You might be an engineer if… April 30, 2015Posted by mareserinitatis in computers, engineering, research, science.
Tags: code, computer, engineering, programming, research, science
add a comment
I know engineers have quirky personalities. There are these things that most people take for granted that drives other people nuts…and vice versa. The engineer will spend hours fixing something so it works just perfectly while others don’t care as long as it’s functional.
I realized lately that one of my big pet peeves has been programming languages. Okay…that’s not just lately. But still. It really amazes me how you can do something so simply in one language but it’ll take you days to figure it out in another language. I’ve been beating my head against this a lot lately. While I learned programming a long time ago, as I went through my education, I learned other languages that had been optimized for working with certain types of problems.
So what am I dealing with now? Languages that were among some of the first that I learned, and their offspring.
I have decided that I will be switching to do some of my work in another language, maybe even learning a new one that supposedly has a low learning curve. On the other hand, I have to admit that my frustration certainly helps me to recognize the brilliance of the people who did all of their work in these languages. The engineer in me can’t help but think the languages are clunky and inefficient. I can’t be completely wrong, though: if they weren’t no one would’ve bothered to come up with new ones.
Wheel of (PI) Fortune January 13, 2015Posted by mareserinitatis in career, engineering, feminism, science.
Tags: academia, career, engineering, research, science, women in engineering, women in science
add a comment
I came across an article in Science from last summer discussing chances of being a PI. It included a calculator so that you could look at your various inputs (number of publications, first-author publications, etc.) and see what probability you have of becoming a PI. (I’m going to state the caveat that this probably is most accurate for biological sciences given that’s where the algorithm is presented, but I didn’t see that stated specifically.) Apparently, the dependency is most heavily weighted on two factors: number of first-author publications you have as well as highest number of citations on a first-author paper.
One interesting thing to note is that the chances of becoming a PI are better for men than women. When I was going through the various examples, it seemed like men generally had about a 12% better chance than women but it seemed to range from about 12% at the greatest and decreased with additional qualifications. The lowest difference I saw for people with the same qualifications was about 8%, but that was with the very highest qualifications.
Being of a somewhat practical bent, I decided to take this for a test run using both myself and my husband’s publication records. The thing that was a bit shocking for both of us is that the heavy weighting on first authors and citations on first author papers meant that, despite the fact that he has more publications than I do, my publication record actually is better in terms of chances at a PI than his. I have more first-author publications, and I also have more citations on one of my first-author papers. For most people who know us both professionally, I’m pretty sure that’s not what they would expect.
Despite my ‘better’ publication record, his chances at being a PI were still better than mine…by 8%. Given that delta seems to be close to the delta in general between men and women, it indicates to me that bias could be pretty significant factor in getting funding, especially early on in someone’s career when they’re low on some of those first-author publications.
Fortunately, I can happily write this off as a thought exercise given both of us have been PIs on our own projects. I’m glad I didn’t know the odds going in, however.
Stop telling boys to go into STEM December 18, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in education, engineering, feminism, science, teaching.
Tags: engineering, feminism, math, science, sexism, stem, stereotypes, students, women in engineering, women in science
Stereotyping is always a bad thing, and most people don’t realize that men suffer just as badly from stereotypes as women.
Let’s look at science: there has been a ton of work going into how to attract girls and women into scientific endeavors, particularly those that are very math-intensive. Much of the discussion centers on countering two issues: the first is the societal expectations that women go into ‘caring’ professions like teaching and nursing and the second is the stereotype that men are better at math. There is nothing wrong with these efforts, but there’s a flip side to this stereotype that has a negative impact on men: there are a lot of men who go into STEM fields (probably engineering moreso than science) that probably don’t belong there.
Lest you think I’m just being negative toward men, this is actually something a man told me. I had an English professor who was one of the best college teachers I’d had, I think in part because he was very knowledgeable in science. In fact, he’d received a degree in engineering from Stanford but then shuffled around for several years before finally getting a master’s degree in English. During one conversation, I asked him why he got a degree in engineering when he really loved literature.
There’s a strong expectation that if you’re a smart boy who’s good at math, you’re going to go into engineering. That’s what everyone expected, so that’s what I did.
During the course of my teaching career, I’ve seen a lot of this. I like to have students write me an introductory essay so that I can learn more about them and what they were hoping to learn from the class. Many of them reiterated almost exactly what my professor said: “I went into engineering because I was told it was a good career for someone with good math skills.”
I’m not saying it’s not a good career for someone with math skills of either gender. However, making a career choice should not be an either/or proposition based on problem-solving ability (lots of careers use that), and people are multi-faceted. People can be good at math as well as art, literature, music, biology, communication, caring for others, etc. Just because you’re good at something doesn’t mean that’s what your calling is nor necessarily where you should focus your energy.
While the majority of my best students were men, strictly as a result of the skewed sex ratio in my classes, the women were almost always in the top 20% of the class. None of them were there simply because they were good at math: they almost always really wanted to be an engineer. However, the least engaged students were always men: a lot of them were there because they hadn’t found their passion and felt they had to do something. Engineering was it.
The flip side of the ‘men are good at math’ stereotype is that many of them go into it even when they would be much better off doing something else. They’re discouraged from pursuing more ‘feminine’ careers and made to feel like failures if they don’t enjoy it.
So do the boys a favor: if they’re not sure where they want to go, don’t make engineering the default answer even if they are good at math.
Role with it December 12, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in education, engineering, work.
Tags: communication, engineering, women in engineering, work
add a comment
I am always nervous when I have to deal with the middle and high school crowd. I’ve had such mixed results in the past. A couple years ago, I helped out with an astronomy workshop for middle school girls. My job was fairly easy: I just had to help them find the sun in some solar telescopes. It was pretty obvious, though, that the girls in the last group just weren’t interested and wanted to be done. That may have been the time of day, but they weren’t particularly subtle.
I was therefore nervous when I was asked to give a tour of my workplace to a group of high school girls. How in the world do I keep them interested?!
While we were waiting for the last couple people to turn up, I started out by asking where they were from. This was a good move: I found out they all went to my old high school, and so we talked about some of the teachers there. I think that having a way to connect was helpful for all of us.
It also turned out that they were already rather interested in the topic and had lots of good questions and comments. After I thought we were done, one of them asked another question which led us into another part of the building and looking at even more stuff than I had anticipated. They didn’t seem all that eager to leave at the end, and I’d wished I had more to share with them.
I know that doing tours is a formality, but it’s nice when the people are actually interested. It makes it seem less like work and more about conveying how exciting it is to be an engineer.
Someone was stupid on the internet November 16, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, feminism, math, science, societal commentary.
Tags: communication, denial, engineering, privilege, science, sexism
1 comment so far
See more on Know Your Meme
Even though I am a woman who is working as an engineer at an academic institution, I have no ability or authority to discuss anything having to do with women in hard sciences.
Totally reasonable, right?
The person who told me this is a man who works in sports medicine. During the course of the conversation on what causes low rates of women in hard science/engineering fields, I brought up “male privilege.” I even went so far as to say that it benefits men to ignore this privilege because it keeps it in place. The response to even mentioning such a thing meant I was a conspiracy theorist. I obviously am incapable of discussing the issues women face in science because I believe in male privilege. Despite the fact that I was the one posting links to actual studies to validate my claims (using studies discussed in Nature and Scientific American), I obviously am incapable of understanding the issues.
I was attempting to explain that while I don’t think most of this behavior is explicit (although I have definitely seen that, too), there is a lot implicit bias. As I said in my interview on the Engineering Commons, there is quite a bit of sexism that is a result of people simply not thinking about the advantages they have or the assumptions they make. That is the very definition of privilege. I don’t think most people wield it mean-spiritedly, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist at all.
We were discussing a publication claiming that academic science isn’t sexist, a paper also discussed here. Let’s be honest: claiming hard sciences aren’t sexist is like saying that relativity (or any other major theory) is wrong. Not only that, it’s willful ignorance because there are so many studies out there to refute this notion.
The most irritating part of this discussion is that it should never have been about this issue at all. The discussion was in a forum designed to talk about science communication, and yet he initiated the conversation by claiming that the paper proved there is no sexism in academic science. There was no discussion about how to bring into account all the other data, how to most effectively communicate or discuss the result, or even about public response to news about this paper. Instead, this person used the forum as a bully pulpit for his own viewpoint, ignoring contradicting data and viewpoints. If this is how science communicators approach studies to begin with, it’s no wonder the public has a hard time understanding and interpreting these same studies. If the communicators don’t understand the science within the larger context, they certainly aren’t going to do a good job explaining it to the world at large.
It’s a mistery October 30, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering.
Tags: conference, engineering, feminism, gender equity, peer review, women in engineering
add a comment
I get asked to do a decent number of conference paper reviews, and surprisingly, some of those conferences have asked me to review in subsequent years. One such conference didn’t just ask me to review again, but bestowed the honor of making me part of their advisory board. I accepted, and they sent me a nice letter as an official statement. Except they sent it to the wrong person. They addressed it to Mr. Cherish.
So…what to do?
I at first considered responding and pointing out their error. (Hey, they had a 90% chance of getting it correct, right?) However, I’ve decided instead that I will keep it as is and frame it. I think it’s funnier that way.
Fungible funding September 3, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, research, science.
Tags: engineering, funding, science, science funding
add a comment
I was reading a discussion the other day on funding sources when it occurred to me that I’ve made a big switch on the topic. I used to think that industry funded research was *always* bad, *always* biased.
I guess being in engineering has changed my view considerably. A lot of engineering work is funded by industry, and this is a good thing. First, it means that the research actually has a chance of getting used. Second, it is helpful to the majority of researchers that are likely unable to get any funding from large governmental funding agencies.
In engineering, a lot of the conferences I’ve gone to have had large numbers of researchers from industry. (In a couple sub-fields I’m involved in, *most* of the people come from industry.) Those fields are the “too applied for NSF” type work that is still rather interesting and useful. Without companies funding some of their own research, they probably wouldn’t be going anywhere.
Despite my great appreciation of the system we have for government funding, it is still very limited. And even when things are funded, I’m not sure how many of these concepts actually make it to industry.
Now, looking at science from this engineering-informed background, I’m not as suspicious about industry-funded projects. Admittedly, science has a different approach than engineering, but I wonder how many areas are being underfunded. There are far more good ideas and questions to be answered than funding available. Is it better to let a question sit unanswered or to try to work with an industry partner to do some type of study? Just about every university will have a conflict-of-interest policy. While these aren’t bulletproof, I would assume they’re going to hit some of the basics. And maybe, just maybe, researchers really want to find the answers to their questions no matter how they get the funding.
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t be skeptical when research is funded by industry…but neither should we just write it off as biased.
Real men… July 3, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, family.
Tags: engineering, marriage, Mike
add a comment
Mike spent all day at work waiting for some smart-alek comments to his shirt. Nothing. Apparently we both thought the shirt was much funnier than everyone else. Regardless, I’m still giggling.
I smell a (lab) rat June 25, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, research, work.
Tags: engineering, hardware, lab coats, lab work, simulations, troubleshooting
add a comment
There are times in one’s life when we have to reinvent ourselves. This has been one of those times for me.
I’m turning into a lab rat.
I’m much more comfortable in front of a computer, designing simulations. I vastly prefer debugging programs to troubleshooting hardware.
ESD jackets look fugly on me. (Okay…I know they aren’t flattering on anyone, but it’s yet one more annoyance with the whole ‘working in the lab’ thing.)
I hate taking data.
However, whether I like it or not, I’ve been stuck in the lab for the better part of a month. My student left a month ago, and that leaves me to do a lot of the testing and troubleshooting on the latest project. I had hoped she’d be here through the end of the month, but she decided a post-graduation job was more important. (I can’t say I blame her.)
I really miss running simulations.
When is it plagiarism? June 6, 2014Posted by mareserinitatis in engineering, papers, research, work.
Tags: engineering, IEEE, journals, papers, peer review, plagiarism, reviewer comments
When I sit down to write a paper, I usually try to start from scratch. I type up an outline and try to fill it in, and then I begin work on all the different parts of the paper. While it has been tempting to reuse sections of previous papers, particularly the introductory material, I try not to do that. If you work in a specialized field, people are going to notice that they’re reading the same thing over. My writing may be fine, but after the 3rd or 4th time, it’s going to bore even me.
The issue came to the fore as I’ve been reviewing papers for a conference. While it’s not one I think I will be able to go to (it’s usually in Asia), I have reviewed for this conference the past couple years and really get some interesting things to examine. However, this year, all of the papers I reviewed has issues with self-plagiarism: that is, they copied verbatim materials from their own previous papers. Many of the papers I review are now being checked automatically for similarity to other papers, and while the process is supposed to be double-blind (that is, they don’t know I’m reviewing their paper, and I’m not supposed to know that I reviewed theirs), it makes it very easy to figure out who wrote the paper I’m reviewing: it’s the one with huge tracts of text that are identical but never referenced.
As I mentioned, I try to write papers from scratch, but I started to wonder if this was an ethical issue. After all, if I wrote a paper, shouldn’t I be allowed to copy it? It turns out that it’s not a good idea. In particular, most of the papers I’m dealing with will fall under IEEE copyright rules (that is, the authors transfer over copyright of their written materials should the IEEE publish those materials). Therefore, if you wrote the paper and it was published by IEEE, it’s simply not a matter of copying your own writing but plagiarism of IEEE materials. In fact, the IEEE communications society has an explicit policy that says,
IEEE Publications has long maintained the policy that verbatim copying of another’s work (plagiarism) is unacceptable author conduct.
The Communications Society values the intellectual contributions of its authors, and vigorously enforces the IEEE policy on plagiarism. As IEEE modifies its publication policies, it is important that authors who submit their work to ComSoc journals and magazines are informed of these changes.
In November 2002, the IEEE Board of Directors approved a new policy on Duplicate Publication and Self-Plagiarism. This policy is found in the IEEE Policies document, Sections 6.4.1B(f) and 6.4.1B(h). These two sections are given below.
(f) Plagiarism is unacceptable. The verbatim copying or reuse of one’s own research (as indicated in paragraph “h” below) is considered another form of plagiarism or self-plagiarism; it is unacceptable.
(h) Except as indicated in Section 6.3.4 (Multiple Publication of Original Technical Material in IEEE Periodicals), authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another referred publication. If authors have used their own previously published work(s) as a basis for a new submission, they are required to cite the previous work(s) and very briefly indicate how the new submission offers substantial novel contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s).
I know people who do this regularly. All you have to do is read enough of their papers, and it becomes obvious that the intro section is commonly recycled by several authors. I really don’t like the practice because it also drives up index values for papers that are simply examples of related work while not being foundational. On the other hand, it is a pain to rewrite those sections every time.
I’m very glad the Com Soc is being very explicit about their policy. However, other places are not as explicit, and this is honestly something that no one has ever mentioned to me. It’s something I would like to see delineated more clearly by all publications as I think it would draw more attention to using ethical practices in paper writing and submission.
When reviewing, I can’t be certain that the person writing the paper is aware of the policies on self-citation, if there even is one for a given organization or venue, so I generally mention that it’s a good idea to change the text. I’m always curious what the editors/session chairs do with this feedback, though. Do they take it seriously? Finally, it reinforces to me that it’s never a good idea to reuse previous writing unless it’s properly attributed, even if it is my own.