Tag: professional skills

Western Conference on Science Education 2015

Last week I attended the Western Conference in Science Education in London, Ontario. My goal in attending was to pick up some ideas for new things to try in my classroom and get some tips on possible assignments to try in the future. I also presented on my experiment in my graduate course last fall on using blogging as an assessment tool for learning .

Below is a list in random order of ideas that I’ll be ruminating on in the next few weeks before teaching again in fall term:

1) Have your 1st assignment early. It gives students a chance to see how you write questions and to prepare for future assignments.

2) If you use in-class quizzes, let the students teach each other for a few minutes before you evaluate them. This allows peer learning to take place in the classroom.

3) Lists of learning tasks and learning outcomes are important. This is definitely an area where I can improve.

4) Start a teaching mentoring community for faculty so that we can discuss strategies, successes, and challenges and learn from each other.

5) Get over the need to feel that every minute of every lecture has to be perfect.

6) I usually have students evaluate my teaching using a paper survey that I hand out in class. Other teachers found that allowing the students to use 15 or 20 second audio or video clips to deliver feedback led to more authentic responses.

7) Investigate the PeerWise platform.

8) It’s important to teach our science students how to communicate science to non-specialists and to tailor their communications to their audience.

9) I attended a great workshop that discussed strategies for teachers to maintain their well-being during our busy teaching semesters. Lots of valuable tips that I hope to implement!

10) Think hard about my classroom policy on electronic devices and their use. Tanya Noel and Tamara Kelly gave a neat presentation on “Does the digital have to divide us?”

Moderating my first Twitter Chat

I was very slow to embrace Twitter and have only had an account since 2013. One of the interesting things about blogging is that you can never really predict when one of your posts will resonate with someone and what the outcome of it will be. Last week I wrote a blog post reflecting on the experience of live tweeting a research talk for the first time. The post caught the attention of our university’s Knowledge Mobilization officer and through that connection I was invited to moderate my first twitter chat at #KMbChat. The topic was my blog post which was very flattering.

The twitter chat took place yesterday and will be archived here . I wasn’t sure what to expect since it was my first time participating in a twitter chat, let alone hosting one! I can happily report that it was an awesome experience and that the community was fantastic and very welcoming. I learned a lot from the experience itself as well as from the content of our discussion.

My plan is to use several of the topics that came up for discussion in the twitter chat as subjects of blog posts over the next few weeks. Based on my experience yesterday, I can verify that Twitter chats are very useful from a professional standpoint and I’ll be actively looking to participate in more of them in the future.

Making word processing easier

When I was in Grade 8 my parents bought our first computer. It was a Tandy 1000 and it was awesome. My brother and I logged countless hours playing computer games like King’s Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest, and Hero’s Quest published by Sierra . We stayed away from Leisure Suit Larry because it was wildly inappropriate for kids. We also had a dot matrix printer hooked up to the computer that could be used with a very basic word processor and I used it a few times to do school assignments.

One skill that has proved very useful to me in my job as a scientist is the ability to type. I learned how to type in Grade 10 by taking a class for an entire semester. It is probably the most boring class that I have ever taken in my life, but it’s a skill that I use every day and it saves me tonnes of time. I learned to type on an electric typewriter and was pretty accurate and speedy; I rarely used the correction paper that we had to buy for class. I’m pretty sure that they don’t teaching typing in grade or high school anymore, perhaps assuming that kids these days use their computers so much that they pick up typing on their own. However, my own children who are 12 and 8 type using two fingers and appear mystified by the QWERTY keyboard. A few weeks ago there was a discussion on several blogs about whether scientists still left two spaces after periods at the end of sentences when they typed. It took me a while to break that particular habit since that is how I first learned to type sentences.

Since entering my undergraduate degree I’ve used several iterations of Microsoft Word as my word processing program. I was thrown quite a bit by the 2010 update and have recently switched over to the 2013 version. I’ve often wondered how other scientists do their word processing, since I know that some of my colleagues prefer to use LaTeX . Over the years I’ve picked up several tips and tricks for using Word, but I consider my skills to be merely adequate and I know that I don’t use the program to its full capacity or usefulness. I figure that improving my MS Word skills would be a good investment as it could serve to save me lots of time and improve my efficiency at doing certain aspects of my job. With that in mind I took out the book “Office 2013 (the missing manual)” from my local public library. I’ve only read up to page 83, but it’s been illuminating to say the least!

Some highlights so far:

1) I’ve known for years that lots of other people regularly use keyboard shortcuts. I often use Ctrl + C to copy, Ctrl + P to paste, and Ctrl + A to select an entire document. This book explained shortcuts for bolding and italicizing text that should have been obvious to me before now; I’d been using my mouse and clicking on buttons to accomplish the same thing which is pretty clunky and often interrupted my flow of writing.

2) The start pane in Word 2013 was a bit disorienting at first. I’ve learned how to pin documents to the top of the list of recently used documents that will save me the time that I previously spent pulling them up from whatever folder I’d previously saved them in.

3) I recently switched to a dual monitor set-up in my office which was pretty amazing. Finally figuring out how to split the screen or show documents side by side has been mind-blowing and frankly is something that I should have figured out years ago.

4) I used to select text by highlighting it with my mouse and clicking and dragging the cursor. Evidently you can select words, paragraphs, or sections with a couple clicks of the mouse. Who knew? I certainly didn’t.

This book has been amazing so far and I look forward to the other gems of knowledge that I’ll pick up from it. It’s also been a very effective ego check and has served to highlight the fact that spending a bit of time figuring out how to really use a piece of software is time well spent.

What tricks have you picked up in the word processing programs that you use in your day to day work as a scientist? Feel free to share in the comments!

Dressing for Success in Science as a Woman

When I was a little girl I apparently wore dresses; there are pictures in the photo album to prove it. As I got older I ditched the dresses and it was mostly about comfort. I hate nylon pantyhose and tights passionately and in the late 70’s/early 80’s the fashion rules of the day dictated that bare legs with dresses or skirts were a fashion faux pas. Maybe it’s because I’ve only worn cheap versions of these monstrosities, but the itching and pulling is enough to drive me insane. Once in the lab I cut up a pair of pantyhose to serve as a makeshift filtration device; it was immensely satisfying! From that point on I was firmly in the pants camp. Pants are also considerably warmer and you don’t need to worry about accidently flashing people when you wear them (take note Britney Spears ). You can easily run wild throughout the neighbourhood catching crayfish, tadpoles, and avoiding snapping turtles while wearing pants. The only time that I wear a dress or a skirt these days are at weddings or fancy dinners. From this perspective wearing pants was a personal choice. Since starting my scientific career it’s also been a practical and necessary one.

When I first started working in a lab, it didn’t make sense to wear skirts or dresses (or shorts for that matter) from a health and safety perspective. All of the labs that I’ve worked in have required the use of personal protective gear including a lab coat. That lab coat is there to protect you, but it can only do so much. If you have bare legs exposed underneath your lab coat due to wearing a dress, skirt, or shorts you are placing yourself at risk. Don’t think that it can happen to you? I have a co-worker who used to think that way until she accidentally spilled phenol on herself in the lab. Many of the experiments that I do are messy and it doesn’t make financial sense to destroy “nice” clothes if it can be avoided. The same goes for shoes. We aren’t allowed to wear open toed shoes or sandals in the lab for the same reason. When running around doing experiments I’ll go with a pair of sneakers or loafers every time. This is also a keen survival strategy for when the zombie apocalypse occurs and making a speedy get-away will be important. That being said, I’m sure that Dr. Isis will hold her own regardless of what fabulous shoes she happens to be wearing that day!

In addition to the practical reasons that inform my clothing choices, there are larger societal and cultural factors that influence my professional wardrobe. I was reminded about this topic by today’s post on Tenure, She Wrote. And here we get to the sticky point; the double standard when it comes to how female and male scientists dress for work and how they are perceived based on what they are wearing. It’s a tricky tight rope to walk and for me personally takes up way too much of my mental energy most mornings as I decide what to wear to work. Judging by previous blog posts on the topic, I’m not alone. A quick Google search on the topic turned up a pretty amusing article from 1998 on the ScienceCareers website about a graduate student looking for a professional outfit. More recently the topic has been covered by a super post by My Laser Boyfriend  which outlines some great fashion options that are realistic and tasteful. Neurotic Physiology also had a good post about the double standards of dress for men and women and how to deal with long hair in the lab. The Singular Scientist discusses how female scientists are portrayed on TV and in film  and on difficult conversations that she’s had to have with trainees about inappropriate clothing choices. A more academic analysis of this double standard can be found in this Tenure, She Wrote post.

It would be great to live in a world where your fashion choices didn’t influence what people think about your competence or abilities as a scientist, but as some of the posts above can attest, we do not live in that world. At each stage of my career I have made a conscious effort to dress more professionally based on the adage to “dress for the job you want” and I feel that so far it has served me well. I’m at the point in my career where I’m feeling comfortable and secure enough in my position that I can start to make some bolder fashion choices. Up until now my professional clothing choices have been very conservative. This past year I made the revolutionary decision to add scarves into my outfit rotations! With that in mind, here are some links to websites that I’ve found useful for getting some ideas about what components are useful to have in a professional wardrobe:

1) Corporette

2) Capitol Hill Style

3) Franish

4) Does my bum look 40 in this?

Some people may think that having an interest in fashion, dressing stylishly, and being a successful female scientist are mutually exclusive. They are not. I count as role models several strong women who are excellent scientists as well as very snazzy dressers. There may be hope for me yet…

Academic Speed Dating: The Do’s and Don’ts of Approaching Potential Graduate Research Supervisors

Small Pond Science has a great post up right now on how to “cold call” other scientists in order to set up collaborations. Making a cold call means that you don’t directly know the person that you are contacting, which means that it is often awkward and uncomfortable to do. Experienced researchers find this challenging, so it’s no wonder that undergraduate students looking for potential research supervisors would find it mysterious and terrifying!

As someone who operates a research lab I receive a lot of inquiries that are cold contacts from undergraduate students, graduate students, and post-docs about working in my lab. I’ve seen this approach done really well, but I’ve also seen it done poorly. Below are some tips for making effective first contact with a potential research supervisor.

 1) Please read my previous blog post about narrowing down the potential locations and supervisors for graduate school. Do your homework and investigate the institution, department, programs offered, and the faculty members who supervise graduate students. Identify several potential professors that do research that you think is interesting. Come up with a list of reasons why you would like to work in a particular lab or area of research. Define what it is that you can offer the lab in terms of skills, educational background, experience, work ethic, etc.

2) Draft a short, professional email that clearly explains who you are and what you are currently studying. Explain why you are interested in working with this particular professor. Explain what skills you can bring to the table. Indicate that you are exploring options for graduate programs that have a particular start date (e.g. September 2015) and ask whether the professor has space and funding available to support a graduate student at that time. I usually recommend that students do not attach any additional documents to this first email. The goal of this email is to determine whether the professor is i) able to take on a student, ii) interested in further exploring your candidacy for that opportunity. It would be very helpful if you have multiple people read your draft to catch obvious spelling errors and to ensure that you’ve captured the right tone in your email. Use a professional salutation (e.g. Dear Dr. X) and close (e.g. Sincerely). I am a female professor, so if you start your letter using “Dear Sir” I delete it since it tells me that you can’t be bothered to read my webpage and learn some basic things about me and my lab. You should craft an individualized email for each lab that you are approaching. We can spot a generic letter from miles away and they get deleted. If it is clearly a cut and paste job it goes straight into the trash bin.

3) Make sure that you send the email to the correct email address.

4) If you have done the first 3 steps well, you should get a response from the professor within a few days. That being said, keep in mind that professors are busy people and do take vacations, so don’t panic if you don’t hear back within minutes of sending your email. If you haven’t heard anything back in a few weeks, feel free to send a second email reiterating your interest in joining the lab. If you don’t hear back, move on in your search and don’t take it personally.

When done well this cold call approach can serve to open a conversation between you and a potential supervisor. At this point you are both attempting to collect information in order to determine if a future scholarly relationship will be a good fit and of benefit to both of you.

Describing Social Media Activities in Promotion Packages

This past summer I spent a great deal of time in July and August putting together my tenure package. My view of tenure packages are that they are very individualized documents and this made it challenging to put the document together. It was also very rewarding when I completed the process and was a great opportunity for self-reflection. Recently, both Terry McGlynn and Jeremy Fox have discussed how they have handled their blogging activities in promotion packages. When I was putting my tenure package together it was clear that biologists who study ecology and/or evolution seem to be much more social media savvy compared to biochemists and physiologists. I found little advice on including social media activities in tenure packages and what I did find was posted by scholars in social sciences and humanities. I thought that I’d offer my perspective as an early career scientist who decided to include my social media activities in my tenure package.

At my institution we are evaluated for tenure on the basis of scholarship, teaching, and service. I have been blogging and using Twitter for about 1 year and I wanted to capture these activities somewhere in my tenure package. I consider the attitudes of my colleagues and my institution to be progressive and felt that those who would be evaluating my tenure package would be amenable to hearing about how I was using social media as a scientist.

In November 2013 I attended a workshop that directly addressed the role that social media could play in increasing your scientific profile. At that time I had a Linkedin page and had a ResearchGate profile. I was making an effort to keep my lab webpage up to date. We have a Knowledge Mobilization Officer at my university and she convinced me that I should step up my game. My first step was to open a Twitter account. I had resisted doing this as I wasn’t sure what kind of value it would offer. In the past year I have found Twitter to be useful in the following ways:
1) It has helped me find other female early career researchers and allies online and has made me feel part of a broader community.
2) It has provided advice and guidance on how to navigate the tenure-track.
3) It has given me some great ideas for teaching and active learning exercises to try in the classroom.
4) It has made me more aware of the challenges facing various “outsiders” in science and the role that I can play in challenging and ending inequities.
5) It has allowed me to increase my blog readership.

For several months I had also been toying around with the idea of blogging about being a research scientist. I had already decided that I wasn’t going to blog directly about my specific research field, but that I had a lot that I wanted to say about the actual process of doing scientific research and the “unwritten rules” or “Hidden Curriculum” of being a biologist. My focus would be on transferrable skills and to look at science through the eyes of a female early researcher on the tenure-track.

In my tenure package I made an argument that part of my scholarship was devoted to issues involving women in science and the professionalization of scientists. In addition to my social media activities, I’ve also been offering workshops on these topics as a post-doc and faculty member at my institutions and national conferences. While it is not my primary research focus, it is very much a large part of my scholarly identity and that is the case that I presented in my tenure package. The workshops and presentations at scholarly conferences served as quantifiable data that I could use to support my argument. I also used altmetrics such as the number of blog and Twitter posts, number of page views, visitors from various countries, number of retweets of my tweets, etc. as data to support my impact through my blogging activities. I also included hard copies of each of my blog posts in my tenure package.

I have been blogging for 1 year and have really enjoyed it so far. I have been approached by several graduate students, post-docs, and faculty who have told me that they read my blog and find it useful or interesting. That is very satisfying to hear and demonstrates that I have something valuable to add to the scientific enterprise and online conversations.

Are you unintentionally writing biased reference letters for your female trainees?

While it can be argued that acts of outright sexism have decreased in the academy, acts of underground, unconscious, and unintentional sexist behaviour are rampant. We unfortunately have plenty of examples covered in the popular media of such behaviour that we can point to in the past several months alone.

A few years ago I heard about a study that indicated that male and female researchers exhibited unconscious negative bias when writing reference letters for female trainees. At the time I was concerned because I had just come back from a 9 month maternity leave after my son was born. Years later, I took a second maternity leave after the birth of my daughter. Was it possible that my reference letter writers, in an effort to be helpful, could actually be harming my chances of succeeding in academia?

A few days ago Natalie Samson wrote a great article for University Affairs that brought this issue back into my consciousness. In that article she confirmed that the Canada Research Chairs program is now including explicit guidance to letter writers on how to ensure that unconscious bias does not enter into their reference letters written for female nominees. Natalie Samson outlines quite effectively why the program has decided that these guidelines are necessary for letter writers.

Let’s take a look at some of the CRC recommendations for letter writers. There are two sub- sections in the “Guidelines and Best Practices for Reference Letter Writers” section that are pertinent. One is entitled “Best Practices” and the other is called “Limiting Unconscious Bias”. Several are really interesting.
For example, letter writers are warned against being “unduly personal” and to avoid using the applicant’s first name. Most of the letters that I write are for undergraduate students and in my introductory paragraphs I list the student’s full name (e.g. Ms. Jane Doe or Mr. John Doe) and then refer to them as Jane or John throughout the rest of my letter. I have yet to write a reference letter for a post-doc or colleague and in that case I think that I’ll now refer to them as Dr. Doe given this advice.

Another example that I would hope would be painfully obvious to everyone is to comment only on information that is relevant to the position and to “not include information related to ethnicity, age, hobbies, marital status, religion, etc.” The fact that this is included in the guidelines indicates that some letter writers have done this in the past.

The third great piece of advice is to avoid “revealing personal information about the nominee”. This is a fine line to walk and you need to consider carefully whether introducing particular pieces of information will actually be relevant or helpful for the candidate. The example that the guidelines give is mentioning “circumstances where health issues or family responsibilities have led to career interruptions.” Is it appropriate to mention your graduate student’s maternity/parental leave? Are you mentioning Jane’s maternity leave in the context of impacting her productivity? Would you also mention the fact that John being a new father impacted his productivity? Is it your place to disclose your student’s cancer treatment, a disability, elder care issues? I would argue that you should explicitly talk about those issues with your trainee prior to writing the letter and ask them how they would prefer that you handle it. I would argue that this would be the only context where talking about a student’s personal life is potentially relevant enough to include in your letter and that you should do so only after asking their permission.

What do we do as letter writers that is a disservice to our female trainees? According to the CRC Guidelines page, the letters we write for women are more likely to:
• be shorter in length and incomplete;
• include gendered terms (e.g., woman, lady, mother, wife);
• include fewer ‘standout’ adjectives (e.g., excellent, outstanding etc.);
• include ‘doubt raisers’ (negative language, hedges, unexplained comments, faint praise and irrelevancies);
• focus on interpersonal attributes versus research skills/achievements (e.g., kindness, compassionate etc.); and
• include personal information that was not relevant to the position.

Three effective ways to prevent this are to:
• Avoid using stereotypical adjectives when describing character and skills, especially when providing a letter for a woman (e.g., avoid words like nice, kind, agreeable, sympathetic, compassionate, selfless, giving, caring, warm, nurturing, maternal, etc.).
• Consider using ‘stand-out’ adjectives for both men and women, where appropriate (e.g., superb, excellent, outstanding, confident, successful, ambitious, knowledgeable, intellectual etc.).
• Consider whether your letter unintentionally includes gaps, or doubt-raising, negative or unexplained statements (e.g., ‘might make an excellent leader’ versus ‘is an established leader’).

These are great recommendations and should be required reading for any faculty members who are writing reference letters for their students and trainees. They have made me rethink several practices that I use in crafting my reference letters and have identified some things that I need to stop doing.

Time Management for Scientists

Over the years I’ve come to realize that science is an extremely creative enterprise. I am of the mind that I can be at my most creative when I have the time to think deeply about scientific questions and how I might approach answering those using various experimental approaches. I would argue that having time to think and plan is required to be a successful scientist.
With that in mind I’m always on the prowl for effective time management and productivity techniques. Below I list some tips and tricks that I’ve picked up over the years that might prove helpful to others.

1) Plan ahead. I can’t count the number of times that this mentality has saved my bacon over the years. I once heard that 3 hours in the library can save you 3 months in the lab and I absolutely believe it. I try to do some planning at higher levels (1-4 year time scale), medium levels (per term), and low levels (weekly and daily). I’ve found it useful to have weekly goals for what I want to accomplish and to plan which day I want to tackle particular tasks. I use Friday afternoons as my planning time as campus is quiet and I can reflect on the past week and then have a look at what’s on my plate for next week. Before I leave for the day I try to have 3-5 goals that I’m aiming to accomplish the following day.

2) Bundle tasks. As scientists we have to simultaneously complete multiple projects pertaining to research, teaching, service, and administration which have a tendency to fragment our days and have massive negative effects on our productivity. I’ve found that a good strategy is to group like tasks together and to complete them all in one go. For example, this term I was teaching Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and was therefore in a teaching mind-set on those days. As a consequence I made a conscious choice to offer office hours and to book my one-on-one update appointments with my lab trainees on those days. I also used those days to mark assignments and tests and to prepare for upcoming lectures and assignments. This left Tuesdays and Thursdays wide open for research focused tasks.

3) Wrestle email to the ground. Email is a time suck and it will take over your life and destroy your productivity if you let it. Humans see something new and shiny and are immediately drawn to it and forget what they were previously focused on. Your goal should be to only check email 2-3 times a day and to respond to messages during those times. Close your email program and turn off your notifications and get on with your tasks. Don’t leave emails sitting in your inbox as reminders to do something. Convert the contents of that email into a task that you can do and aim to get your inbox to zero. Easier said than done I know, but it works.

The Hidden Curriculum: Sexist Shirts have no place in Science (or anywhere else for that matter)

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the hidden curriculum in university science departments. This is the idea that what and how we teach our students imparts information in addition to the content that we are delivering.
My parents both completed high school and then directly entered the workforce. I was the first person in my immediate family to go to university. As an undergraduate student I spent a significant amount of time working out the expectations that faculty members had and how that translated into the marks that I earned in my courses. When I started doing a fourth year research thesis in the lab I discovered that I had a new bunch of expectations that I first had to figure out before I could even dream about meeting or exceeding them. I am not talking here about learning content or scientific concepts; I am talking about uncovering the unvoiced and not obvious rules of how to be a successful scientist. This professionalization process is fraught with challenge and danger for many of us. In some cases it is because our very presence in the academy challenges what was formerly the status quo. We will therefore find it difficult to plug in to a network of people who can help us to navigate what are to us uncharted waters. I often found it difficult to know what questions I should even be asking, let alone how to go about finding the answers. As educators it is well worth asking ourselves not only what content we are delivering, but whether we are intentionally or unintentionally delivering other messages as well.

As a topical example, a cool topic in today’s news is the Rosetta mission which represents a significant scientific achievement. This represents the first time that a probe has been landed on a comet. A series of YouTube videos are available on the topic. One of these is produced by Nature. It’s an exciting news story and is certainly cause for celebration as it’s been 10 years in the making. The money shot in the video pertaining to the hidden curriculum starts at 1 minute 24 seconds. This is when the interviewer starts talking to Matt Taylor who is a Rosetta Project Scientist. At first it’s kind of cool because Matt is showing off his awesome tattoo of the landing module and Rosetta. That’s pretty awesome because that tells me that scientists are just like anybody else and we can have tattoos and be successful and gainfully employed. Unfortunately, his shirt sends another message. I can’t listen to his content (what I’m guessing he’s trying to teach me) because I’m too blindsided by the other message he’s delivering. His sexist attire that is objectifying women tells me that I wouldn’t be welcomed as a member of his team or that I wouldn’t be taken seriously or respected.

I don’t need a Rosetta stone to translate that message, it’s coming through loud and clear.

Self-Promotion as a Female Scientist

Over at the Dynamic Ecology blog there’s an interesting poll and commentary on the topic of self-promotion in science. Many of us in science are introverts. Self-promotion is therefore unnatural and uncomfortable. In conversations that I’ve had with scientists over the years it seems that biologists are quite divided on whether self-promotion is a good or bad thing. Regardless of how you feel about it from a personal or ethical standpoint, I would make the argument that self-promotion in science is necessary in today’s funding climate. Some trainees and early researchers that I’ve talked to recently still seem to harbour the mistaken belief that if you publish well and do good science, your science will speak for itself, and the meritocracy of science will see fit to reward you. I think that this is a dangerous fallacy that has hurt many a career. Similar to networking, it seems that many scientists see self-promotion as dirty or unseemly behaviour. As universities continue to realize the importance of community engagement and knowledge mobilization in recruitment and advancement the pressure on scientists to self-promote will only increase. Whether you agree with this or not, in order to survive and thrive, you’ll need to learn how to promote yourself, your trainees, and your work.

 

I can reveal the importance of self-promotion in science by sharing a personal anecdote. When I was a Ph.D. student I made a discovery that was a big deal in my field of research; I discovered a new bio-energetic pathway in animals. I wanted to share my results with animal biologists and I felt that the best way to do this was to present my results as a talk at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Zoologists (CSZ). I put together the best talk that I could, wrote an effective abstract, and went to register for the conference. Going to this conference was a big deal for me because most of the work that I had been doing was in plant biology; I had only recently started working in an animal system. I therefore had a gigantic case of imposter syndrome. Each year the CSZ holds a competition for the best student presentation delivered at the annual meeting, but in order to compete you need to self-nominate by ticking a box during registration. I did not tick the box. After all, who was I but a plant biologist invading the domain of animal biologists? Long story short- I gave an amazing talk that likely would have won me the award, but I had taken myself out of the running. It was an epic fail in self-promotion. The next year I put my hat in the ring and won the honourable mention for the award. It was an important lesson to learn early in my career.

 

I am also conscious of the fact that some of my hang-ups about self-promotion are due to the fact that I’m a woman. I’ve been socialized to keep my head down, do my best, and hope that I’ll be duly rewarded. It’s taken a lot of work to get to the point of realizing that I need to toot my own horn and be proactive about telling others about my research. I can’t afford not to.