I thought “networking” was good for my career.
Alas, a Czech researcher has found that beer consumption is negatively related to number of publications and their citation rate (Grim 2008). Grim, an avian ecologist rather than a social scientist, surveyed the beer consumption habits of other avian ecologists working in Czech Republic, a country with very high per capita beer consumption, in 2002 and 2006. Controlling for both age and years since first publication, he found that the more beer the scientists reported drinking, the fewer publications they had. Furthermore, the survey results from 2002 predicted results in 2006 (r2=0.90, F1,9 =6.15, p<0.0001). Thus, he couldn’t test how changes in beer use influenced publication rate (i.e. he couldn’t address the hypothesis that drinking decreases with age with a concomitant increase in publishing). The study also compared a high-consumption region with a lower-consumption region and found a similar relationship; scientists in the high-consumption region published less and had fewer citations. This was not related to age, time since first publication, or funding biases among regions.
The median beer consumption among one study group was 200 liters per year. That’s eight pints per week, every week. That’s way more than I drink. So maybe my beer drinking still falls within the good-for-your-career, networking-over-drinks, helping-relax-among-colleagues-and-superiors-so-as-to-not-feel-intimidated-and-inhibited variety. Let’s hope. Because I am not about to give up beer in the name of science!
Cheers!
Grim, Tomas. 2008. A possible role of social activity to explain differences in publication output among ecologists. Oikos. doi: 10.1111/j.2008.0030-1299.16551.x
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Hackneyed
Lately, a few phrases keep coming up again and again. They are starting to get a little meaningless and more than a little annoying. Some examples:
Related to work
- The paper/presentation/proposal needs to tell a story.
- It depends on the question.
and the perennial favorite,
- When will you be finished?
- You'll understand when you have kids.
- It's different when you're married.
and the seasonal favorite,
- There's a 90% chance of "wintry mix" tomorrow.
What are your (least) favorite science and life cliches?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Bullets
This blog has been a tad serious lately so I wanted to lighten up a little. I couldn't think of anything both chipper and coherent, so here are my disjointed thoughts for the day:
- I forgot to put on deodorant this morning. After a few hours at work, I remembered I had some in my desk and slapped it on. Unfortunately, it was like, rancid or something. At a minimum there was no fragrance left. It smelled terrible and made me feel queasy all day.
- Advisor has lots of time for lengthy impromptu conversations, but has trouble scheduling an hour to discuss my paper draft. I highly value these unarranged chats, as I learn a heck of a lot and really enjoy them. It's just a little frustrating when I want to talk about something specific. And it's all about me, right?
- Someone asked me this question as sort of a quasi- pseudo- personality test, "would you rather give up eating or sleep, knowing that you wouldn't be physically harmed by the loss?" Really, I'd like to give up pooping, but since that isn't an option, I choose eating. I *heart* sleep. However, I hate putting myself to bed, even when I'm tired. I think there are few things as decadent as falling asleep on the couch, which I've been doing pretty often lately. This question is supposed to give some insight about your personality, but I don't know what that might be.
- Do you ever listen to the radio show This American Life? I play the podcasts while I do this super tedious task at work. It makes the time fly by. The one from last week about "tough crowds" was really good and funny.
- The spellcheck in Blogger is working again!
- Lost was awesome tonight!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Another thought on anonymity
A good thing about anonymous blogs is that they reduce anxiety that stems from rank/success inequalities among bloggers, particularly those in science. Since I don't know the identities of most bloggers, I can't be intimidated by their real-life greatness. Even when people clearly state on their blogs what level of career achievement they have attained (e.g. my profile says I am a student), it doesn't sink in the way it does when I know who they are. For example I recently stumbled upon a non-anonymous blog by a prominent scientist broadly in my field. I don't think I would leave the same sort of comments there that I leave at other blogs, even ones I know to be written by senior level people.
This observation is a small example of how the Internet can eliminate barriers. Things that might stop people from interacting in real life are irrelevant here. It doesn’t matter if in real life you have a heavy accent or smell bad or can’t make eye contact or have an appearance that is often the subject of bias. If you write an interesting blog (and I know about it), I’ll read it. Not that I would purposely avoid you in real life if you have the above traits. I’m just saying that we get boiled down to the message we transmit on our blogs, without the confounding effects of race, appearance, number of publications, funding, etc.
I know these are not novel ideas, but I still find them interesting.
This observation is a small example of how the Internet can eliminate barriers. Things that might stop people from interacting in real life are irrelevant here. It doesn’t matter if in real life you have a heavy accent or smell bad or can’t make eye contact or have an appearance that is often the subject of bias. If you write an interesting blog (and I know about it), I’ll read it. Not that I would purposely avoid you in real life if you have the above traits. I’m just saying that we get boiled down to the message we transmit on our blogs, without the confounding effects of race, appearance, number of publications, funding, etc.
I know these are not novel ideas, but I still find them interesting.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Guaging writing productivity
As I have said before, I am a member of two labs. Neither of them are very prolific, but for somewhat different reasons. The one I consider my primary lab is super slow getting papers out mainly because nothing is ever considered final. There are always a few more samples to analyze, more statistical tests to run, or other ways to look at the data. Add to that the slow internal review process in our group, and papers just never seem to get submitted* (my frustrations with this will probably expand into future posts).
This lab culture makes me feel like it is a Herculean task to write and submit a paper. I think writing one’s first paper is often a battle. But it seems to be a particularly huge deal in our lab and that makes it ever more intimidating to complete a draft and give it to my advisors.
I worked exclusively on this paper for the first few weeks of the year, which included reworking stats and figures. Since then, I have interspersed lab work with writing, either working part of the day in the lab and part at my desk or alternating whole days. I find that I feel much more productive when I’m in the lab, which adds to the psychological difficulty of writing. I know exactly how long it takes to do different bench tasks, so I can plan the time I need to complete them. If I finish what I set out to do, I feel productive and good. Unfortunately, I have no idea how long it should take me to write sections of a paper, so it’s hard for me to tell if I have worked efficiently at writing. It’s a little frustrating.
I think this will change as I gain experience. I welcome suggestions or advice from your vast experience, readers.
*The papers are undoubtedly better for it. When they do get published, they are awesome and highly cited.
This lab culture makes me feel like it is a Herculean task to write and submit a paper. I think writing one’s first paper is often a battle. But it seems to be a particularly huge deal in our lab and that makes it ever more intimidating to complete a draft and give it to my advisors.
I worked exclusively on this paper for the first few weeks of the year, which included reworking stats and figures. Since then, I have interspersed lab work with writing, either working part of the day in the lab and part at my desk or alternating whole days. I find that I feel much more productive when I’m in the lab, which adds to the psychological difficulty of writing. I know exactly how long it takes to do different bench tasks, so I can plan the time I need to complete them. If I finish what I set out to do, I feel productive and good. Unfortunately, I have no idea how long it should take me to write sections of a paper, so it’s hard for me to tell if I have worked efficiently at writing. It’s a little frustrating.
I think this will change as I gain experience. I welcome suggestions or advice from your vast experience, readers.
*The papers are undoubtedly better for it. When they do get published, they are awesome and highly cited.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Anything but a professor
Today I told Research Advisor that I don't want to be a professor. I have decided that I want nothing to do with academia long term.
I started grad school after working as a technician for a couple of years after college. Seeing that having only a bachelor's degree will get you little more than a dead-end job in research, I thought, "what do I need to do to keep doing this?" Then I enrolled in a Ph.D. program.
I have never been interested in teaching. When I started grad school, my ideal was to get a job with as much research and as little teaching as possible. But the more I learn about academia and the more I learn about myself, I realize that academia is not for me. The positions with the highest proportion of research are generally the most prestigious and competitive. Given my 40-hours-a-week-is-enough attitude, I don't think I'd be the best match for those jobs.
More than that, though, I've realized that I dislike the culture of a university -- the heirarchy, the competition, the inconsistent priorities. Facutly are pulled in a dozen directions at once, with so many people relying on them for urgent issues. I don't want to teach, but I also don't want to write upteen recommendation letters or read students' crappy first drafts, or explain the same concepts over and over. Yes, I appreciate that someone is doing that for me. But it doesn't mean that I want to do it. Frankly, I don't even want to mentor grad students.
There are several government agencies that have research facilities where I could work. Of course, those research-only positions are not easy to get. Soft money isn't so attractive, either.
I'm beginning to realize that I'd rather do something else with my science skills than do research as a professor. Management and consulting are appealing. I'm glad to be thinking about this now so I can keep my eyes open for alternative jobs because they are difficult to envision. When academia is almost the only path offered to Ph.Ds, it takes some thinking outside the box to find something else. However, I very much want to do a post doc because I want to learn something new and experience a different lab. I think a braoder skill-set would be beneficial for any kind of science job.
A few minutes after we finsihed our conversation, I asked Research Advisor if she thought less of me for saying I don't aspire to be a professor. She does not and pointed out that many people start PhDs with no intention of doing research. She said if it's okay for them to want to teach from the outset, it's fine for me to want to not teach. She's great.
I started grad school after working as a technician for a couple of years after college. Seeing that having only a bachelor's degree will get you little more than a dead-end job in research, I thought, "what do I need to do to keep doing this?" Then I enrolled in a Ph.D. program.
I have never been interested in teaching. When I started grad school, my ideal was to get a job with as much research and as little teaching as possible. But the more I learn about academia and the more I learn about myself, I realize that academia is not for me. The positions with the highest proportion of research are generally the most prestigious and competitive. Given my 40-hours-a-week-is-enough attitude, I don't think I'd be the best match for those jobs.
More than that, though, I've realized that I dislike the culture of a university -- the heirarchy, the competition, the inconsistent priorities. Facutly are pulled in a dozen directions at once, with so many people relying on them for urgent issues. I don't want to teach, but I also don't want to write upteen recommendation letters or read students' crappy first drafts, or explain the same concepts over and over. Yes, I appreciate that someone is doing that for me. But it doesn't mean that I want to do it. Frankly, I don't even want to mentor grad students.
There are several government agencies that have research facilities where I could work. Of course, those research-only positions are not easy to get. Soft money isn't so attractive, either.
I'm beginning to realize that I'd rather do something else with my science skills than do research as a professor. Management and consulting are appealing. I'm glad to be thinking about this now so I can keep my eyes open for alternative jobs because they are difficult to envision. When academia is almost the only path offered to Ph.Ds, it takes some thinking outside the box to find something else. However, I very much want to do a post doc because I want to learn something new and experience a different lab. I think a braoder skill-set would be beneficial for any kind of science job.
A few minutes after we finsihed our conversation, I asked Research Advisor if she thought less of me for saying I don't aspire to be a professor. She does not and pointed out that many people start PhDs with no intention of doing research. She said if it's okay for them to want to teach from the outset, it's fine for me to want to not teach. She's great.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Big fish in a little pond
I love this expression. Just when you’re at the highest rank, really performing at your peak (at least compared to everybody else), you move on and realize that you’re not a special snowflake anymore. It so aptly describes the transition from high school to college, college to grad school, etc., for so many over achievers. Probably there are a few rock stars out there who never perceived such a phenomenon, but I bet most of us have.
Recently I was talking with a friend who says he feels his research is much more focused and old-school than most students' in the department. He sometimes feels insecure because he doesn't totally understand nor is he especially interested in the work that many of his colleagues are doing, work that might be considered more cutting-edge. It is a unique department though, one of the best. I bet when he leaves, my friend will go from being a little fish in a big pond to a big fish in a little pond. I bet that will feel good.
Recently I was talking with a friend who says he feels his research is much more focused and old-school than most students' in the department. He sometimes feels insecure because he doesn't totally understand nor is he especially interested in the work that many of his colleagues are doing, work that might be considered more cutting-edge. It is a unique department though, one of the best. I bet when he leaves, my friend will go from being a little fish in a big pond to a big fish in a little pond. I bet that will feel good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)