women still do not achieve as much as men. “Why Men Still Get More Promotions Than Women” identifies differences in the types of “grooming” that the genders receive, and the gaps that keep women from breaking through all of those glass ceilings.

One of the quotes in the first paragraph really hit home with me:

Now I am being mentored to death.

My former chair identified me as someone with leadership potential over a decade ago. He connected me with a variety of development opportunities; ultimately, I felt “developed.” Now I lead one of the faculty leadership courses for my institution. We encourage participants to learn about themselves and to identify mentors both within and outside of our academic home. We are beginning to examine achievement several years later, and a question persists: Why do men seem to do so much better than women, even after the same opportunities?

According to  a 2008 Catalyst survey, 83% of women and 76% of men reported having at least one mentor during their career, yet only 65% of the women (compared with 72% of men) were promoted by the 2010 follow-up date. If mentoring is the key to success, why aren’t these women succeeding?

Turns out, the mentors differ. Men were more likely to be mentored by a senior executive (78% vs 69%), one with the organizational power to advocate their advisee as someone ready and worthy of taking the next step. The authors’ go on to differentiate between mentors and sponsors. Mentors provide emotional support, feedback , and other advice. They serve as role models, and assist their charges with institutional politics. Their focus is generally on personal and professional development with increased sense of competence and self-worth. Mentoring provides satisfaction; sponsorship is a necessity, though.

Sponsors must be senior leaders in good standing who can provide connections within the institution to facilitate promotion. A sponsor will assist their advisee in attaining opportunities and assignments, as well as protecting them from negative situations. Most important, a sponsor will fight for promotion of their people.

The senior management with the power and connections to make good sponsors are, unfortunately, overwhelmingly male. Such high-achievers often lack the sensibilities of a mentor, and throwing in the potential pitfalls in relationships (or perceptions thereof) between senior males and junior women, well, you can see why this relationship can be difficult.

So how can women get sponsors? Institutions interested in promoting high-potential women must establish sponsorship for them. The involved parties must be clear on the relationship; promotion is the goal! Such efforts cannot circumvent the woman’s current boss and job responsibilities, nor should mentorship be completely ignored. The leaders may also need to consider their own views on gender issues; women still have trouble navigating “the fine line between being ‘not aggressive enough’ or ‘lacking in presence’ and being ‘too aggressive’ or ‘too controlling’.”

What happens if a high-potential woman does not get appropriate sponsorship within her institution? In this study, at least, she leaves:

At Deutsche Bank, for example, internal research revealed that female managing directors who left the firm to work for competitors were not doing so to improve their work/life balance. Rather, they’d been offered bigger jobs externally, ones they weren’t considered for internally.

One of the development opportunities provided for me, the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program for women, included a bunch of structured interviews. Participants had to meet the dean and all sorts of C-suite officials for their institution. At the time, I found this activity useful because once I have met a person I feel pretty comfortable contacting them again. In light of this article, the activity provided another benefit- it put me on the radar of the people at my place of employment as someone with the potential to move up in the organization. I did not achieve true “sponsorship,” but if I were to do this again, that would be on the list.

Share

One response so far

You Know You Want It...

Mar 01 2012 Published by under Women in Medicine, Women in Science

I have finally recovered officially from my stomach bug, tested at a local Mexican eating establishment last night with salsa and margaritas.  I have done actual science in the last 24 hours, and I have caught up on some other stuff.

The big news today is over at Academic Women for Equality Now, my Vision2020 project. I finally have the Female Faculty Friendliness Grade Cards for every US College of Medicine compiled into a single document, along with a bunch of the supporting data and analyses. This material originally appeared as a series of posts over 4 months. Now, you can more easily compare medical colleges by region, by type of position, you name it.

Unfortunately, the size of the document exceeds that of the upload capacity of my site (for now). I have a work-around, as you will see on the site.

Go ahead, click on over and get the PDF...you know you want it...

I am still looking for collaborators on the site: guest posts, people with other data sets to analyze, etc. If it deals even remotely with gender in the Ivory Tower, I will welcome your participation. Drop me a line!

Share

No responses yet

Am I Science? Yes, #IamScience

Compared to the other stories posting via this meme, I feel almost traditional.

I do not remember a time when science was not part of my life. I recall fondly reading and re-reading All About Dinosaurs. I had a tiny kit containing most of the minerals in Moh's scale. Mom refused to complete my set with her jewelry, so I had to imagine the upper levels of hardness. Biology clearly won my heart, though. How things could be alive fascinated me to no end.

Unlike many scientists, I was not the outdoorsy type. I read fashion magazines, did a bit of modeling, and entered some teen-queen pageants. I often joke that a hotel without 24-hour room service is my idea of camping. I love air conditioning and indoor plumbing; I fail to see how doing without these conveniences constitutes "fun." This quirk effectively ruled-out a career in paleontology or biological field work. I do love people. Having a father in academia, and coming of age during the 1970's PhD glut, teachers suggested aiming for an MD which guaranteed employment.

Click for source

Admission to medical school was fiercely competitive in that era, and I aimed my sights on a relatively new program at the University of Missouri - Kansas City. The medical curriculum began on day 1 out of high school and went 11 months each year for 6 years. Getting in meant avoiding the cut-throat competition among pre-med students on many campus. Its goal when pitched to the legislature was producing primary care physicians for under-served areas of Missouri, not academic physician-scientists. My second year there, I got a work-study job as a lab assistant for a fresh-out-of-post-doc carcinogenesis researcher needing cheap labor. This year provided my first experience with real science as I worked with the doctoral student and another lab to set up our efforts. Everyone, including this 19-year-old part-timer, needed to generate data. I learned to do short-term lymphocyte cultures, murine surgery, and a number of assays. The principal investigators of these labs strongly suggested that I figure out a way to pick up a PhD to go with my MD, since I loved the science so much.

The next few years brought more intensive courses and clinical work with overnight call, making meaningful lab time improbable if not impossible. I love science, but another kind of love intervened, along with a big princess wedding. By the time I graduated with my BA and MD, the idea of getting another advanced degree sounded exhausting and unnecessary. I headed off to pediatric residency with the intention of becoming a hematologist-oncologist, building on my background in carcinogenesis. Of course, I met a whole bunch of nephrologists and their patients who convinced me to take my talents elsewhere. After all, urine is golden!

My first 6 months of fellowship were a gray blur. Post-partum depression plus a prolonged period of call without a break left me feeling bleak. January in Minnesota is not exactly rosy, but I entered a lab and felt alive again. More than 100 patients with diabetes of various stages had kidney biopsy material stored for study. I began to ask questions about diabetic kidney disease, learning to do electron microscopy along the way. I published papers, completed my training, and landed a faculty position. National funding followed, along with a better position in Omaha, a great place to live and raise our offspring.

Eventually, my science hit the wall. One project just would not work, no matter what we tried. Another project got shot down by reviewer 3 at the same time the NIH budget tanked. I realized that I could not write a better grant than what I had submitted. The probability of getting the funding expected at my professional level was incredibly close to zero. Even efforts with smaller agencies to get funding for pilot data failed, as these foundations cut back support to established investigators during the recession.

The kids left the nest, and my hubby had an amazing job offer in a warmer town. We moved on last year, and I am turning my problem solving skills back to the clinic and to research in faculty development. I still have a grad student back in Nebraska (who is proving reviewer 3 wrong; take that!), and I love the chance to talk science on a regular basis. I do not miss the grant pressure or knowing that several other people will be out of a job if I fail.

Am I still science? When I see a patient, I gather data through a history and physical exam. I create a hypothesis as to what I believe is wrong, and I test that diagnosis through laboratory studies or treatment. If I am wrong, I go back, readjust my hypothetical diagnosis, and test again. Sounds like the scientific method to me.

I may not have a full-time lab. I may not be a funded PI. I still believe that I am science - with incredible fashion sense, of course.

Share

3 responses so far

Getting the Right Answers

Jan 06 2012 Published by under [Education&Careers]

I am still working like a fiend to get something done for a deadline later this month. It must be ready before I go back on the inpatient service next week and attend Science Online 2012 the following week. I do not mind last-minute tweaking, but I do not want to write the whole damn thing the day before.

This situation considerably limits my blogging time.

This morning, I browsed my LinkedIn headlines. If you haven't been over to "Facebook for Professionals" recently, you may not know about this feature. Based on your interests and groups, you receive 3 links to stories each day (sometimes more if you click over there throughout the day). One today, from Harvard Business Review Blogs, discussed The Art of Asking Questions.

As Ron Ashkenas points out, people rarely consider how well they ask questions:

 From my experience, most managers don't think about this issue. After all, you don't usually find "the ability to ask questions" on any list of managerial competencies; nor is it an explicit part of the curriculum of business schools or executive education programs. But asking questions effectively is a major underlying part of a manager's job — which suggests that it might be worth giving this skill a little more focus.

His post provides some interesting views of this skill in the business arena, but he misses the most important point of all: Asking the right question! In science, we often ask questions, test a hypothesis, and get results that make no sense. The ability to take those crazy data and ask the next critical question is a key skill in science, often the difference between success and mediocrity.

In medicine, asking the right question becomes a matter of life and death (or prolonged sickness vs. speedy recovery). Asking the patient for the key piece of history or ordering the correct test are clearly crucial. If you don't measure the blood pressure, you will never diagnose hypertension!

When I assess students, I always comment on the questions they ask. Their questions show me how much basic physiology they have retained and how well they can use the information. Students who ask no questions in clinic are uninterested at best. Those who ask great questions are the stars.

Share

No responses yet

Check Her Out

Dec 19 2011 Published by under Women in Medicine, Women in Science

I have blogged about Academic Women for Equality Now, my project for Vision 2020. As part of this project, I will be interviewing women of note in academia or who have things to say that affect us in some way. I am proud to start this series with Page Morahan, PhD, a successful microbiologist and former department chair who gave all that up to be founding director for the ELAM program for women leaders in medicine, dentistry, and public health. Click on over and enjoy her perspectives on what she has accomplished and what she plans to do (hint: she's not done improving the world for women).

In the meantime, if you know someone AWEnow should interview, make a suggestion in the comments or drop me an email to mail (at) awenow dot org.

Share

No responses yet

Extra Credit

Dec 16 2011 Published by under [Education&Careers], [Information&Communication]

My favorite comic of all time

Last year at Science Online 2011, as we discussed the role of blogging in scientific outreach, the topic of academic "credit" for blogging arose. Mostly junior participants lamented that blogging would never be taken seriously until full professors had it on their CVs.

I went back and added a section of online activities to my own CV. As one of those full professors, I felt it was the least I could do.

Earlier this week Kate Clancy wrote about her upcoming 3-year review, including the difficulty the committee will have discussing her blog:

It doesn’t help that “blog” doesn’t sound very academic (oh, if only I had thought to call this the Context and Variation Monograph). And it doesn’t help that this writing isn’t just for scholars, but for everybody. That’s not because non-blogging academics don’t see the point of interacting with the public, but because this particular way of doing it is so strange to them. This isn’t a radio interview, or a book, or a talk at the local library, but a style of writing where the jargon is not academic but from the internet. We talk in ALL CAPS, we use emoticons and use extra exclamation points!!1!!1

WhizBANG! Letters...hmmmm...

She goes on to outline the virtues of blogging for a junior faculty member, including building networks, public outreach, improved writing skills, and even (gasp!) scholarship. I suspect a number of us bloggers do not really get our thoughts organized until we write them down (that's why there is a huge whiteboard in my office), and playing with a new idea in cyberspace can generate valuable feedback from a great audience. Blogging about academic works increases the audience substantially; I hope that mainstream journals can eventually embrace this robust discussion as part of the post-publication review of work.

So back to January. As a full prof, my CV did not really get examined by anyone last spring. This week I found out that I have to undergo tenure review for my new employer, and my CV must be completely rearranged. I prepared a draft, including my posts for Scientific American and Biocareers as non-refereed publications, complete with hyperlinks. I also listed my project, Academic Women for Equality Now, as an "Other" activity. [Yes, this blog got left off, mostly because it includes any shiny thing that catches my eye, especially shoes. I cannot classify my thoughts on fashion, including bottle sweaters, as any sort of academic activity.]

Our departmental reviewer got back to me with a bunch of red pixels, none of which landed on these posts. She told me to put AWEnow into my national service section. No comments about these being inappropriate activities for academic credit.

I still have work to do on my packet before it goes to full review. There is still a chance that someone will snub my online work, but so far, so good.

Anyone else out there counting their online efforts as academic work?

Share

4 responses so far

A Time for Every Purpose

Dec 14 2011 Published by under [Education&Careers]

Last week I got the bad news that I had to prepare a tenure package for my new job. While not as difficult as packing or selling a house, revising your CV is not an incentive to move. My new employer wants stuff organized differently than the prior university. I just spent 3 hours figuring out what goes where.

I'm not certain I have it right.

Yes, I could have handed this off to my assistant, but I suspect it would have taken even longer. If I have trouble knowing whether something is a "presentation" or a "continuing education contribution", I do not know that she would be able to parse these subtleties either.

I had some patient cancellations today, so I had the block of time to get it done. Now I just have to figure out which full professors in my department have tenure and can write letters. Maybe I have even met some of them!

It almost makes me wish the NIH Biosketch were a complete CV. Then we would have a national standard that everyone would follow. Reviewers would hate it, but I would have the last few hours of my life back.

Next up: I have to write my career narrative. All things considered, I'd rather be blogging!

Share

3 responses so far

Older posts »

Bad Behavior has blocked 363 access attempts in the last 7 days.