Monday, May 21, 2012

Women in Science - The Importance of a Mentor


A while back, the subject of women in science came up, and I suggested that it was easier to sustain the attention of boys than girls in science. I know it is not in any way the PC thing to say, but based on my experience this seems to be the case.

Now when I say this I'm not talking about interest in science, which anyone can have (and if I have anything to say about it EVERYONE should have), I'm talking specifically about what it takes to be a scientist, meaning the focus and energy necessary to obtain PhDs and regularly generate new research and publish on a regular basis and hold professorships. When it comes down to it, you DO see far fewer women than men doing these things. And I think there are several mechanisms at work here. One of the factors I see that has lent itself to this disparity, that I have spent years trying to work on, is the ability to mercilessly tear both others' and your own work to shreds. And the other, the one that makes me the saddest if it's true, the reason that there are fewer women TO be merciless, is the relative importance of finding a mentor that can set an example to guide them.

The Mentor
You could say several things in response to this issue. 1 - there are so few women in science anyways that it would be hard to find a female mentor that they can relate to if that's what they need; 2 - don't men need mentors too?; 3 - you should just shut up your prejudiced ass, there's no problem, and you're wrong. In response to the first, I have actually worked in a lab with a female principle investigator (PI) and I can say that just finding another female is not enough. There were three PhD students in this lab, two men and one woman, and two undergraduate research assistants, one male and one female (me). I worked closely with one of the male PhD students, the female PhD student, and the male RA, and by the end of the 2nd semester, both the female PhD student and I had left because of lack of guidance from the PI. The male PhD student and RA stayed on.

Of course, this is not to say that the mentor has to be female. I had a wonderful working relationship with my graduate advisor. The other master's student (male) and I both found our needs perfectly served by our brilliant and laid-back PI, as we were both highly self-motivated and had lots and lots of ideas. Our advisor helped to groom and streamline our ideas, and we both left the program with our degrees and the motivation to continue in the field. However, our experiences might not have been equivalent to many others. Among the students, we'd had a long string of males that have graduated with PhDs, either from our lab or sent off to get PhDs from different schools after completing undergrad and master's programs there. The women...not so successful. I believe we'd had a string of female master's students that had successfully graduated, but one female PhD student was infamously asked to leave the program after a couple years, and the most recent (female) PhD student did not seem entirely happy with the lab or her advisor.

To answer the second question, in my observations, men don't seem as affected by mentors as women. I've seen plenty of male students who dislike/don't get along with/don't connect with their advisors graduate. Of course, there are some more dramatic examples of male interactions with their advisors (here and here), and rather than discard them as outliers, I think I'd suggest that males might stick around in programs in spite of their mentors up to a certain threshold, after which extreme behavior might occur.

To address the final question/indignant statement, I've found a few sources that suggest that females drop out of PhD programs at a higher rate than men (here and here). And all you need to do is look around to see the systemic issue plaguing the scientific community and country at large and yell my favorite accidental slogan in recent memory: WHERE ARE THE WOMEN? (and believe me, this will be discussed in detail at a later date.)

The Quality of Mercy
In most talks and lectures I went to as a master's student, it was the males that were shooting off questions, poking holes in the ideas of the presenters, and generally being the most vocal. This would likely not surprise many of you. The thing is, I often saw a few women of comparable educational background and research experience in the room nodding their heads in agreement when their male colleagues asked questions or made comments. If they were thinking it too, what stopped them from asking it? SPEAK UP LADY, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.

I took a class in Cognitive Modeling/Artificial Neural Networks in grad school that completely changed my life. The subject matter was fantastic, and the discussion-based format was wonderful, but the thing that really blew me away was my classmates. At least 50% of my classmates were female, and they were by far the most vocal (with the exception of this dude named Pavel, who was brilliant if a little bit anarchic and loved playing devil's advocate. I thought he was hilarious. The rest of the class didn't). They asked questions, they poked holes, and what's more important, they had no problem either disagreeing with the entire class (including the teacher) or showing that they might not be getting it. About halfway through the semester, you could practically see the shock on the professor's face at the fact that this group of female neuroscience students was basically running his class. And he loved it (we all ended up with A's).

So what's going on here? I haven't yet figured it out completely, but I've noticed something - it all goes back to the mentor. The female students I respected the most in my school had...well, for lack of a better word, assholes as advisors. These principle investigators were fiercely intelligent, intimidating, and would shut you down if you were wrong, no matter who or where you were. So as a result, their students developed thicker skin, and did away with their  own social appropriateness (or "good girl") filters. There is no doubt in my mind that these women will become the next generation of prolific publishers and researchers. Even I, after participating in seminars and discussions with them, (and generally being peer-mentored by them, if only by example and interaction) found my skin getting thicker and my filter fading away. Nowadays, I will come out and say it whenever I think anyone is wrong no matter who they are, and if they think I'm wrong, that's totally fine. When it comes down to it, I don't find many women being able to stick their necks out to the extent that these women did, and that's what you really need to be a scientist.

2 comments:

  1. I totally agree with you about the fierceness of the women who have slightly-abrasive mentors. The students who thrive in that environment, end up being totally willing to be out there and vocal and visible. But there are also students who really don't do well with that kind of mentorship, and I'm not sure what makes the difference.

    One piece is having a previously-existing group of mouthy, stubborn, smart women within the lab, even just as other students and trainees. It's somehow less risky to practice being vocal and wrong ('cause that's what we're afraid of, right?) in that setting. There's definitely weird-gender-dynamics stuff that happens when one is trying to be vocal and is the only girl in a group of guys.

    The other thing that I think is that, although those trainees may have had the "known asshole" advisors, those advisors also care strongly about their students, their students' success, and are generally very willing to give advice and guidance, and make sure that the students know their work is strong. There's a fine line between "Everything you're doing is terrible," which drives people out of science, and "This is kick-ass and important, but how do you account for [some other data]?" The latter is motivating like whoa. The advisors who I think are true assholes are not doing enough of the latter, and their students don't do the best work.

    Finally, and perhaps out-of-order-ly, the "mercilessly tearing work to shreds" bit is an important piece, but if that's all you do, then you're not a good collaborator, or a good mentor, or a good student. Good scientists manage to simultaneously hold a mental state of "Oh, wow, this is awesome!" and "Oh, gawd, this is full of holes!" Without the belief that (at least some) work done by other people is awesome, you can't collaborate on projects, you end up being a jerk to your colleagues, and you (in my observation) often kind of burn out on working in science. The awesome is what drives me to keep going.

    p.s. What about people who don't thrive in that kind of abrasive environment? Is the answer "Suck it up, science is abrasive and competitive and if you can't cope, better to leave now?" Serious question, I do kinda believe that, and yet... I don't like it. But I think it's a systemic badness within the system. I guess my real question is, can we teach people to be willing and able to engage in this kind of merciless work-shredding without being assholes?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Abby, you should comment on my posts ALL OF THE TIMES! I actually mentioned a bit about the mouthy-women environment generating more mouthy women, and ended up deleting it because I forgot the rest of my point. Hooray for an organized brain.

    It's true, care for their students will often supersede any other personality trait for a mentor. I've encountered individuals that are clearly in science for themselves and as a result they can never hold on to their students, regardless of the gender of either. However, I've also encountered the caring individuals that handle their students with such a light touch and give them so much freedom that many of them leave as well. I think the critical point that you bring up is the fact that balance is essential. Asshole, but cares about students; merciless, but loves science and can appreciate something good when presented with it. Kind of like a gruff janitor with a heart of gold. Or something.

    I've been wondering a lot lately about the state of science in far eastern countries that value community and harmony moreso than individuals and debate. I can't remember where I heard this, but I think I read somewhere that the idea of peer-review is completely different in countries like South Korea and China. I wonder if there's the same lean towards assholes and work-shredding there.

    I had an idea a long time ago to write about how we generate and take criticism. I abandoned it when I came to the conclusion that the answer was generally, "NOT WELL" (although, I guess I could still write about that too). There's a general fear that's held by a large part of our society of not only being an asshole (and then there's the question of everyone's threshold for what they consider to be asshole behavior), but being told you're an asshole, and I worry that that might be yet another mechanism that drives people away from science.

    ReplyDelete