Changing Lanes When You
Haven’t Got a Map
Mary O'Kane
I
spent my life changing lanes - the fast lane, the slow lane, the lane that
takes you off on that odd detour where you go left to do a right turn. I've
changed lanes because of the usual personal/family things - the need to have
enough money to pay school fees and mortgages
Often there's been some sort of map, some well-worn path to follow. Maybe not
many women had been down the path but lots of men had.
With my new life, I was determined to be more considered and rather than just changing lanes I'd consider more carefully what I know about the map to various particular goals, some personal, some professional. I knew I'd have to change at some point; I was in a limited tenure job (Adelaide has an Act-defined ceiling on the V-C's tenure)
I wanted to study the map.
I wanted to have enough time, space and resources to plot the course; to know
where I'd back up to; to talk to others on odd tracks
It led me to think that we should strive to find a better map to the future.
We tend to drive with out of date maps; not always even stopping to think that
new landmarks we've heard about we should be expecting to see.
Why is this important? W we think of women in science, engineering and
technology, I think too often we've worked hard to help women drive down known
roads - the road of the present. Maybe we have not focused enough for on
equipping them to drive into futures where there is very fast change.
Or where it might be in their interests to shape the system rather than react
to change.
As a digression, it is worth noting that helping women 'play the system' has
in many ways paid off in so many ways. (The notion of encouraging women to do
science is now de rigeur. There are many more women in senior positions in
science than there were. There are now more women medical students than men.
While the numbers are not as high in engineering, many very bright women going
into this field and are doing interesting double degrees). Considering the
system, and finding ways to modify it so that it is more friendly has also
paid off. I take modest pride in inventing the term 'early career researcher'
and the measures that the ARC took to implement schemes for people coming into
the science workforce after doing other things.
So when I say we should equip women scientists for the future, I'm by no means
advocating that we abandon the methods of looking to make the current system
better for women and looking at how to equip women to operate in it.
But I suspect the future requires skills that we haven't always emphasised;
particularly if we expect to see women achieving at the very top of science;
winning Nobel Prizes; creating the Hewlett-Packard style companies of the
future.
Science, engineering and technology have seen very rapid changes over the last
century. Post-World War II, we saw great emphasis, defence inspired, on
physics and related engineering with a view to building new weapon systems,
sophisticated control systems, aerospace and space systems.
We saw great developments in biology and we saw the fundamentals of biology
change in the way the fundamentals of physics are changed in the first half of
20th-century.
We saw the emergence of computer science as a discipline in the its own right.
We saw great changes in telecommunications.
In summary, we have seen great changes in several disciplines.
But increasingly we have seen the emphasis on interdisciplinarity and
multidisciplinary teams. Almost it is as though the phenomenon itself has
become a discipline and we now talk about Big System science and, at the other
end of the scale, nanotechnology. CSIRO now puts great emphasis on all its
science teams being multidisciplinary where necessary.
The production of knowledge in the formal sense of scientific papers and
patents has increased greatly in the rate of increase continues.
Knowledge is seen as having enormous economic value. Arguably this follows the
wealth that has been generated in the United States of America following
technological advances in space, defence, aerospace, oil, and information
technology. One only has to watch not only the general stock market in the
United States but also NASDAQ.
Look at new and emerging economies and the emphasis they put on science and
technology. China has built some great universities and has put great emphasis
on science academies. Singapore is aiming to build the National University of
Singapore into a world-class university. I recently spent some weeks in
Cambodia, one of the poorest countries in the world. It is interesting to see
how IT-connected that country is becoming. It is very likely that it will
leapfrog other countries and develop very quickly thanks to the international
connectedness the information technology infrastructure brings.
So what does this mean for preparing Australian women in science, engineering
technology to drive into the future?
First of all, it is likely that the rate of change for those in our
high-impact scientific institutions is going to be high. Also it is probably
true that in future people are going to have several careers and scientists
need to be ready for this. In some ways this works in favour of women who
traditionally have had to face broken careers but I don't think it is
something that is always welcomed as a concept.
It is important to emphasise the knowledge is moving fast and tends to move
fast at the edges of disciplines. Women have to become very skilled at
learning to question big theories, and to build links between disciplines. I
think there is often an inherent conservatism and wish to please the system in
women which leads them to not question the very basis of scientific ideas. And
it also leads them to want to work within the established confines of
disciplinary structures.
Is important in this regard to recognise that scientists (women and men)
receive very mixed messages. The patronage structure tends to encourage one
not to buck the system. Indeed it can be seen in grant assessments were
revolutionary ideas typically receive assessments that are either very high or
very low.
Maybe the underlying message here is that women need to be more calculating,
more clear eyed about taking risk. As I have said before in other places, in
running a science lab, it is sometimes a sensible strategy to build a
portfolio of funding. Some of the portfolio funds the relatively boring work
and assures income; and, more importantly, provides a safety net for pursuing
more exciting and groundbreaking ideas.
Slowly it is being understood that there are strong links between scientific
developments and social systems. This is an area where women should be able to
feel comfortable about making a big difference, developing strong
interdisciplinary links between the humanities, the social sciences and the
sciences.
We cannot over-emphasise global nature of science and the global nature of
industries that are science dependent. Strong international networks are very
necessary. These days most Australians do their PhDs in Australia. Even
postdoctoral work is often done at home. A generation ago this was not so.
Women do need to grab opportunities to work in labs overseas and to build up
and maintain a very strong network of international connections. Once these
connections are built up, they can be maintained through internet connections,
conferences and visits.
And with global connections, I think that we have tended too much in Australia
to emphasise connections to the United States and to the United Kingdom. These
connections are undoubtedly necessary. However with a view to the future, it
is important to build connections to fast-moving, developing or
recently-developed countries. For example, a young academic might very well
think in terms of sabbatical at one of the big Chinese universities or at NUS.
Understanding the economic power of scientific ideas and developments is also
crucial. Some people say that they are in science for the public good but it
is important to note that public sector laboratories around the world and now
expected to earn increasing amounts of their funding from sources other than
the public purse. Often scientists need to know how to protect intellectual
property and still achieve what they want to do in terms of getting their work
published. Often it is a matter of taking out a patent and then publishing.
Also as science labs are increasingly dependent on private sector funding it
is important that young scientists and particularly women have a good
understanding of the culture of and the issues that drive the firms are likely
to fund them.
There are personal skills needed too: thinking outside the square (challenging
norms); focus; how to raise large amounts of money internationally and from
many sources; learning to assess and update one's own skill mix; learning to
assess trends; to be very detached; to be able to assess, take and manage risk
- financial, personal
For young scientists finishing their PhDs, I believe we could do well to set
up a postdoctoral internship program that gave them some experience in a
university; some in a government laboratory; some experience overseas (partly
in the US, partly in Asian countries); and some experience in industry.
It is very important that WISWNET stimulate discussion of ideas about what
should happen with early career researchers, with young women scientists and
technologists starting out. It's a great time now with a new portfolio
bringing together education and science at the federal level. And with
continuing interests by most state governments on knowledge and science.
For women working in science and technology, it is important to constantly be
paying attention to the skills needed to deal with the future in a
constructive way.
Again for WISENET there is an important role in sponsoring seminars and talks
that help people think about these issues, think about shaping the future, and
learn about how to acquire appropriate skills. At first the issue I think is
one of awareness. Its back to be issue I started with - thinking about what is
a likely map to the future. Then it's a matter of acquiring the appropriate
techniques to drive appropriately and skillfully towards a future that we are
as prepared for as possible and still be able to respond to unexpected change.
Emeritus Professor Mary O’Kane was Vice-Chancellor of Adelaide University from 1996 to 2001. She is now a consultant and company director and runs a business advising governments and the private sector on innovation, research, education and development. An article by Mary was featured in the previous Wisenet Journal 59, March 2002.