Commentary pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
The Threads of Inspiration To Study Science: More Than Academic Genealogies Susan D. Wiediger* Department of Chemistry, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois 62026-1652, United States ABSTRACT: Academic genealogies track scientific lineages, usually through earned degrees. Such a view overemphasizes the importance of Ph.D. institutions, leading to some faculty at Ph.D. institutions devaluing students that will not further their academic legacy. This commentary argues that expanding the scope of discussion to include sources of inspiration and support increases the diversity of our view of science and more appropriately values the scientific contributions of those outside Ph.D. institutions. More thoughtful consideration of the biases implicit in academic settings may be beneficial for the scientific endeavor as a whole. KEYWORDS: High School/Introductory Chemistry, First-Year Undergraduate General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Upper-Division Undergraduate, History/Philosophy, Misconceptions/Discrepant Events, Professional Development, Student/Career Counseling
W
that demean the value of the speaker’s own setting. This attitude is fostered by a self-perpetuating prejudice present in many doctoralgranting schools, as the following anecdote illustrates.
hat was the career path that brought you to the point where you are reading this Journal, this article, today? Who or what inspired you to become a scientist? If you give credit to a person (parent, teacher, author, etc.), do you know who inspired that person to support science or to be a scientist? Most of those with doctoral degrees can easily track back at least several layers of thesis supervision (advisors)trace their academic genealogybut following the thread of inspiration can be much more difficult. To use myself as an example, my thesis advisormy academic “father”Phil Brooks, was mentored by Dudley Herschbach; because my academic “grandfather” is well-known, I can then easily tap into published genealogies if I am interested in tracking further. However, there is no paper trail (until now) to tell anyone that I was inspired to be a scientist by Saturday programs at the Talcott Mountain Science Center1 and to specialize in chemistry through reading Bernard Jaffe’s book Crucibles: The Story of Chemistry from Ancient Alchemy to Nuclear Fission,2 and finding out what or who inspired Bernard Jaffe or the instructors at Talcott Mountain could be difficult or impossible. Every year we hear about the importance of diversifying the face of science.3 Authors talk about the importance of role models that “look like” those we wish to encourage, whether that resemblance is based on gender, race, religion, or so forth.4,5 Many of these authors focus on the composition of college and university faculty. Search committees in many settings worry about attracting strong, diverse pools of candidates and then successfully hiring their top choice. My experience in listening to these discussions is primarily in university settings (doctoral- and masters-granting institutions), and a frequently heard comment is: “Any (underrepresented minority or woman) who has the skills we’re looking for can get a job anywhere, so why would they come here?”6 Job candidates may have many other factors to weigh in their job searches: partner employment, geographic preferences, work−life balance issues, and so forth. Despite all these factors, of which every search committee is aware, job seekers are often assumed to be seeking the maximum money and prestige. This implicit bias toward high-paying industry positions or highest research reputation schools results in comments © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Pat7 was excited and enthusiastic about having just joined a research group. The professor was fairly new at the university and was on the cutting edge of current topics, attracting many students interested in the group. “Dr. Omega asked about my career goals, and was so happy to hear I was interested in becoming a professor. No one else joining the group so far has been a potential academic childyou know what that means?” “Yes” I replied. “Tracing doctoral degrees back through a chain of advisors. My academic grandfather is Nobel Prize winner Dudley Herschbach, for example. I’ve seen schools where they have traced the genealogies of everyone in the department back to eight 18th century scientists.” “Sounds a little odd to me” said Pat, “but it seems pretty important to Dr. Omega, and so we’ve been planning out everything that would help me succeed as a professor − already!” A couple years later I saw Pat again; qualifying for candidacy was in the works, there was a new baby, and some of the excitement seemed to have worn off. Dr. Omega was no longer quite so supportive and enthusiastic about Pat’s work. “What changed? Aren’t you still interested in being a professor?” “Oh, I love to teach, and I still want to be a professor, but since we had little Robin, I’ve started reconsidering what kind of school I want to teach at. Now I think I’d like to be at a small school − maybe even a religiously based one, like I went to for undergrad − where I’d have time to spend with Robin and my family. That wouldn’t extend Dr. Omega’s academic genealogy... so there’s just not the same interest from my advisor anymore.”
Published: May 31, 2012 965
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2005278 | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 965−967
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
Alas, Pat had turned into a “girl child”a student no longer a source of academic progeny that would carry Dr. Omega’s name into the futureand thus, no longer of the same value. Advisees who earn a doctorate and then go into industry or work for the government or primarily undergraduate institutions might be a source of funding or future students; however, for some professors, the true sign of their success and lasting influence on science is the production of Ph.D.s who themselves produce Ph.D.s and carry on the academic genealogy. For the professor who sees themselves as a contributor to a line of scientific inquiry nurtured by a lineage of scientists, failing in the production of “academic grandchildren” is breaking the line of the scientific inquiry. Such a perspective is captured by Kealy and Mullen’s idea of macro-mentorship8 as well Russell and Sugimoto’s argument9 that tracing back the line of mentorship contextualizes a researcher’s work by identifying the influences on his or her development. However, this view that scientific endeavor can be captured in the lines of an academic genealogy also narrows the view of scientific inheritance to the relatively small number of schools that grant Ph.D.s. Focusing on the Ph.D. lineage alone is shortsighted and narrow-minded. The attitude that Ph.D. granting positions are the pinnacle of scientific achievement is dismissive of the skills and knowledge needed for other scientific positions and rejects the diversity of ability and personality essential to the success of the scientific community. Instead of only asking where degrees were obtained and from whom, we should also ask where inspiration was found and how the person reached his or her current position. The Ph.D. advisor is generally not the person who ignited the interest in science necessary to begin an undergraduate science degree, let alone survive the Ph.D. process. This is not dismissive of the value of Ph.D. institutions or indicative of a value judgment regarding academic genealogies. Many individuals track their academic genealogies, write articles about significant chains of training, and develop resources to aid others seeking information; one place to start if you are interested is the American Chemical Society’s Division of the History of Chemistry Web site.10 Instructors use academic genealogies to bring the human side of science to their students and to motivate students to access primary sources in chemical literature.11,12 Departments develop catchy graphics or Web sites13−15 that may aid in engaging students. Scholars use academic genealogies for purposes ranging from discussing the changes wrought by interdisciplinary research16 to calculating metrics that identify key shapers of a discipline.9 However, even these scholars recognize the limitations of tracing degrees. As Ronald Graham states, “It is not correct to assume that in all cases the professor under whom an individual took his most advanced degree is necessarily the one who exerted the greatest influence on his scientific work or outlook. For example, Professor Harold C. Urey is not shown as a scientific ancestor of Dr. H. G. Thode, but it was while Dr. Thode was studying with Urey at Columbia University as a postdoctoral student that he became so attracted to the fields of mass spectrometry and isotope study that his research and main interests have ever since remained in these fields.”11 Even the information available through these more detailed stories does not tell us why Dr. Thode was originally inspired to pursue science. While the Ph.D. advisor may not be the source of the inspiration to study science, they, and instructors at other levels and types of institutions, can influence the students’ choices of
career through their comments and attitudes. In a study done on the impact of negative comments on career choices made by medical students, while the impact of such “badmouthing” was not rated highly, 17% of the students did report changes in career plans as a result.17 Of interest is the authors’ comment that the source of the comments was not always faculty directly, but that swirling information would get repeated by faculty and students. Thus, this suggests that, if a negative view of certain careers is pervasive, then a cultural change is necessary. Individual professorssuch as one I met who gave students aimed at an industrial career an emphasis on group work and multiple projects, straightforward projects to those desiring to teach primarily undergraduates, and large risky projects to those desiring a high-research university futuremay be a frail bulwark against swirling winds of “You’re too smart to be wasted as a teacher” and “A Master’s is the booby prize for failing a doctorate”. Another research study that would be informative would be to ask instructors what their practices are in mentoring students about career choices. Unfortunately, for the chronicler, inspiration may not be attributed to a single source. The doctoral advisor does contribute a great deal of effort and resources and at least some ongoing inspiration. However, there may also have been significant support and inspiration from committed K−12 science teachers as well as family and community members. Academic genealogies are often complicated by meandering career paths, and the tracing of inspirational pathways does not even have the aid of official diploma paperwork. However, relying on the “easier” path of tracking degrees is to reject the contributions made by others beyond the limited number of schools that grant Ph.D.s. and to perpetuate the view that being a professor at a Ph.D.-granting school represents the ultimate position. This “research-centric” view is seen in articles such as one in C&EN, when Destin S. Leinen says he owes his whole career to two faculty mentors, Lynn Gardner and James Hill of Oklahoma Panhandle State University, ... and the article carries the not-atypical tone of condescendingly noting how well these chemists were able to do despite being stuck at a primarily undergraduate institution.18 I would argue that if science is to attract a broader audience, we must pay attention to all the stages of nurturing and support. Research studies may focus on the impact of specific experiences such as preparing future faculty programs on participants,19,20 but studying the impact of pervasive climate issues, such as respect for all the people who fill different roles in science, is harder. As mentioned, some research has been done looking at the effects of negative comments on medical students’ choice of specialization.17 Work done looking at implicit bias on demographic issues21 is gaining in scope; perhaps more work along these lines would help academic mentors realize how their attitudes shape the environment for their students. Case studies and longitudinal studies looking at career choices would also help provide more robust data about current scientists and the influences shaping their careers. For a more personal action that readers might take right away, the next time you are meeting new people (or getting to better know folks you already work with), instead of asking “Where did you get your degree?” try something different. Ask them “Why did you become a ______?” Ask not who put the polish on their research skills but who or what ignited the spark of interest in science. I do this regularly, and the answers are so much more interesting and provide more insight into the person. You get great stories about authors who told a great science tale, high 966
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2005278 | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 965−967
Journal of Chemical Education
Commentary
(14) University of South Florida. Academic Genealogy. http:// chemistry.usf.edu/faculty/genealogy/ (accessed Apr 2012) (15) Michigan State University. MSU Chemistry Department Academic Genealogy, http://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/Genealogy/ chem_gene.pdf (accessed 10 August 2011). (16) The University of Texas at Austin. Academic Genealogy of Chemistry Faculty. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/chem/genealogy/ (accessed Apr 2012). (17) Hunt, D. D.; Scot, C.; Zhong, S.; Goldstein, E. Acad. Med. 1996, 71, 665−669. (18) Hayden, F. Chem. Eng. News 2008, 86 (36), 71−72. (19) A number of talks have been given at ACS meetings, such as Gerdeman, R. D.; Eikey, R. A.; Russell, A. A. Impact of a Preparing Future Faculty seminar in chemistry: Perspectives from Former Participants Pursuing Academic Careers. Abstracts of Papers, 229th ACS National Meeting, San Diego, CA, March 13−17, 2005; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2005. (20) Tusin, L. F.; Pascarella, E. T. Res. Higher Educ. 1985, 22, 115−134. (21) Nosek, B.; Banaji, M.; Greenwald, T. Project Implicit. http:// projectimplicit.net/index.html and https://implicit.harvard.edu/ implicit/ (accessed Apr 2012).
school teachers who believed in their students, scout leaders from industry, parents who encouraged experiments in the kitchen, garden, and garage... and science looks a lot more alive and diverse than the recitation of Ph.D. institutions suggest. We need to value those who inspire people to study science, and those who nurture nascent abilities. Advisors need to be as excited by undergraduates training to be K−12 teachers and graduate students planning careers in industry or primarily undergraduate institutions as they are by “academic children” who will stay in the ivory tower with them. The face of those who provide inspiration already has more diversity than the face of those who grant the degrees. While recognizing these contributions is no substitute for continuing to work to help all people succeed at all levels of the scientific enterprise, now is a good time to respect different roles as of comparable value and difficultynot the same value, but as much value. Broadening our view of who is a valued scientist aids the quest for role models that will help recruit a diverse future pool of scientists. As in hiring decisions, the goal is the best fit for the job, not the person who ranks the highest on an external scale unrelated to the tasks at hand. This is not about segregating academic-research bound individuals into high-research schools and industry candidates into technical schools. Those who have the responsibility of educating the next generation of scientists also have the responsibility of valuing the work that those scientists will do, wherever their careers may take them.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Talcott Mountain Science Center, Avon, CT. http://tmsc.org/ (accessed Apr 2012). (2) Jaffe, B. Crucibles: The Story of Chemistry from Ancient Alchemy to Nuclear Fission, 4th ed.; Dover Publications: New York, 1976. (3) Pemberton, J. E.; Aldridge, A.; Estler, R. C.; Gutierrez, C. G.; Houston-Philpot, K.; Ondrechen, M. J.; Revis, A.; Summers-Gates, J. A.; Thompson, C. V. A.; Wesemann, J. L. Report of the Presidential Task Force on Implementing the ACS Diversity Reports; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2010. (4) Wang, L. Chem. Eng. News, 2011, 89, [Online] http://pubs.acs. org/isubscribe/journals/cen/89/i21/html/8921employment3.html (accessed Apr 2012). (5) Wang, L. Chem. Eng. News 2010, 88 (44), 46−47. (6) This is not solely a diversity issuesimilar comments at a school with a high opinion of itself were “any analytical chemist good enough for our standards can get paid more in industry, and that’s why we don’t have an analytical chemistry professor”. (7) Names in anecdotes have been changed to preserve privacy. (8) Kealy, W. A.; Mullen, C. A. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394420; DynEDRS: Springfield, VA, 1996. (9) Russell, T. G.; Sugimoto, C. R. J. Educ. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2009, 50, 248− 262. (10) Division of History of Chemistry of the American Chemical Society. Further Information. http://www.scs.illinois.edu/∼mainzv/ HIST/further/index.php (accessed Apr 2012). (11) McCarty, C. N. J. Chem. Educ. 1969, 36, 317−318. (12) Graham, R. P. J. Chem. Educ. 1948, 25, 632−633. (13) Rasmussen, S. C. Academic Genealogy of the NDSU Department of Chemistry, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; North Dakota State University. http://www.chem.ndsu.nodak.edu/files/genealogy-web.pdf (accessed Apr 2012) 967
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed2005278 | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 965−967
