Monday, April 20th 2015

Gaslighting STEM

Gaslighting Duo Ceci and Williams are at it again. They’ve published another piece saying there is nothing to worry about in STEM in terms of institutional climate that might be limiting women’s careers or progress. Rather than link to their own op-ed or not-exactly-hard-hitting pieces in mainstream media, I’ll point my readers to dissenting perspectives offered by several smart colleagues:

The Myth About Women in Science? Bias in the study of gender inequality in STEM by Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos at Other Sociology

Be careful saying “The Myth About Women in Science” is solved by Dr. Marie-Claire Shanahan at Boundary Vision

“A Surprisingly Welcome Atmosphere” by Dr. Matthew R. Francis at Slate

#StillaProblem II: academic science is (still) sexist, Storify curated by Dr. Karen E. James


Monday, February 23rd 2015

What is your problem?

Recently, I got back a manuscript rejection with very constructive reviews, which, looking back, were more generous than I deserved. The manuscript suffered from some common problems: multiple well-meaning authors with their own ideas of the main point, a desire to include these variable perspectives in a single paper, and an anticipation of issues reviewers may raise. What resulted was a muddled argument, vague nods to all the different theoretical perspectives we thought might be relevant, and no resolution of our expert opinion to guide the reader.

It was, to be kind, a piece of crap.

As I started to go through reviewer comments to create a revision action plan (do you do this? I do so hope you do this), I realized that in my effort to include every piece of insight and every theoretical contribution, and yet not offend anybody, I had forgotten the first rule of writing I teach my students. The very first sentences of your paper or grant proposal should tell the reader what your problem is, and why they should care.

Here are the types of questions I ask my students, before their first draft and usually still after the first revision or two. These frame your introduction but also your paper’s argument. Since I can’t always seem to remember these questions, I’d like to think it’s because this is actually difficult to do well, and, in some cases, difficult to keep in sight when revising.

  • What problem do you face?
  • Why is it a problem (e.g., is there a gap in the literature, is it a new or emerging problem, is it that you are finding a problem others haven’t noticed because you are putting different ideas together)? Explain the gap or other issue, don’t just say there is one.
  • Why should anyone care? This should come from the theoretical context of your work – so in biological anthropology we frequently speak of responses to environment, life history theory, genes x environment, evolutionary theory, or sometimes feminist or other humanist/social science theories. Don’t muddle things with too many different theoretical contributions, because the introduction needs to focus and inspire the reader.
  • Now do a better job answering the above question – why should anyone care in a real, grounded way? Why, in relation to your particular problem and set of interests?
  • NOW you get to tell the reader, how are you going to solve it? What is your hypothesis/main argument?
  • What background information will the reader need next to evaluate your problem and the way you plan to resolve it?
  • How will you test your hypothesis? In a manuscript you also briefly tell the reader at the end of the introduction what you found. In a grant proposal the order of some of these last bullets will change.

Then, the discussion needs to reflect these problems and the theoretical framework. Often I find over the course of a revision I completely rewrite what the problem is, why anyone should care, and which background information the reader needs. But you won’t know the final version until you write a first version. So ideally you get to the discussion and need to do a little more work:

  • Restate the problem your paper seeks to address and the way you did it (whatever models you may have introduced into the methods and results, whatever specific hypothesis you have since described). Is there a way you might say it differently now, as the reader now fully knows how you did it and what you found?
  • What do each of your results contribute to the broader literature? This is your chance, if there were some neat side papers you wanted to talk about in the introduction, to talk about here. And this is where many like to employ a sandbox metaphor: if you imagine your discipline is actually a giant sandbox where everybody is playing together, you can imagine your contributions to mirror how kids play. I like this metaphor because it reminds us that many scholars are our friends and colleagues, and that when we are engaging with their work it always helps to be generous.
    • Are you tearing down a friend’s castle by challenging a scholar’s claims?
    • Are you admiring your friend’s castle by allying yourself with existing work and reaffirming their findings?
    • Are you adding a new tower to your friend’s castle by adding something to a scholar’s existing argument?
    • Are you tearing down one tower from your friend’s castle to add another, thus revising a scholar’s argument?
  • What are the limitations to your conclusions? None of us get to carry out our research exactly as we want due to limited resources. What are the things you want to say here to demonstrate you are conscientious and aware of what you can and cannot say?
  • What do your results, perspectives, and/or limitations help us understand about a way forward? What exciting new directions does your work offer the reader? How can you leave the reader thinking they wish they had performed your research? I have found myself worrying less and less about a bang-up conclusion sentence these days, because I think good conclusions emerge from answering these questions.

When you can answer these questions, even poorly (remember how important it is to write crappy first drafts), you have an outline or even a full draft. Then you often have to go through, once you see how it all looks together, and completely change whatever you thought was the main point, the supporting literature, and the way forward. This may depend on collaborators, or the journal you choose, or a new paper that came out while you were writing.

But you’ll never get there if you don’t start. You’ll never start if you don’t plan and schedule your writing. And you’ll never finish if you don’t commit to writing every day (yes, every day, a la Dr. Kerry Ann Rocquemore’s Faculty Success Program). So get off the internet and do it!

Friday, February 6th 2015

Conference at Illinois this April! The 21st Century Scientist Conference: Inclusion, Innovation, and Incentives

(Cross-posted from 21st Century Scientists Working Group.)


Preliminary schedule:

  • 8am: Registration
  • 8:30am: Opening remarks
  • 9-10:30am: Workshop on the craft of communication.
  • 10:30am-12pm: Workshop on crafting a community.
  • 12-1pm: Panel (lunch included!) on alternative and traditional science careers.
  • 1-2pm: Free time, networking, finishing up earlier workshop projects
  • 2-5pm: Extended afternoon workshop with our featured speaker Miriam Goldstein on working with politicians to advance scientific agendas.

Registration information – as well as early bird and student pricing – to come soon!

Current science stereotypes are harmful to underrepresented people who are or would like to become scientists and science writers, and thus hinders their recruitment, retention, and advancement. These stereotypes persist because scientists who wish to engage as part of their job, and scientists who wish to train to join alternative, non-academic or non-industry careers, are provided with no support system, training, or incentives to do so. While outreach-focused courses do occasionally exist within science departments, they are taught infrequently. Further, recent research on science faculty views on outreach suggests that many view outreach as a threat to their reputations as serious scientists (Johnson et al., 2014). Even in a study of funded NSFs that sought to assess the broader impacts criterion, a percentage of funded grants studied contained no broader impacts, or broader impacts that only involved general scientific training of students (Kamenetsky, 2013).

The University of Illinois 21st Century Scientist Working Group, or 21Sci, plans to change the culture around public engagement in science through a focus on inclusive community, innovation in the conceptualization of the 21st Century Scientist, and positive incentives for engagement. We identify four main goals:

  1. Develop consistent training for scientists who want to improve the skills necessary to become engaged scientists and/or pursue non-academic careers, including professional science writing.
  2. Create community to support like-minded scientists to operate against the negative culture of disengagement, and reconceptualize the role of the scientist in today’s society.
  3. Increase underrepresented minorities and women in science, science writing, and as the target audience for science writing, outreach, and engagement.
  4. Advocate for new incentives within academic science, particularly around promotion and tenure, to make engaging with science writers, outreach efforts, and boundary organizations easier for practicing scientists.

Our working group and journal club meetings have attracted faculty, staff, and students from across the STEM disciplines, agriculture, and journalism, as well as administrators in the Office for the Vice Chancellor of Research, the Office for Public Engagement, and the Extension School. Our goal for this semester is to develop strategies for strengthening our relationship with boundary organizations like the Extension School, as well as leveraging these relationships to begin to effect change at higher levels of university administration.

Our goal is a lofty one – change the culture at a major R1 institution – but our belief is that if we focus our efforts at the University of Illinois and the surrounding region, we can create a model and momentum for similar change elsewhere.



Johnson DR, Ecklund EH and Lincoln AE. Narratives of Science Outreach in Elite Contexts of Academic Science. Science Communication 2014:36;81-105.

Kamenetsky J. Opportunities for impact: Statistical analysis of the National Science Foudnation’s broader impacts criterion. Science and Public Policy 2013:40;72-84.