Wednesday, November 18th 2015

Want to be my postdoc? Call for applications!

REVISED DEADLINE FEBRUARY 1ST 2016!

The Laboratory for Evolutionary Endocrinology at the University of Illinois invites applications for one position as a Postdoctoral Fellow in biological anthropology. Areas of expertise that are of interest include epigenetics, reproductive ecology, biocultural anthropology, and feminist biology. Current projects are funded by the National Science Foundation and other sources, focused on luteal reproductive function as the foundation for understanding time to conception and fetal loss; intersections of gender oppression, psychosocial stress, and ovarian function; and intersectional oppressions in the lived experience of academic scientists. These projects emphasize extensive collaboration between anthropologists and both life and social scientists. The initial appointment will be full-time, for a 12-month period. Renewal of the contract will be contingent upon the availability of adequate funding and performance.

Requirements: A strong research background in quantitative and qualitative methods in biological anthropology is required, with additional training in feminist theory and critical race theory preferred. Candidates who have considerable strengths in one research area but a demonstrated desire to work across disciplinary boundaries will also be considered. The position requires a PhD in biology, anthropology, or a related field, as well as excellent independence, drive, communication, and writing skills.

Application Procedure: Applicants should send a cover letter, curriculum vitae and name/addresses of at least two references electronically as a single pdf file to kclancy@illinois.edu. The cover letter can be addressed to:

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, PhD
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
109 Davenport Hall
607 S. Mathews Ave.
Urbana, IL 61801

I would prefer to receive applications for this position no later than February 1st, 2016.

1 Comment →

Monday, October 26th 2015

Things that happen in the years before you go up for tenure

  1. You learn how to make goals for your year and your semester.
  2. You learn to turn those goals into actionable steps.
  3. You create weekly plans in order to move through these steps in a timely manner.
  4. You keep your office door shut a lot more.
  5. You go out for coffee or lunch less often because “you’ve already allocated that time to write the discussion section of your revise & resubmit.”
  6. You rebudget your time to prioritize you – er, your research and publications – in alignment with your third year review. This is undoubtedly why you are making positive progress in your quest for tenure and was good advice.
  7. You focus your creative energies on writing papers for your peers, most of whom won’t read them.
  8. You miss your blog, but the goal setting is going well and the advice was certainly right when it comes to doing what you need to do to achieve tenure.
  9. You miss the long posts that sent you on wild goose chases about topics just enough outside of your expertise that by the end, you felt the thrill of having learned something new.
  10. You miss the short posts that sometimes got more hits than the long ones.
  11. You listen to podcasts, and read fiction, and feel a strong urge to create something interesting.
  12. You remember that statistical methods section that reviewer 1 didn’t like and begin to revise technical language into even more technical language.
  13. You miss the community of people – readers and writers – who you felt mattered, and made you feel you matter, too.
  14. You look at the time, and realize you’re just about to hit the time you allocated to finish up that table summarizing the leptin literature.
  15. You didn’t need to write this post in list format, but if you hadn’t it might never have been written.
1 Comment →

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

 

4 Comments →