I was thinking some more about the round-table discussion last week and I wanted to address a couple of things I left out of my last post on it.
This discussion of bias brought up two issues: double blind review process and authorship.
On the first issue, surprisingly GuruOfSmallThings, an established female professor, was decidedly against double blind reviews. In her own words, she needs to know what lab the data came out of because that way she can determine if she trusts it. Wow. I have to say I was shocked. Shouldn't we be evaluating science solely based on the evidence of the data not on our feelings? Even if there is a selective presentation of data by the authors, you have the right, as a reviewer, to ask for the entire dataset.
If as female scientists we're not willing to recognize and let go of our own biases, how can we expect anyone else to or for that matter how can we expect the system to change?
I recognize that sometimes it is not as simple as evaluating the science and that the reputation of a lab can matter. I guess I believe if the data is suspect, because science is about replication, eventually the truth will out. Case in point: stem cell research.
The second issue was authorship. BrainScientist, a female neuroscientist in our department related a couple of anecdotes about how she inadvertently left off a student on a paper. This student came to her and mentioned the omission. It was immediately rectified. Although BrainScientist and GuruOfSmallThings recognize this as a contentious issue, they felt for the most part a student or postdoc should stand up for what they know they have contributed.
Are these women naive? Or have they forgotten that tightrope that grad students have to traverse. If the circumstances are open and supportive, then that tightrope might be quite thick and asking for authorship may not rub people the wrong way. If, however, the circumstances are hostile, then that rope is thin. If you piss a supervisor off, what kind of reference letters will that professor write for you?
The student-supervisor power imbalance mirrors the gender and racial power imbalance in society at large. It is clear that this dynamic is not something that will ever disappear, but is intrinsic to our biology.
So the goal: navigate these relationships without getting too many scars or losing any limbs.
-
I just finished reading an engaging article in The New Yorker, called " The Truth Wears Off. " The author Jonah Lehrer talks abou... -
[These ideas on Slow Science are a work-in-progress a first draft of sorts. With some help from those of you who read this post, via a chal... -
Okay peeps, I know that many of you are lurkers at this website (according to the visits from the sitemeter stats). But I want you to come ...
1 comment:
I think that the student-supervisor power imbalance is at fault for a lot of the bad behavior that happens in graduate school. In fact, that is one of the reasons I cannot in good conscience go into academia and become a professor. The entire power structure is such that each professor is a dictator of her/his lab. Whether he/she chooses to be a nice dictator or an abusive dictator is completely up to her/his discretion. As long as the dictator professor brings in grant money, the university will grant tenure and look the other way.
It is a completely fucked up system with no change in sight. I can't believe that our taxdollars support such an oppressive environment. This is a perfect example where the private sector is actually much healthier in its power structure. You aren't working for just one crazy dictator and there are rules to abide by. You have a human resources person to complain to when men are creating a hostile work environment or you need time off for family, etc.
By the way, I disagree with you that such a power dynamic is intrinsic to our biology. We have just been socialized to within a patriarchal power structure. It is not an absolute truth and we can change.
Post a Comment