ESF women take first and second place in the Slepecky Undergraduate Research Competition

The experimental green roof, located on
top of Con Edison's The Learning
Center.  Image credit: Tiziana Susca, Columbia University

Katy Austin, an EFB undergraduate honors student has won first prize in the Slepecky Undergraduate Research Prize.  She was awarded the prize for a manuscript based on her honor's thesis "Effects of Nitrogen Deposition on Nitrogen Acquisition by Sarracenia purpurea in the Adirondack Mountains, New York, USA".  The study is in review at the journal
Botany.  Austin is first author.  Her co-authors include Mark Teece, and Jesse Crandall from ESF's Chemistry Department, and Amy Sauer and Charley Driscoll, from the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University.

Cambria Ziemer, an ERE undergraduate honors student tied for second place honors.  Ziemer completed her honor's thesis the past summer on "Boundary Layer Conditions of a Shrub Willow Evapotranspiration Cover Syracuse, NY". She worked with Wendong Tao, in ESF's Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering, and Tony Eallonardo, a Scientist with O'Brien and Gere.

The award presentation followed a lecture by Dr. Patricia J. Culligan of  Columbia University, on Green Roofs and Urban Stormwater Management, which featured projects under evaluation at Columbia University and around New York City.  Dr.  Culligan is a leader in the field of water resources and urban sustainability.  In addition to being a Professor, she co-directs the Columbia University Earth Institute’s Urban Design Lab and is the director of an innovative, joint interdisciplinary Ph.D. program between Columbia Engineering and the Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation that focuses on designs for future cites, including digital city scenarios.

The Slepecky Lectureship and Undergraduate Prize has been endowed by family, friends and colleagues to honor Syracuse University professor Norma Slepecky, who died in 2001. Dr. Slepecky was a distinguished auditory neuranatomist and member of the Institute for Sensory Research.  She was a passionate researcher and an advocate for undergraduate student research. Dr. Slepecky hoped that her legacy, with the support of the endowment, would continue to encourage young women to conduct research. As stewards of the Lectureship and Prize, SU WiSE annually coordinates the undergraduate award and lecture by a noted woman scholar and a celebration in Dr. Slepecky’s memory.

Negotiating Dual Careers

83% of women scientists and 54% of men scientists are partnered with other scientists link.  Those figures didn't look at other academic or professional partners, so a huge number of current and potential faculty are up against the "two-body problem."   

SU Wise invited SU and ESF doctoral students (women AND men), and other students and faculty who are now, or may be in relationship where both will have professional careers, to join their panelists for a conversation about:
-Can we both be equally successful?
-Who moves for whose career?
-Living apart?
- How/when do you ask about institutional dual career hiring practices?
-What do you negotiate for once position is offered? What are effective strategies?


The two most novel parts of this discussion:  that so many men attended!  And that SU now has a Dual Career counselor (via SU ADVANCE) that meets confidentially with every interviewee, at the time of their on campus interview,  to discuss what options might be available for a partner.  By bypassing the search committee in this discussion, they have a chance to look at other openings that might be a good match for the partner, so that when an offer is made, this office can provide better advice.  This service came to be after the realization that they were losing great candidates because they were unable to even make suggestions before the candidate found a workable solution somewhere else. 

All three couples agreed that SU's developing model would have been better than the situations they encountered.  They wondered:  where in the process do we mention the partner?  For one, early disclosure seemed the right way to go, for another, they noted that they'd received 4 workable offers, but only one from an institution where they had disclosed (there happened to be advertised positions in each of their fields, so they had each been fully vetted along with all the other applicants).  The panelists also discussed the value of applying lots of places, so that when an offer was received, they could say "my partner is also on the market, and received offers at x,y,z."  This was especially important if the department partner hoped to join hadn't been searching, so had no means to compare partner to other candidates.  Knowing that partner fared well when other institutions had made that comparison helped their cases.  There was also the impression that private institutions were "more nimble" in their ability to arrange a dual hire.

All three of these couples had made the decision not to live apart if it was at all possible, so dual residences and what to do if there are already children in the mix may be addressed at future panels.

De-escalating conflict

Catherine Gerard, Director of the Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and Collaboration (PARCC), Maxwell School of Syracuse University, offered a mini-workshop on Managing Conflict and Communication to the faculty and staff involved in SU WiSE/AVANCE.  We cannot control the other person, so she gives advice to help you remain civil (so you don't become the difficult person!) and ensure the other person feels heard, so that a dialogue is possible.  Much of this is accomplished through "Reflective Listening", Query, Assertion, and Anchoring.  These techniques do rely on you being the bigger person, so if you are not willing to assume that role, a different workshop is in order.

Many in the session were concerned with the wording of  "I feel [unappreciated, put upon, even farther behind schedule, etc]....when...."  relaying concern that while it is more approachable language, it also puts you in too vulnerable a position by admitting something so human (feminine?) as emotions (which have no place in science or the workplace, after all).  Plus, it kinda feels like pandering.  Doesn't "I am..." get to that same point?  She and a clinician participant disagreed--note how "kinda feels" qualifies the pandering comment as an interpretation or an assumption, not as fact, so its less accusing or threatening.  They also noted that 1) it takes practice to use this phrasing comfortably and 2) if we truly know it would distract from the point with that particular conflict monger, adapt the wording accordingly.

She said/he said/we said: how family talk sheds light on language and gender-- Georgetown Linguist Deborah Tannen

Sponsored by SU Communication & Rhetorical Studies, iSchool, Department of Linguistics, Women in Science and Engineering, and Women's and Gender Studies.

Everyone assumes everyone else thinks like them, and that if they don't, there is something wrong with them.

Men vs. women:  Why don't men stop to ask directions?  People assume that "You mean the same as I would mean in that circumstance."  So women stop, make a connection, and haven't lost anything by asking.  Men, on the other hand, lose power by asking, and besides, the other guy won't know either, but won't admit it, and they will get lost anyway.  (None of the interviewed women worried about being intentionally misdirected.)   Women tend to face one another when they speak, and lean in.  Men sit at angles--which could be perceived as disinterest in what the partner is saying.   However, it isn't the case that men don't care about connections, and that women are disinterested in power. 

Girls vs boys.  Girls tell each other secrets to negotiate closeness and connection; they also cannot tell a secret to someone they don't like.  Hence, cliques.   A boy's best friend is the one he does everything with, the one who will be on his side in a fight.  They negotiate who is good at what, and play fighting is very common.  Boys are sensitive to being put down or pushed around as these affect status.  (Don't tell me what to do).  But one-upsmanship can be fun!  Girls, on the other hand, often dislike braggarts.

Moms vs daughters:  Can't say anything to daughter, because its perceived as criticism.  Daughters think:  she's always criticizing.  This is true, but it's out of care.

Sisters:  Sisters are always compared, and there is a hierarchy. Intentions and abilities are important.  Often think issue is with content of what is said, but it is often how it said (direct, circuitous, ritual)/

Questions:

In selecting a therapist, is gender important?  An effective therapist is aware of the differences and bias due to gender, and allows for it.

How much is nature vs nurture?  Combination of both.  Can tease some out by looking at cultural differences.  In every culture, boys fight for fun, whereas girls will fight because they are mad.  There are others who think all nature or nurture.  Men are more likely ot argue for biological, women to say cultural.

What about training salespeople?  Tell to make eye contact.  She would bet that successful salespeople. like the therapist, allows for differences, cross-cultural differences as well (e.g., Korean and American south will not look at folks with higher status in the eye)

Balancing Work and Life: Dual-Career Couples.

How, and when, are you supposed to do everything? Does it get any easier?  At what cost?  Couples representing different institutions, academic rank, and family status discussed the challenges and strategies of balancing dual careers with everything else important to them.   Sponsored by the ESF Women's Caucus and the Women in Science and Engineering Future Professoriate Program. 

Panelists:  empty nesters Dr. Gina Lee-Glauser, Vice President for Research, SU, and Dr. Mark Glauser, Associate Dean for Research and Doctoral Programs and Associate Director for Research, SU; Dr. Eleanor Maine and Dr. Doug Frank, both Professors of Biology at SU and the parents of middle schoolers; and Assistant Professors of Chemistry, Dr. Kelley Donaghy, ESF, and Dr. DJ Robinson, Ithaca College, the parents of 3 elementary schoolers.  The panel was facilitated by Dr. Suzanne Baldwin, Professor in SU’s Earth Science department.  Dr. Baldwin’s husband, Paul Fitzgerald, is in the same department; he was unable to participate today due to a prior  commitment at the Geology Society meeting. 

Who commutes?  Have tried to live where the one with the strictest schedule has shortest commute, although this has meant up to a 3 hour commute for the other.  As academics, they do have some flexibility in class scheduling and where work occurs—try to alternate days that they HAVE to be on campus.  Two of the panelists were formerly in industry and they had strictly set schedules, so living close to job was very helpful; DJ noted unlike now when he regularly brings work home, he left work at work.  Gina pointed out that much of your personal control over your schedule and work load are much more restricted and industry often requires frequent travel on schedules made by the company.  In academia, they juggle deadlines, rather than their supervisors.  In contrast, work associated with academia can often be performed in a variety of settings, for example Mark would bring a laptop to daughter’s skating practice.

How did you negotiate the job for your partner?  Eleanor was already faculty at SU when Doug came on soft-money.  When they started their family, Eleanor went on 50% leave and Doug was hired to fill the 50% position.  The only thing that was really half-time was their teaching loads—which considerably lightened their stress level.  They were lucky that the base salary was sufficient to live on. In addition, Eleanor was well respected and they had the chair’s and dean’s support.  Both jobs eventually reverted to full time.

They try to schedule sabbaticals together; Suzanne took a ‘leave’ once to accompany husband on his, and independently studied geology of region in that locale.  This turned out to be a great work opportunity for both of them.

As a couple, need to define the boundaries, career goals, and find a place that works with you.  Compromise is critical and couples may have to alternate whose career or options to follow at each juncture.  From audience:  compromise is important to all couples.  You also must not resent sacrifices that you’ve made for your partner, or take for granted those made for you.  Give each other space.  Communication is also key.

All of the panelists happen to be in same general field as partner—does that help?  Baldwin and husband made conscious decision to work together; otherwise they wouldn’t ever see one another (their work was previously on different continents).  It was acknowledged that you have to be conscious of the dynamics among your peers and the politics that result from a couple working in the same department.  You may be seen as a ‘voting block’ at faculty meetings, for example.  Or feel that you are a co-between for your partner.  Can you tell spouse that….? (They’ll try, but you know, they do have other things to remember, too!)  For the Glauser’s, at their original institution where Mark worked and Gina pursued her doctorate and then also was hired, there was an early perception that she got her degree, positions and perks because of her husband.  Conversely, when he later followed her to SU, no one cared. 

Day to day workaholics vs family?

1. Houses not as clean as they could be (all concur) and you hire help as much as possible.
2. Stay organized, central domestic calendar and superimpose work calendars several weeks out. 
3. Daycare, before and after school programs at schools or private (they like the Jewish Community Center and Rothschild Early Childhood Center at Temple Adath Yeshrun—note:   both facilities welcome non-Jewish participants), and reliable babysitters. Always have a back up plan.
4. Dedicated family time. For one family, it’s Sundays, for another, daily dinners together.  For all, between dinner and kids bedtimes, and they write later.
5. Make your daily life circumstances work for you.  For example the Glausers installed an antennae to allow internet access at their wilderness cabin so that Gina could be apprised of emergent problems at the office—this gives her the peace of mind she needs to enjoy time at the cabin.  Set aside space at home that you can work well in.
6. Flexibility.  Work at home?  May be easier at times to keep home separate, but for these families, working at home has less interruptions.  Much of their writing gets done 9pm-3am.
7.  Toys in their offices for when kids do come in with them.

Give up job for a few years?  Bio—would be difficult.  Kelley intended to take a year off after youngest was born, but so many good job announcements came out that she applied and interviewed for a number of them.  One of those led her here.

What stage of your career did you have children?  Mark and Gina while she was in grad school.  Eleanor and Doug were older, she already had tenure.  They did encounter the problem that SU did not yet have a parental leave policy in place following adoptions.  Kelly and DJ waited until they thought they were in established positions.   Did they take breaks?  Sort of, but still wrote papers and proposals.  

Slow tenure clock?  Eleanor was already tenured when she went half-time; Doug did not take an extension.  Kelley’s previous institution had a stop clock policy BUT chair and dean had to be on board for this to work as intended, otherwise the reduction in teaching would result in higher expectation for writing.  Also, she notes that a teaching reduction wasn’t really what she needed—it was physically uncomfortable working at the lab bench during the later parts of her pregnancies.

Is your experience typical for non-hard science?  They think so.

Gina volunteered that there are gender differences.  She never displayed family photos for fear of “There she goes again” vs “What a great dad!”  She also never felt that she could say that she had a family obligation, or to say ‘no’ to a work related request to review a paper, etc.  Kelley noted that despite being in an open and responsive department, she feels the same way now.  As a result, both have missed more of their children’s events than their spouses.

They asked of each other:  would you do it differently?  No.  Through every sacrifice, we are a stronger couple and family.

Comments compiled by Heather Engelman, ESF Women’s Caucus and Sharon Alestalo, WISE FPP

Breaking through the glass ceiling--and what to wear on the way, February 19, 2010.

WISE invited fashion professor Karen Bakke to talk about dressing for success, without breaking the bank.  She suggests watching clips of "working girl" where secretary Melanie Griffith is transformed into a CEO through hair and wardrobe.
Those interviewing will likely be at least a generation ahead of you, and want to hire someone that won't embarrass them.  Thus, 
1.  Do not offend--Simple, sensible, conservative attire, shoes and bags. 
2.  Keep an eye on what those in the top jobs wear.  
3.  Stock up on hosiery in the winter, as you can rarely find it in the summer any longer.  
4.  Feminine OK, but not slutty or bimbo.   
5.  And even after you've gotten the job, casual does not equal sloppy.

Work-Life Balance Panel (co-sponsored by WISE-FPP)

Panelists Svetoslava Todorova, a graduate student in Civil and Environmental Engineering at SU; Dr. Melissa Fierke, Assistant Professor, EFB, SUNY-ESFF; Dr. Marina Artuso, Professor, Physics, and Co-Director, WISE, SU;  and Dr. Shobha Bhatia, Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor for Teaching Excellence, Civil and Environmental Engineering, SU represented different stages of an academic career.  Similarly, their children range in age from toddler to college.   Some of their spouses are fellow academics, some have separate professional careers, and one is an at-home dad.  

Their suggestions: 

• Prioritize, and where possible, separate the priorities in time. 
• Set goals to stay on target and motivated.
• Support of family, advisors and friends is critical.  Parents provided childcare for several panelists, either during particularly hectic experiment periods, or allowing the panelist to travel to conferences.
• Try to keep regular time for family, but don’t feel guilty if need to change it or miss it this week. And also keep some time for yourself to do something you love like reading or running.
• Focus on the present.  Let go of the guilt for sacrificing housework, limiting social time with classmates, and postponed deadlines. 
• Pre-pay for vacations/tickets so that you are not tempted to say “I’ve got too much to do right now.”
• Click here for a the handout.

Questions:

Did any of you consider working part-time?  No.  Part-time is generally frowned upon, especially for those that have not attained tenure.  Full-time expectations even for those that are part-time.  International students do not have a part-time option.

Childcare Centers?  Great help.  Can’t predict how you will feel about daycare.  Lots of moms think they want a childcare facility, but change their minds after birth.  At the same time, it’s very hard to give up a career you love, even its just for a short period.

“Even the best-laid plans…”.   Timely examples: a fifth panelist cancelled to care for a sick child, and one of the sitting panelists was called away for a period to coordinate assistance for an older child.

Robin Bell's guide to preparing for tenure

Dr. Bell “Step(ped) through hints on how to be strategic; how to build the record you need to be an academic scientist.” The time between post-doc and tenure sets the stage.  If you have a plan, you are likely to do better (measures used:  submit papers and grant applications at a higher rate, be first author more frequently) and be more satisfied.  Productivity is THE measure of how good you are, with # of pubs is the most common metric Be able to say what you have contributed, and have a “home run”—an important discovery or advance.  There is a hierarchy of value associated with scientific work:  Theoretical>experimental>technological breakthroughs. Distinguish yourself from your PhD advisor, but if the relationship is good, keep working together.  Pick projects that can be published and funded.  Collaborate.  Travel to meetings If you can’t present, see about running a workshop there, or at home institution.  Ideal: prestigious PhD program and post-doc, work assignment with opportunities for research, eminent mentor, early publishing, no career interruptions (there are some gendered differences).  Align interests with rewards; make sure what you do counts.  More comprehensive notes.

Dr. Robin Bell: Ice Dynamics of the Antarctic Environment

The students enrolled in FOR 496/797 Environmental Career Strategies for Women share the responsibiltiy for reporting on speakers in the Women in Scientific and Environmental Professions Speaker Series for our sponsors as well as for submission to the Knothole.  The following was prepared by Rachel Tucker and Johanna Duffy.  Also note:  a brief summary of Dr. Bell's advice on how to prepare for tenure has been posted at  http://www.esf.edu/womenscaucus/Potlucks.htm

 

Dr. Robin E. Bell, Doherty Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, presented Antarctic Environment: Sub-glacial Lakes Linked to Ice Dynamics at ESF on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. This presentation was jointly sponsored by Syracuse University's Department of Earth Sciences, the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) Program at Syracuse University, and the ESF Women's Caucus.

Dr. Bell discussed the changes in ice dynamics that are being observed in Greenland and the Antarctic environments. She summarized the causes and effects of these changes and also compared and contrasted the ice dynamics of these two environments.

Dr. Bell first focused on what constitutes ice dynamics. Overall, the amount of global sea ice has decreased in the past 5-10 years. This reduction is studied using ice dynamics (i.e., understanding how and why changes occur in the ice sheets). Dr. Bell explained that the melting of floating ice has no impact on sea level, but that the melting of ice on the land surface (ice sheets) can lead to increases in global sea level. The three ice sheets that are the focus of Dr. Bell's research are the Greenland Ice Sheet, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The melting of any one of these ice sheets could result in a drastic rise in sea levels, from a minimum of approximately 19-feet (West Antarctic Ice Sheet) to a maximum of approximately 170-feet (East Antarctic Ice Sheet).

The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet has increased by 0.7 percent a year. This ice sheet is characterized by outlet glaciers (fast flowing ice) located around its margin. It was discovered that moulins (glacial lakes) were conveying surface melt water to the base of the ice sheet, lubricating the base of the sheet, and forcing the margin areas of the glacier to break off into the ocean.

Dr. Bell began to focus her research on whether similar changes were taking place in the polar ice sheets in Antarctica. Her study determined that the ice dynamics observed at the Greenland Ice Sheet were not apparent in the Antarctic glacial region. The lakes of Antarctica are buried under many layers of ice, hence the name sub-glacial lakes. If the lake water levels drop, then so do the elevations of the glacier. Although her exploration team is making great strides in understanding the dynamics of the Antarctic glacial environment, more research is required to firmly grasp the causes and effects taking place in this region of the world. During the upcoming 2007-2008 International Polar Year, Dr. Bell and more than 5,000 other scientists hope to devote their time to polar studies and polar education throughout the world in order to better understand this world-changing topic.

Dr. Bell received her B.A. in Geology from Middlebury College, and her M.S., M. Phil, and Ph.D. in marine geophysics from Columbia University. Aside from her research duties, Dr. Bell is also the Chair of National Academy of the Sciences Polar Research Board and Vice Chair of the International Planning Group for the International Polar Year. She also directs Columbia University's National Science Foundation-sponsored ADVANCE program, aimed at recruiting and retaining women in the sciences.

For more information about the Women in Scientific and Environmental Professions Speaker Series, please visit http://www.esf.edu/womenscaucus.

Women, Work, and the Academy: chilly climate issues for women in science and beyond.

A roundtable discussion featuring Alison Wylie, Barnard College, Columbia University, and Syracuse University’s Marina Artuso and Diane Murphy.  Friday, Jan. 28, Alumnae Lounge, Women’s Building, Syracuse University.

“In March 1999, MIT released the summary of an internal report on the status of women faculty in science that immediately drew national and international attention.  Its central message was that gender discrimination is alive and well in elite science, although it takes a form quite different from what we typically recognize as discrimination.  It is not a so much a matter of explicit and intentional marginalization as of innumerable small differences in treatment that can have substantial cumulative effects:  a pattern of powerful but unrecognized attitudes and assumptions that work systematically against women despite good will.  While this report has been received by many as a startling revelation about the gendered dynamics of science, it builds on an expansive body of research that documents what was identified, in the early 1980s as a chilly climate for women in science and academia more generally.”  Wylie outlined the development of this research and discussed why the gender of science matters.

The MIT report came about after individual senior women faculty happened to come together and realized that what they thought were individual instances of less money, laboratory space and support were more universal across the campus than they realized. The key discoveries of the formal investigation were:  

1.While each “microinequity” was beneath the threshold of detection or concern, the cumulative effect was systematic exclusion and marginalization and altered career trajectories for women. 

2.There were clear differences by cohort over time, with the most senior women reporting the most problems.  This didn’t seem to be a factor of the younger women having a more supportive climate, but rather that the older women “feeling positive, too, when they were young.”  That is, the younger women had not yet been subject to the cumulative microinequities long enough for them to have taken their toll.

Chillying practices take three forms: 

1.Gender stereotyping . Women are expected to take primary control of student affairs, but often have little impact on key decision making.  Training often reinforces these stereotypes.  For instance, in archeology, men are groomed for the most prestigious field work, while women are trained in laboratory procedures—demanding and exacting work, but with much lower salaries.

2.Differential patterns of valuation.  Assertive behavior is considered a positive trait for men, but is often perceived as brassy or pushy in a woman.  Identical resumes thought to belong to a James Moore are generally rated more highly than those attributed to Carol Moore.  While women have lower publication rates than men, those publications are cited more frequently:  24 to 14 in one study.  Why this is so is not well documented, but likely a result of women’s work being more synthetic (big picture vs. smallest publishable segments, more careful to stand up to scrutiny, and more comprehensive.

3.Practices of exclusion, which may be unintentional.  For instance, women aren’t privy to the work related discussions that occur in locker rooms or at other social venues.  Often, women are not invited to these after hour events and they feel awkward about inviting themselves. 

For many years, the thought has been that if more women enter the “pipeline” they will reach enough of a critical mass to plug the leaks.  This is not playing out yet and the pipeline analogy may be too simplistic.  While the number of women in undergraduate SMET programs has increased dramatically, the % of women at each upper level remains similar.  In fact, once women elect to pursue college level science, they have higher grades and completion rates, but lower rates of entry into master’s programs.  Virginia Valian discusses this phenomenon in “Why so slow?”   

Why does it matter if women aren’t faring as well in math and science?  Wylie argues that is egregious that this injustice exists and persists in science which is held up as the ideal.  And on a more practical note, the influx of international scientists has declined in recent years as programs at home universities develop and their prestige grows.  Scientific fields simply cannot afford to continue deflecting this pool of trained, talented women. In addition, there is evidence that innovations are more likely among a diverse group than an homogeneous one.  The story is likely more complex for women of color, but few studies have looked at this pool except to determine that Black women have the lowest retention rates in academia.

Wylie’s presentation was followed by brief commentary by Diane Murphy, former director of the Women’s Studies program, and Marina Artuso, Associate Professor of Physics and Co-Director of the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) program, both of Syracuse University. Murphy adds that women are “Doing science” and are also the ones that work to create maternity leave, health centers and day care options that make universities more family friendly to all.  Women constantly need to educate their male and female peers about the sound reasoning behind these decisions which should be taken up institutionally.  Artuso notes that WISE’s was created to educate SU on patterns of women at Syracuse.   Since its creation, the numbers of women have increased, and the most current report will be entering its final editing shortly.

During the question and answer period, we learned one possible reason why there are so few studies that specifically address women of color:   the administration requested that WISE’s proposal to study this particular group be expanded to include all women on campus.  We also discussed the frustration felt when the numbers of women do increase in spite of patriarchal training, but the atmosphere remains the same.  Wylie does worry about this type of socialization; leadership must be top-down as the changes benefit everyone, not just “the girls.”