Archive for the ‘Tomorrow's Research’ Category

971. Scoring on Sabbaticals

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Folks:

The posting below gives some excellent tips on how to make sabbaticals more productive and enjoyable.  The article is by Elie Dolgin and is from The Scientist: Magazine of the Life Sciences,  Volume 23, Issue 8, Page 58, http://www.the-scientist.com/ © 1986-2009 The Scientist. All rights reserved, reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis

reis@stanford.edu

UP NEXT: Infusing Public Health Education in the Undergraduate Curriculum

___________________________________________

Scoring on Sabbaticals

How to make the most of the precious time away from your usual duties.

Seven years after landing his first faculty job, and a year after securing tenure, Andrew Hendry earned his first year-long sabbatical, a precious respite from teaching and administrative duties that only comes around a few times in one’s career. Last summer, Hendry, a McGill University evolutionary ecologist who studies speciation dynamics, packed up the car, and-together with his wife, two young daughters, and two cats-drove across the continent to spend the year at Hendry Ranch Wines, a vineyard in Napa Valley, Calif., that has been owned and operated by Hendry’s family since 1939.

Although Hendry decided to carve out a unique, family-oriented sabbatical, it hasn’t been all wine tastings and horseback-riding adventures. “It’s really been as intense a working experience as I’ve ever had,” he says. He wrote countless grants and papers, traveled extensively for field work and meetings, and made weekly treks down to the University of California at Davis to interact with academic colleagues. “I’m happy with how it turned out,” he says.

In the first half of 2009, Hendry has published at a rate of about two papers per month-more than twice his normal pace-and in March, he was awarded the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada’s E.W.R. Steacie Fellowship, which will pay Hendry’s salary for the next 2 years. The work he put in during his time on leave has essentially translated into 2 more years of sabbatical, he says.

Sabbaticals rarely work out as planned. But a little planning can go a long way to ensure that academic leave-a treasured defining element of academic life-is not wasted. The Scientist spoke to three researchers who shared the highlights and foibles of their time off.

A world view

In September 2006, Arne Mooers boarded a plane with his wife and 1-month-old baby to embark on a “presabbatical sabbatical,” as he calls it. Mooers, an evolutionary biologist who studies phylogenetics and patterns of biodiversity at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in British Columbia, wasn’t due for an official sabbatical until July 2009, but he had been invited to Berlin, Germany, to spend the year at the Wissenschaftskolleg Institute for Advanced Study, an interdisciplinary research center where the “whole point is to bring together people who would never talk to each other,” he says.

Mooers went to Berlin to work closely with leading spider systematist Wayne Maddison, who had organized a special focus group centered on phylogenetic biology. But he also conversed daily with historians, philosophers, musicians, theologians, and lawyers. “I was exposed to a new set of colleagues, all with the time and energy to think about other people’s problems, including my own,” Mooers says. “It was an opportunity for informal but intellectual interactions.”

The experience broadened Mooers’ horizons. For one, he teamed up with Georg Nolte, a Humboldt University lawyer, and started a new research program aimed at ascribing value to species and biodiversity in general. He has since taken on a master’s student to further pursue the work. “Her research flows directly from the general exposure I got that year,” he says. He also struck up a continued collaboration with Maddison, now at the University of British Columbia (UBC), with whom Mooers plans to spend his “true” sabbatical at the UBC Beatty Biodiversity Museum later this year.

Tips:

Don’t forget your students

When a PI leaves on sabbatical, students can lose sight of their goals, says Mooers. “Things tend to languish when you’re away,” he says. In order to ameliorate the difficult situation, Mooers implemented an evolution mini-group with three SFU colleagues prior to his first sabbatical. The group would hold weekly lab meetings and cross-coordinated student training. “The other professors become the de facto supervisors” while he is away, Mooers says, which helps his students remain on point.

Think outside the box

“Sabbaticals are often really focused,” Mooers says. “This place is much more diffuse. No one really got done what they said they were going to do. It’s not a goal-directed type of place.” But Institutes for Advanced Study (there are nine others spread throughout the United States, Europe, and the Middle East) offer meaningful interactions with people to whom you wouldn’t normally give much attention. That’s the value, says Mooers-those unexpected relationships can lead to your next big interest. “I was exposed to radical new ideas that I hadn’t ever thought about.”

Should I stay or should I go?

Princeton neuroscientist Sam Wang had big plans for his sabbatical. He had just finished writing a popular science book, Welcome to Your Brain, which debunks popular myths about the human brain, such as the misconception that we only use 10% of our brain’s potential. In the fall of 2007, he stitched together parental leave and a one-semester sabbatical to obtain a year’s relief from his normal teaching and other administrative duties. His plan was to promote his new book, reconnect with students, and explore new directions in his research into how brain circuits process information.

It didn’t work out that way. “Taking a sabbatical and staying on campus was a failure,” says Wang. Although he didn’t have to teach classes, he still took on many administrative duties because he didn’t want to seem unreasonable to his coworkers. “It was a source of stress to be around, look my colleagues in the eye, and pretend I wasn’t there,” he says.

“There was some success,” notes Wang, “but that success involved leaving campus.” The sabbatical freed up time to fly to Spain to promote the Spanish translation of the book and hop the train to New York City for radio interviews on Oprah and Friends and various National Public Radio shows. Wang also wrote Op Ed columns for the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today-something he hadn’t done before.

Tips:

Say no

On his sabbatical, Wang sat on two committees: one to hire new faculty members, the other to recruit graduate students. “I can’t think of anything less in the spirit of a sabbatical,” he says. “Those are exactly the duties that you’re supposed to escape.” Wang didn’t want to disappoint his colleagues, though, so he agreed to the tasks. In hindsight, Wang realizes that was a mistake. If he had to do the experience all over again and remain on campus, he says he would be more insistent in turning down administrative work.

Home improvement

Taking a sabbatical at home gave Wang the time to transform his lab and to move in new research directions. He shifted from studying neurons in brain slices to imaging neural activity in intact brains using two-photon microscopy. This involved building a contraption to hold animals during experiments, and learning the “non-trivial” art of small-animal surgery. Large-scale lab changes can be disruptive, so “the time was important” to help get things done quickly while his schedule was relatively free, Wang says.

A leave with family

When Caitilyn Allen started planning where to take her sabbatical, there was only one place she wanted to go: the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) in Avignon, one of France’s two government agencies devoted to plant diseases. At her home institution, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Allen often felt academically isolated. She studies the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum-a soil-borne bacterium that infects tropical and warm-temperate crops mostly outside of the United States, which can cause extensive damage to rainforests and agriculture. Despite this pathogen’s impact on agriculture and some evidence of its introduction into the United States, few colleagues close to home work directly on the same research. So for her first sabbatical, in 2001, Allen wanted to go to a country that put a greater funding priority on tropical plant diseases. That was her dream, but then there was her husband, Don Waller, a plant biologist at UW-Madison, and their two daughters to consider.

Together, the couple decided that they would move to Avignon, and Waller would commute two days a week to the University of Montpellier, where he had scored a sabbatical to measure plant diversity. The girls, aged 6 and 11, were enrolled in French-speaking schools. “They adapted beautifully,” Allen says.

Seven years later, the family returned to Southern France and arranged sabbaticals at the newly formed Montpellier SupAgro, a site dedicated to agricultural sciences. On their most recent trip, their younger daughter, 13, entered a public-school program, while the big sister, 18, took a 2-week intensive university course on the ethics of food labeling, which counted toward her bachelor’s degree at Oberlin College in Ohio. “People should not stay at home for their children’s sake,” says Allen. Sabbaticals can be eye-opening experiences for the whole family, she says.

Tips:

Absorb new approaches

When on sabbatical, “throw yourself out of your element, but in a targeted way, so you have the opportunity to pick up some skills that you wouldn’t have at your home institution,” says Allen. She was able to learn how to work with a new plant pathogen and “serendipitously” started new projects, including a new collaboration with an industrial partner that she says “probably would not have taken off if I weren’t here in France to meet personally with the relevant people.” For Waller, who investigates ecological and environmental conservation issues, going abroad gave him a chance to discover alternative policy solutions. “We’re here [in France] to learn new research techniques, new paradigms and new ways of operating,” he says.

All in the family

If your family’s not happy, your work will suffer, so you need to help your children adjust to the new environment while abroad. Back at home, Allen and Waller hired a French tutor and bought French language films to help their youngest prepare for the linguistic shift. And they encouraged their college-age daughter to test drive the idea of studying abroad by buying her a ticket to join them for a couple of weeks. “In part, we are lucky to have outgoing, adventurous kids,” says Allen, “but I think it helped that we framed the sabbatical in advance as a big family adventure, a privilege and a treat. We included them in the planning and acted like it was a normal thing to do.”

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

NOTE: Anyone can SUBSCRIBE to the Tomorrows-Professor Mailing List by going to:

https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/tomorrows-professor

939. Responding to Journal Decisions

Tuesday, April 14th, 2009

Responding to Journal Decisions

It is time to strategize how you are going to respond to the editor’s letter and reviewer’s comments on your work. Let’s go through this process step by step.

Task 1: Reading the Workbook

On the first day of your writing week, you should read the workbook up to this page and answer all the questions posed in the workbook up to this point.

Task 2: Evaluating and Responding to the Journal Decision

Read the review and put it away for several days. What seems shocking and rude on the first day may seem much more manageable by the third day. Getting some distance on the comments is useful for strategizing on how you are going to respond. Once you have done that, make sure you are clear on what decision you have received. You will have to proceed differently depending on whether the journal has rejected your article or asked you to revise and resubmit it.

Responding to a Journal’s Decision to Reject

Let’s say that your article gets savaged and rejected. First, remember that almost all scholars have had their work rejected at one point or another -between 85-90 percent of prominent authors admit to having their work rejected (Gans and Shepherd 1994). Second, allow yourself to feel angry and depressed. You are only human!

Third, after allowing yourself to feel down for a week or two, revisit the letter and its recommendations, if there are any. It is time to make a decision about how you are going to proceed. Your options upon rejection are (1) to abandon the article, (2) to send the article without a single change to another journal, (3) to revise the article and send it to another journal, or (4) to protest or appeal the decision and try to resubmit the article to the rejecting journal. Let’s go through these choices.

Should I abandon the article?

Studies conducted several decades ago on the publication experiences of those in the physical and social sciences found that one-third of the authors who had an article rejected, abandoned not only the article but also the entire line of research on which it was based (Garvey, Lin, and Tomita 1972). Don’t let that be you! If your article is rejected the first time you send it to a journal, you should definitely send it to a second journal. About 85 percent of scholars now send their rejected articles to another journal (Rotton, Foos, Van Meek 1995). If three or more journals have rejected the article, it may be time to think about giving up on it, but remember the story that started this chapter. Further, a political science professor recently told a student of mine that an article of his had been rejected eight times before being published. The main reason to abandon an article is if reviewers raise objections to your methodology, theoretical approach, or argument so serious that you believe, upon long reflection, that they are unsolvable. Another reason is if the peer reviewers regularly agree on what is wrong with the article. Research shows that peer reviewers tend to agree with each other when an article is poor, but then to disagree when an article is strong. In other words, if you are getting split reviews, that’s a good sign.

Should I resubmit the article elsewhere without revising it?

Some scholars insist that they never revise an article until it has been rejected by three different journals. As one author put it, “Once it’s clear the editor is not interested, I’m not that interested in what the reviewers had to say [because] Šone reviewer may argue strongly that you change x to y, another may argue equally strongly that you change y to x. Authors should be wary of being drawn into this morass until they find an interested editor. When that happens, then you pay extremely close attention to the reviewers’ comments” (Welch 2006). Given the subjectivity of reviewing, this is not a bad plan. In the humanities, such scholars prepare three envelopes, each to different journals, so that if the article comes back from the first or second journal, they can send it right back out that day. If these authors get three rejections, only then do they sit down and really read the reviewers’ comments, see whether there is any agreement among them, and then revise accordingly. One study shows that about half of rejected articles that were resubmitted to other journals were not revised (Yankauer 1985). However, and this is important, revising an article increases the chances of a second journal accepting it (Bakanic, McPhail, and Simon 1987).

Should I revise and resubmit the article elsewhere?

Most scholars try to use the recommendations to revise the article each time it is rejected so that they can send an improved article to the next journal. You can’t go wrong with this practice, so long as you don’t spend too much time on revising and you only respond to critiques with which you agree. You should take care of any factual errors or real mistakes. The purpose of peer review is to provide you with sound recommendations for improving your article; you might as well use them.

Although three-quarters of authors felt that peer reviewers had some recommendations that were based on “whim, bias, or personal preference,” about as many authors also felt that the process of peer review improved their articles (Bradley 1981). It seems that authors must live with two contradictory truths: peer review is a subjective, biased process rife with problems AND peer review is a process that definitely improves articles. The editors’ review of the reviewers’ reports can be particularly helpful in deciding how to proceed.

(more…)

936. Write Before You’re Ready: First Steps to Avoiding Writer’s Block

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Folks:

The posting gives some great advice on avoiding writer’s block and builds nicely on posting #900, How to Write Anything, by Richard M. Felder. Today’s posting is by Gina J Hiatt, Ph.D and is from the Academic Ladder – Get help with the climb, which can be found at: [http://academicladder.com] © 2009 Dissertation Coach, reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: He Said, She Said: Gender-Typical Speech Can SourTeamwork.

(more…)

900. How to Write Anything

Tuesday, October 21st, 2008

Folks:

The posting below is another gem from Richard M. Felder, the Hoechst Celanese Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering at North Carolina State University and Rebecca Brent, president, Education Designs, Inc. Cary, North Carolina, this time on how to get your writing done. It has come great advice, Reproduced with permission from Chemical Engineering Education, 42(3), 139-140 (2008).

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Do Faculty Interactions Among Diverse Students Enhance Intellectual Development?

Tomorrow’s Research

(more…)

895 Management for Beginners – So You’re a Principal Investigator – Now What?

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

Folks:

The posting below looks at some of the do’s and don’t’s being a successful principal investigator. It is if from The Scientist, Magazine of the Life Sciences, Volume 22, Issue 7, Page 75 and is by Elie Dolgin. [www.the-scientist.com]. © Copyright 2008, The Scientist, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Keeping it Fresh – Maintaining the Jazz in Teaching: A Panel Discussion with Stanford Faculty

(more…)

889. Ten Ways of Thinking that Lead to Writing Procrastination – and Rebuttals to Those Thoughts

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Folks:

The posting below looks at. It is by Gina Hiatt, PhD and is from the Academic Ladder – Get help with the climb, which can be found at: [http://academicladder.com] © 2008 Dissertation Coach, reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: A Prototypical, Modern-Day, Stable Sinister System-Texas Southern University

(more…)

881. Double Dipping in Conference Papers

Tuesday, June 17th, 2008

Double Dipping in Conference Papers

If you are going to give a talk at a scholarly meeting, do you need new material?

That’s the question being debated in political science – as evidenced by a series of articles in the new edition of the journal PS: Political Science and Politics. While the journal finds a range of views on whether the trend is understandable or regrettable, the authors agree that it is real, and that attitudes appear generational.

As Nelson C. Dometrius, a professor of political science at Texas Tech University, writes in his introduction to the journal’s debate, when he raised the question with senior faculty members, he received mixed reactions, with people quickly outlining special cases where they viewed such “double dipping” as justified. When he posed the same question to graduate students, Dometrius relates, “the modal reply was a blank stare – a lack of comprehension that presenting the same paper as many times as you wished would be viewed by anyone as an unusual or questionable practice.”

Many senior faculty members say they first were discouraged from the practice in grad school – as often through subtle instruction as through any formal list of rules. In the PS articles, scholars consider the question of whether this shift in attitudes is one to fight or accept. Why, Dometrius wonders, is it now acceptable to do what was once “bad form”? (Via e-mail, he said that while he hasn’t rechecked every paper he has given, he does not believe he has ever double dipped.)

While noting that the practice has become visible largely when reviewing job applications, Dometrius wanted to quantify it, so he assembled 114 vitas from political science departments at seven regional universities. The pool was made up of 87 faculty members and 27 graduate students, and departmental or institution-specific conferences were excluded, so the focus was only on conferences to which scholars regionally or nationally might apply to present or would travel to attend. He counted as “double” any paper with the same title or substantially the same title (although he notes from experiences that some who may be more ashamed of the practice try to hide it with substantially different titles for the same paper, so he may be undercounting).

In his sample, he found not a single case of double presentations prior to 1992. Then in the mid-1990’s, he finds a paper or two a year, and by this decade it becomes fairly common – even if there is still a ton of new material out there. While double presentations are pretty much a non-factor for those who earned Ph.D.’s through 1985, the attitude is quite different now.

Consider the following table showing double presentations by year doctorate was received. (The numbers for the most recent group may appear low, but that is primarily because these scholars have had less time to make presentations of any kind, let alone doubles, and the percentage suggests that their figures will rise considerably.)

Duplicate Presentations, by Year Doctorate Received

Year of Doctorate % Who Have Double Dipped Duplicates as % of All Papers Presented
1960-1985 14.8% 0.5%
1986-1995 46.7% 4.1%
1996-2005 52.6% 6.7%
2006 – present 25.9% 7.4%

The traditional reason given for double presentations – getting feedback and then revising – remains a strong justification, according to the articles in the journal. But many question whether in fact such revisions are taking place, as opposed to other motivations (such as CV padding). A variety of ethical issues are raised: Is this fair at a time that major conferences are turning away record number of paper proposals? Do those who fill resumes in this way gain an unfair edge over those who give fewer (but perhaps more original) papers? Do those who double dip have an obligation to flag the practice?

Lee Siegelman, a professor at George Washington University and immediate past editor of American Political Science Review, raises the question of whether such double presentations make some professors hypocrites, in light of the direction they provide students.

“Suppose that in a course you are teaching on the presidency during the spring semester, a student seeks your permission to submit, for full credit, a paper on the veto power for which or she already received credit in a course on Congress during the fall semester, or perhaps a somewhat reworked version of that paper. Would you grant the requested permission? I am betting that you wouldn’t. Indeed if you ‘caught’ a student doing what this student has sought permission to do, you may even bring him or her up on plagiarism charges.”

Others, however, defend the duplicate practice. For starters, defenders note that many conference sessions have remarkably small audiences – so if 2 of the 15 audience members at a regional meeting of the discipline heard the same paper at the national meeting, it’s not like hundreds of scholars are being denied anything.

Two political scientists at Michigan State University – Saundra K. Schneider and William G. Jacoby – write jointly to “confess” to duplicate presentations and to defend them. They note several reasons: With more political scientists out there, “research productivity requirements” are growing, and graduate students are expected to present earlier in their academic careers. These trends create “enormous pressure” to present at scholarly meetings when possible and it is “unrealistic and undesirable” to expect completely new work for each such event, they write.

Further, they say, papers do get better with feedback, but that sometimes you need multiple presentations before you get good feedback. If the end result is a paper to be sent to a journal or the start of a book, quality should count, and presenting multiple times encourages quality, they write.

In some other disciplines, the norms are different and there is no shame about duplicate presentations, although there are some issues related to how such papers are noted on CV’s. Rosemary G. Feal, executive director of the Modern Language Association, said that it is fairly common for scholars to present a paper more than once. “The audience at MLA is going to be different from the audience at the 18th Century Studies Association,” Feal said. In fact, she noted that scholars are so accepting of the practice that speakers will acknowledge what they are doing with remarks such as “when I last presented, I received a lot of questions about this point,” she said.

And that shows the benefit of the practice, Feal said. Arguments are refined. Issues are clarified.
At the same time, Feal noted that ethical issues are raised if scholars try to imply that that a series of papers – essentially versions of the same work – are all original. The new edition of the MLA Style Manual notes in the plagiarism section the concept of “self plagiarism,” in which a scholar repackages earlier work as if new.

Applying this to conference papers and CV’s, Feal said that it should be clear – if one comes across a long list of papers on a resume – whether they were all original. Feal said that there is nothing wrong with telling a hiring committee that asks how many papers you gave in the last year that you gave two original papers, three times each at different conferences. But it would be wrong to represent that record as having presented six original papers.

The idea, she said, is “don’t misrepresent what you’ve done.”

Scott Jaschik
The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/05/20/double.

(more…)

855. Building Bridges Between Research and Undergraduate Teaching

Thursday, March 13th, 2008

Folks:

The posting below looks at three strategies for a greater linkage between faculty research and undergraduate teching.. It is by Michael J. Prince, Department of Chemical Engineering, Bucknell University, Richard M. Felder Department of Chemical Engineering North Carolina State University and Rebecca Brent Education Designs, Inc. Cary, North Carolina, and is based on an article recently published in the Journal of Engineering Education on the research-teaching nexus, 96(4), 283-294.
.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Creating Windows on Learning

(more…)

853. Peer Support for Ph.D. Students

Thursday, March 6th, 2008

Folks:

The posting below looks at establishing peer support groups for dissertation writers. It is by Michael Kiparsky, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow in the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California at Berkeley. It appeared in the column CATALYST, Career Advise for Scientists, in the Wednesday, August 8, 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/08/2007080801c/careers.html Copyright © 2007 by The Chronicle of Higher Education. Reprinted with permission

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Team Teaching – Benefits and Challenges

(more…)

851. Reducing Over-Complexity in Your Scholarly Writing

Thursday, February 28th, 2008

Folks:

The posting below gives some good pointers on how to reduce complexity in your writing. It is by Gina Hiatt, Ph.D. and is from the Academic Ladder – Get help with the climb, which can be found at: [http://academicladder.com] © 2008 Dissertation Coach, reprinted with permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Does Your College Really Support Teaching and Learning?

Tomorrow’s Research

(more…)