In 2005, the journal *Science *published an essay addressing the topics being discussed on this listserv. In particular, the essay concerns "women in science", and it generated several comments (link attached). I am one of the respondents; however, independent of that fact, I recommend the complete exchange. Rather than repeat my 2005 comments, I'd like to put another perspective on the table. IMO, it would be instructive for female graduate students & other young females pursuing a Ph.D. and subsequent scientific career to study choices being made by female M.D.s. Those physicians deciding to pursue, say, *hands on* parenting, elder care, etc. and to integrate traditional forms of leisure/play into their lifestyles are choosing flexible specializationsw/fewer temporal & energetic demands (e.g., dermatology, internal medicine, emergency-room physician, and the like). Indeed, a few of my female acquaintances who are physicians, all of them internists or emergency-room doctors, and who, for a range of reasons, elect non-paying, caretaking roles, work part-time and have successful, apparently satisfying, practices. At least one of these women has a companionate, egalitarian marriage that includes shared child-care. Another model that I have personally observed is a marriage between 2 internists, sharing an office, both working full-time; this couple often brought their toddler to the office w/a nanny. These sorts of tradeoff are, also, possible for females w/a D.D.S. Unless I am mistaken, most females graduating from medical/dental school, elect one of the previous options. As I understand the statistics, female physicians & dentists are much less likely than their male cohorts to choose, say, cardiology, surgical specialities (MD or DDS), or time-energy intense specializations (e.g., "crown & bridge" concentration).
My reason for putting these models on the table is to suggest that the Ph.D. scientists vocal about career balance, sexual equality, and the like *appear *to me to be requesting sexual equity (e.g., equity in pay w/men, etc.) *independent of the choices that they make*. This posture appears to me to be not only unrealistic but, also, immature relative to what I understand to be the tradeoffs being chosen by female MDs & DDSs. As a recent member of the listserv stated: Why should academia pay for or, I would add, be involved with, a person,s personal choices? If females continue to choose activities that are inherently unpredictable in T&S, that require frequent if not continuous interruptions of concentration & schedules, etc., then it is important (& grown-up) for them to accept responsibility for the lifestyles they value. Costs&benefits attend every choice. Finally, there are, simply by chance alone, exceptions to the opinions expressed herein. However, in my experience, these exceptions have been women who are independently wealthy or who do not have children or who have an uncommon support system driving their careers--usually an older scientist, not infrequently a relative (especially a father). I also have encountered very successful female scientists whose success depends in some measure to their superior networking and/or time-management skills. Interviews that I have read/heard featuring top-ranked female scientists highlight the importance of choosing down-time wisely, especially when their children were dependent. Bottom line, if one wants a career in the mainstream of science, one will do what is necessary to make that happen. One cannot be a surgeon with a baby strapped to one's back. Personal disclosure: I gave up custody of my 3 children in order to devote full-time to my academic career (field-work outside the States, etc.). I have never regretted this decision though the costs have been high. I am not recommending this career strategy to others. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5738/1190.short/reply On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Georgina Cullman <[email protected]>wrote: > Having programs in place to support people who do chose to have families > and do not have the option or the inclination to rely on spouses or others > for caregiving doesn't take away from those who want to spend all their time > working. Power to them! They will probably make tenure faster! But I think > it is important to make it possible for those who can't spend all their time > working also to advance their careers. > > I think it is important to recognize that, if as a society, we want more > gender equity in academia then we have to create institutions that don't > force people to chose work over family in order to succeed. It is simply a > reality that, historically, women have had to make that tough decision and > that is why so many university departments are disproportionately male. If > we want a more equitable gender distribution then we need to create > institutions that deal with the world as it is rather than addressing > policies to some abstracted supposedly equal individual. > > There are other reasons why creating a more flexible workspace is important > -- for people caring for relatives, for people dealing with illness, and for > those who have physical disabilities. I want to be part of a more inclusive > future in academia. > > > On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Aaron T. Dossey wrote: > > > The last two paragraphs seem sexist to me, assuming that it's only women > who are the "home makers", and all women are home makers. > > > > The recommendations in the last paragraph seem discriminatory against > unmarried people, and especially unmarried people with no children. At some > point, I think the reality has to be recognized that one's family life is > not the responsibility of one's employer. Let's say some special perks for > married people, and then married people with kids, are instituted (they > already kind of are, spousal hirings and such).... where does it end? The > needs of a single parent are tremendous compared to those of married > parents. There is also a large difference in the needs for someone or a > couple with one child versus 3, or 5, or 8 (sometimes all at once! :) )! > Then there's differences in cultures and religions to consider..... > > > > It seems like weaving a very complex web. However, maybe, just maybe > everyone can be treated equally as an individual/professional and leave it > at that? > > > > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > > http://www.allthingsbugs.com/Curriculum_Vitae.pdf > > > > > > > > On 9/22/2011 5:19 PM, Judith S. Weis wrote: > >> This article from the AWIS newsletter is pertinent to recent discussions > >> on this list. > >> > >> Work-Life Balance and Success in a Scientific Career > >> > >> Work-life balance in a rigorous academic career is slowly being adopted > as > >> part of the scientific community’s lexicon, although some resist its > >> infiltration. Especially in a tough economic climate with a dwindling > >> number of grants being awarded these days, it is of utmost importance > for > >> researchers to stay on top of their game and produce results. This often > >> comes at the expense of personal and family obligations, let alone > leisure > >> activities. However, some have realized that leisure is an integral part > >> of a researcher’s life…not only for work-life balance, but also for the > >> betterment of ideas and scientific discovery. > >> > >> This month in Nature, Dr. Julie Overbaugh from the Fred Hutchinson > Cancer > >> Research Center in Seattle, WA argues, “Scientists should make time for > >> play to complement their intense work, maintain creativity and keep the > >> ideas flowing.” She acknowledges that while it is sometimes necessary to > >> pull all-nighters in the name of pending deadlines, more hours in the > lab > >> does not equate to better results. “In fact,” she notes, “I have many of > >> my best ideas while walking the dogs in the morning, riding my bike home > >> from work or weekending in the mountains.” > >> > >> For Dr. Quinones-Hinojosa at Johns Hopkins, on the other hand, these > types > >> of activities are utterly incompatible with a serious career in cancer > >> research. Heidi Ledford of Nature News recently decided to investigate > >> “24/7 labs” where the number of hours logged is most crucial to success > in > >> the eyes of the PI, and she interviewed the students and postdocs who > work > >> for them. Contrary to many who turned her down due to fear of being > >> portrayed as “slave-drivers” Dr. Quinones-Hinojosa welcomed her into his > >> lab, eager to show off his neurosurgery skills and devoted research team > >> of tired students and postdocs. > >> > >> At first glance, it would seem that with 13 concurrent grants, 113 > >> publications since 2005 and an h index of 27, compared with the average > of > >> 10.7 among his neuroscience colleagues, that the long hours Dr. > >> Quinones-Hinojosa requires of himself and his team have paid off in > >> spades. However, it all depends on how you measure success. Attending > >> late-night lab meetings every Friday and working through all major > >> holidays, some of the students in this lab cited not being able to see > >> their families abroad for years. Furthermore, the PI himself admits to > >> being an absentee father. He notes that while in residency at the > >> University of California, San Francisco, his three young children > thought > >> he lived at the hospital, and effectively – he did – clocking 140 hours > a > >> week. Yet strangely, he seems to truly enjoy his career and life > choices. > >> > >> This then begs the question of how to define work-life balance. Some > have > >> argued that this term is insufficient; rejecting the notion that any > >> semblance of balance between work and family or personal life can > >> reasonably by achieved in the throes of a research-oriented academic > >> career. Instead, terms such as “work-life satisfaction” have emerged. > This > >> suggests that whatever ratio of work to personal time needs to be > achieved > >> in order for an individual to be satisfied is sufficient. But one has to > >> wonder if Dr. Quinones-Hinojosa would even be able to choose his current > >> work-life ratio without a spouse at home to take care of their three > >> children? > >> > >> Because many women scientists don’t have the luxury of choosing between > >> work and family, it is vitally important for academic institutions to > >> adopt flexible work-life policies, and encourage employees to take > >> advantage of them. At AWIS, we have just begun a new initiative to study > >> and identify best practices for workplace flexibility in academia. Tools > >> for Change: A Project for Stepping Up Retention of Women in the Academic > >> STEM Pipeline is a partnership between AWIS and Dr. Mary Ann Mason from > >> the Center for Economics& Family Security at UC Berkeley, as well as > Dr. > >> Joan C. Williams from the Center for WorkLife Law at UC Hastings. Funded > >> by the National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE program, our study will > >> provide a rigorous economic analysis on the cost of losing precious > talent > >> throughout the "leaky" STEM pipeline and the benefits of implementing > >> flexible, family-responsive workplace practices. > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Georgina Cullman > Ph.D. Candidate > American Museum of Natural History/Faculty Fellow > Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology > Columbia University > [email protected] > -- Clara B. Jones [Still playing the game with entropy...] Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell Phone: 828-279-4429
