Dr Nancy Longnecker
I am in a long, drawn-out process of retiring from my career in scientific research. My decision is selfish and many times I feel as though I should "stick it out".
If I resigned my position today, there would be no woman scientist sitting at the management table of my research organisation. Most of the other people at that table would say, "So what?" They would tell you that there aren't many mid-career and late career women scientists, so of course there aren't many at meetings such as these. If I resign, will I be just another statistic to underpin the argument that there aren't enough senior women around?
Rarely one to do anything rash, I made the decision to find other means of paying the mortgage about three years ago and it will probably take another couple of years for me to extricate myself from my current situation.
Why rush to leave a job with a reasonable salary where I am paid to have fun? I have projects which I love working on and want to see completed, research that I want to do, papers to write, colleagues who are a pleasure to work with and a good immediate working environment. But there are reasons for me to leave. I no longer ask myself whether I will leave. For me, it is a matter of optimal timing and making the most of things before that time comes. This article outlines some of the considerations of my deliberations which I hope will be of use to colleagues who face similar dilemmas.
Should young people study science?
Given that I am retiring from science, how do I manage the part of my job which involves encouraging young people to study science? Is this a hypocritical stance? I don't believe it is and will make my case for how I can simultaneously decide to leave my chosen career in scientific research and encourage young people to study science.
Firstly, I believe that our society would benefit from more people having an understanding of the scientific process and training in science and technology. Most of the people with whom I studied, including me, love science and have no regrets over our choice of studies. Given the current job climate, if I were entering university now, I would probably make the same choices. And my post-PhD experiences have been largely great. Given the benefit of hindsight, I would probably not deviate hugely because I am happy with where I am now. I wouldn't be here if I had taken different forks in the road.
Secondary and undergraduate studies in science are a wonderful way to examine the world around us and to grow. These studies are a way to gain insights, improve our understanding of things physical and biological, foster mental discipline, learn problem-solving skills and more.
This said, people contemplating postgraduate studies in science need to look long and hard at their motivations for and expectations from their studies.
I believe that people who study science in order to have a career conducting basic scientific research need to accept that science is becoming more and more like the arts: job security is traded for the thrill of being paid to do something creative. Many years of training and hard work are the prerequisites to even have a go. Many people will drop out at various stages of the training and people who complete their training will have varying levels of success.
There are as many definitions of success in science as in any endeavour in life. Unless one is independently wealthy or has other means of financial support, success can pragmatically be measured by the ability to attract the financial support to continue making contributions in their given field.
The pros and cons of staying in research
Once a PhD is complete, people are faced with a dilemma of what career path to take. We have been trained to do scientific research and there is a pervading belief in academia that an academic appointment is the ultimate goal. Let's examine this and look objectively at some of the pros and cons of a career in academic research. (For the sake of this discussion, I include CSIRO and university appointments in this category.)
Pros: Most people who do research thrive on the thrill of discovery. And many people choose to work in a field which will give them satisfaction knowing the results of their work will possibly improve people's lives. I have already stated that I am compensated reasonably well to do things which I enjoy. My work involves travel as well as meeting and working with interesting and intelligent people. My job is flexible and I largely determine my goals and working hours.
Cons: You will have guessed from my own decision to leave research that this section will be longer than the previous one. The points will be familiar to most readers.
Competition to get jobs and grant money is fierce. The odds of getting a job are very low. Your odds are better if: 1) you are male, 2) you have a degree from a respected university, 3) you have a strong and long publication record, 4) you are working in a respected organisation or university and 5) you have a powerful advocate. Four of those are things you have some control over. For the remainder of this article, I will focus on issues related to short-term research contracts since this is my own experience and that of most of my peers.
Many of the granting agencies are managed by people who have a vested interest in protecting the advantages of people in permanent employment. The peer review process guarantees that the decks are stacked against those people applying for money who are not in a permanent job. The peer review process also profoundly determines career paths. My appraisal of my personal situation is that I am a capable scientist who has made a contribution in my chosen field of plant nutrition. I think this opinion is shared by peers my own age or younger, but my perception is that I am considered a lightweight by the people with power: those who sit on selection panels or advise them, those who invite speakers to conferences, those who allocate grant money. It is impossible to assess the accuracy of my perception and how significant my gender is as a contributing factor.
We do know that in this highly competitive work environment which is full of very talented, creative and hard-working people, women have to be even more talented, creative and hard-working to achieve the same level of success. The Swedish study recently reported in Nature provides some quantitative evidence to support what many of us have known in our hearts for years: not only do women have to be significantly "better" than men to get the nod in the peer review system, that significance has to be 2.5 times better using measures like publication impact. I have some very clever and talented male colleagues for whom I have great respect. I think I can hold my own. But be 2.5 times better?!
To make matters worse, many of the women who break into the system tend to deny this reality either because they are modest or reached their situation by being in the right place at the right time with the right qualifications without significant male competition and think it is the norm for people with good qualifications to get the nod. So many (not all) women academics cannot empathise with those caught looking up through the glass ceiling.
People on short-term research contracts are generally treated as second-class citizens within the organisations which employ us. Even for people who succeed at the grants game, bring in fair amounts of research dollars, supervise research students and research staff, and publish in respected journals, the lack of a government-funded salary generally means less access to infrastructure support. This can include poorer access to offices, computers, travel funds, information and lack of participation in decision-making.
For the bulk of people doing scientific research today, there is no clearly defined career structure. Many of my colleagues feel that they are on a dead end track. In some fields such as medical research, there are career-structured fellowships. There need to be more of these, expanded into other fields. And organisations need to be more even-handed in their approach to people in this career path. Adjunct appointments would allow acknowledgment of supervision of student research for people who are frequently doing it without the kudos already. Departments need to have policies regarding conference travel. People in long-term situations on short-term contracts need to be aware of the rights which go with their appointment.
Making the decision
Many of the negatives in the previous section are not peculiar to careers in science. There is a massive shift in society away from "permanent jobs" and into "out-sourcing" and contract work.
What causes a dilemma for many scientists in my age bracket is that we had expectations when we began our studies that have not been met. We were raised to think that if we worked hard and got good results, we would be rewarded with a job. And that job would be one like those of the previous generation: it would be there for us as long as we wanted it. The people who inculcated those expectations (parents, teachers, mentors) could not have foreseen the huge changes which have occurred in society. The result is that many of my generation of scientists feel cheated.
In today's world, choosing a career in scientific research is likely to be a career based on short-term research contracts. The odds are against people, no matter how talented, getting a "permanent" academic or CSIRO-type appointment, in Australia or anywhere in the world. Within Australia, there is the added restriction that many industries do not hire research scientists, preferring to contract research through existing research organisations.
Yet there are many positive things about a career in research. It has taken me around the world and there have been many highlights along that journey. People so inclined should most certainly give it a go as long as they know the reality of the situation and have thought through what they hope to achieve.
If you stay
Many improvements have been made for women in science and few of us suffer blatant sexual discrimination. But discrimination is well and truly entrenched and plays a big part in determining career paths for women in science.
Mentoring schemes are increasingly common these days and can be very useful in career development. I believe that a formal scheme is less likely to provide a powerful advocate than an informal relationship. Yet a mentoring scheme can teach skills which could be useful in building other relationships.
One thing to keep in mind in this respect is that most scientists, certainly those who have achieved high levels of recognition, are ambitious and can be very self-centred. These are not necessarily people who will be good mentors or who will look out for the best interests of their less experienced colleagues. Junior researchers need to be aware of this and search out senior researchers who can act as a mentor for them.
A mentor need not necessarily be a research supervisor. It may be best if the mentor is not, to help avoid the conflict of interest which arises for even the most fair-minded researcher who must deservedly claim some credit for work which goes on in their lab.
Related to the concept of mentors and advocates are two decisions which I have made and will share here: one was absolutely right and one is something I would do differently.
Firstly, after an unpleasant experience with a research supervisor, I made the conscious decision that I would only work with people whom I could both respect and trust. The first is reasonably easy in the world of science. The second is less so, but has made all the difference for me. That guideline has helped me in decision-making ever since and I believe has helped steer me correctly. It can be difficult to get "references" about potential supervisors from people. But learn to read between the lines.
A second career-affecting decision I made came after my first big grant application. Within a few years of completing my PhD, a colleague who had also recently completed her PhD and I put a grant application to NSF (the equivalent of ARC in the US). Not surprisingly, we didn't get funded, in spite of good reviews. It was apparent to both of us that if we’d had a respected name on the grant, the idea was sound and would have been funded. After that, I have always had the good fortune to work with well-respected, established scientists who have been generous with letting me ride on their coat tails and use their names, facilities and expertise for my grant proposals. This has been a significant factor in my successful track record in attracting external money.
The other side of the coin is that I am not recognised by the granting agencies as the person with the idea who managed the grant. At what point do you sever the umbilical cord? I have never figured this out and have paid the price with relative obscurity. But I have had continuous employment for over ten years and have attracted sufficient funds to employ fourteen others as well. Be aware of this double-edged sword and make your own decision. The best approach is probably to apply for grants on your own before you really need the grant.
Irrespective of whose name is on the grant, take responsibility for your own grants. This gives you control over your work. Many people on contracts feel that their supervisors are responsible for them. But supervisors are busy looking out for themselves and that is perfectly legitimate. In my case, I have generally supervised other people on contracts while I have been on contracts myself. This can raise dilemmas when it comes time to put in the next grant, but can be managed properly.
If you go
In deciding whether to stay or go, my approach involved four steps: The first thing was to realistically assess my strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, I thought very hard about what I really want to achieve in life, not what I, my parents, past supervisors or colleagues think I should achieve. (Note: This is one of those things that sounds easy but was incredibly difficult for me.) Thirdly, I mapped out some strategies of how to get where I want to go. I decided to stop floating along from one fixed-term contract to another because I wanted to regain some control over my life.
Fourthly, I began an action plan. A plan is no good unless it leads to action. My partner and I have started two small businesses. One of them has grown to the point of replacing his income (he has been working for us full-time for over two years) and the other is in the process of growing, with the aim that it will replace my income. This takes time, but one good thing about short-term contracts is that they give you breathing space for beginning other ventures.
Since I decided to "retire" from research, I have found myself empowered. I am enjoying my work more than I have for a decade. And because my situation is now temporary, it is no longer unbearable. I can now enjoy the positive aspects of it and worry less about the negatives.
If you go, think about making some waves which may help those colleagues who are staying. Many people staying in the system have no desire to rock the boat. They understandably do not want to be seen as a troublemaker when they are going to apply for a new grant or contract. But they may be willing to join others who act on their behalf.
It took awhile, but I came to realise there is no point in being bitter. It is self-destructive and gains no points or allies in this game. As much as I was tempted by this opportunity to detail several perceived slights, you would have been bored and stopped reading this by now.
My approach has become to see the whole situation in scientific research (and life for that matter) as the game that it is. This allows me to step back and view things with a very different perspective. I am much less likely to take disappointments personally. There are some people with power who used to intimidate me. It is easier now to see them as vulnerable and imperfect human beings. In fact, they are frequently doing the best that they can in a difficult world and perhaps have risen to a challenging position requiring skills which they have not yet mastered. Once that is recognised and I make an attempt to see things from their perspective, it is easier to negotiate and come out positively.
Conclusions
Whether you decide to stay or go, recognise all of the skills that you have acquired in your education and life and be justifiably proud of your accomplishments. Every once in a while, it is worthwhile to write out the pros and cons of your current situation and think of your other options. I found that I came up with some very appealing options and realised that I was staying because I wanted to for the time being, but that I was not trapped. Never think that you don't have choices. This will help you to stand up for yourself when necessary.
Speaking your mind and not letting yourself be a door mat is difficult for some of us. Rather than offending people, speaking up for oneself can generate increased respect from colleagues. It is absolutely true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease in this world. As long as you squeak rather than screech and choose your battles carefully, you may find that common problems (like access to infrastructure) can be overcome. This tends to work much better for me when I maintain my sense of humour.
Any of us who contemplate change are familiar with the question: "Will I have wasted all those years of study and training?" A good education and training are never a waste. In addition to learning facts (which may not be of obvious use after changes of career), a good education should provide tools to acquire new knowledge, mental discipline, improved ability to produce a logical and coherent argument and communication skills. These are all invaluable. In addition, a good education in science and technology provides us with a greater understanding of the world in which we live.
My scientific studies are something for which I am extremely grateful. One conversation with a good friend at university over twenty years ago illustrates this point. She was a mathematics major and could differentiate equations like there was no tomorrow. But basic scientific principles? On a lovely spring afternoon, she commented on how beautiful the flowers were. But she had always wondered what purpose they served in the larger scheme of things. As healthy, twenty-year-old women, this got us into a very lively discussion about sex. And cemented in my brain the value and fun of my scientific studies.
Dr Nancy Longnecker has a BSc, Hons in Biology from The University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee [1978] and a PhD in Crop Science from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY [1986] She now coordinates the Education Program for the Legumes CRC and still conducts research approximately 30% of her time — at least that's what the grant says.