AIBS Cross-Generational Conversation Outcomes

AIBS hosted a first-of-its-kind event in June 2012, exploring key topics affecting the field and profession with a cross-generational group of invited individuals. To learn more about what we did, watch the slide show below. The findings are presented by the table hosts in the sections below.

Click on any blue text item in the section below to read an
expanded explanation of a key point.

Professional Societies: Home Sweet Home

Through these conversations, I aimed to learn more about the personal stories behind what I was seeing in our survey data, to explore how students make decisions about joining societies, and what motivates late career professionals to retain memberships throughout their careers. I was curious to learn how people perceive metasocieties, their relationships with them, and the role of the metasociety (e.g., the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], AIBS, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology [FASEB]). I have also heard that with all the technological alternatives to the services they offer today, scientific societies are becoming obsolete. I wondered whether that were true. The conversations were informative, and there was one completely surprising and informative nugget that emerged. The key points that emerged from my discussions were the following:

• A students' first interaction with a society usually results from the desire to fulfill an immediate need.
  

  Of the students and postdoctoral scholars that I spoke with, most were members of only one society; however, some were not a member of any, and a couple had joined three or four. When asked how they had selected the organization that they joined, there were two primary responses: (1) to attend an annual meeting of the organization and (2) to apply for a scholarship, grant, or award that required membership as a stipulation of the application.

  Of those students who had not yet joined a society, most indicated that they were unclear about what societies do, why they should join one, and what the personal and professional benefits to membership were. One student was not a member but indicated that she had attended the annual meeting of a society. She indicated that membership was not necessary at this point in her career, because she was able to realize the benefits of membership through her major professor without having to join herself. She appreciated those benefits and understood that at some point, she would likely join a society on her own.

  I asked whether the students felt that there was any intrinsic or implied pressure to join a professional society. They indicated that they really did not feel that this was the case. The one exception was the pressure that several indicated when encountering fields on applications of various types where they were asked to list their professional organization memberships. They liked having something to put in that response field.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• Scientific society membership has clear benefits to those who have participated.
  

  Scientific societies provide an important space for in-person interactions to take place--annual meetings in particular. It was clear to all the attendees that this networking was useful and not easily replaced by other mechanisms currently in place--certainly not by social networking. People found the networking valuable for finding new jobs, for professional exposure or for "putting themselves out there," for communication or learning about research that is relevant to their interests, and for the general enjoyment of in-person events and interactions. The students also appreciated regional events that allowed them to help get their feet wet in sharing their research and meeting local professional peers.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• Students really did not have a good sense of the role of metasocieties.
  

  Beyond publishing their journals, students really did not seem clear on what the roles of organizations like AAAS, AIBS, and FASEB were. Few were members, and those who were had received the membership as a benefit for some other activity, rather than having joined independently. Later-career professionals were more likely to be members of many (8-12) professionals societies as well as metasocieties. One later-career participant indicated that she had received a reduced-rate membership in AAAS as a student ($5/year!) and had never missed a year since.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• We are poorly educating students about the role of professional societies in the community.
  

  This was the finding that was unexpected. One later-career participant noted, "When I was a student, I was handed an application to a professional society along with my final exam." This was in stark contrast to the way in which most students felt that expectations of scholarly society membership are communicated to them today. Most students had never spoken with their major professor--or anyone--about what the role and benefits of professional societies are or which would be most suitable for their interests. In light of the fact that concerns around declining or engaging membership was one of the strongest themes in our biology organization survey, this finding was particularly poignant. It seems that improving education and communication about the roles of these organizations and the opportunities that they present for professionals to advance their careers would be an excellent strategy for strengthening these organizations and addressing membership concerns.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  

Career Advancement: Hindsight Is 20/20; the Cup is Half Full.

By the end of my four sessions, I looked down at the surface of the table, draped with white butcher paper covered with hand-written notes, comments, doodles, and bits of eloquent prose here and there, and I really had to smile at the warm memories it evoked of problem solving at my family table as a child. In my childhood household, the dinner table was a place for solving great mathematical problems, and my father and I would solve equations and factor polynomials on the backs of paper napkins at every meal! The doodles on this table, however, examined a much more abstract kind of problem: the career pathways of professionals in biological fields. Four major themes emerged from our conversations:

• The biologist's professional skill toolkit contains both quantitative and qualitative analytic skills, along with interpersonal skills.
  

  The first theme was centered around the skill sets that participants identified as requisite in the modern professional's toolkit. We looked through the eyes of early-career professionals, identifying what skills they anticipated, and for the more seasoned professionals, we discussed how hindsight had altered their perspectives. The typical skills required by a research career were grant writing; writing reviews; and learning how to interview and to prepare resumes, CVs, and personal Web pages.

  But then, surprisingly, the conversations repeatedly turned to softer skills, such as people skills, communication skills across the gamut of media, the acceptance and tolerance of risk, and conflict resolution. One attendee mentioned being in a very difficult on-going lab situation. We discussed ways of turning this adversity into a "teachable moment" and of taking the opportunity to turn the situation into a practice ground for trying different approaches to resolve the conflict. We discussed generically how each of these various skills was transferable from the lab to the field and to one's daily life.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• Advice to early career professionals: "Be a 'weed'--the plant that can jump into new areas, be adaptable, and be willing to occupy that new space that was heretofore empty."
  

  The second theme that emerged revolved around the need for the modern biology professional to be adaptable and comfortable with change: expecting, coping, and (dare we say) even embracing change in career expectations and throughout one's profession. To a person, each could reflect on where their careers had veered off of their original path and how they individually handled it--some nonchalantly and some with more resistance. This then allowed our conversation to segue into a discussion of whether individuals saw their careers following their original path or making twists and turns along the way. On this, there seemed to be a generational difference.

  Although all of the respondents could see "deviations from their original path," the more senior professionals felt that their career journey had, for the most part, "stayed the course." This was in sharp contrast to the younger set, who readily saw and, in some ways, fully expected to make many changes along the way. This was in part strategic and tactical--responding to the vagaries of the current employment market as well as making necessary tweaks and adjustments so as to secure employment close to their field of interest. But for just as many, they anticipated making very strident changes--for example, moving toward a business or law degree after completing their Master's or PhD in the biological sciences. The younger generation saw themselves as continuing to wrestle with finding careers that "used" science rather than those that would allow them to "stay in science."

  Discussion of how science can be incorporated into many jobs launched another important conversation strand: science careers alternative to academia. This was actually an area that some saw as a need that professional societies could address, through activities such as hosting a postdoc career fair. A letter I received postconference from one participant summed it up this way:

  My biggest concern for scientists of my generation and those coming up behind me is the simple opportunity (or lack thereof) to advance within academia. During our conversation last week, the graduate students and I touched on the fact that there are opportunities out there for us, but it is often difficult (or that [sic] we can be discouraged) to find out where these opportunities may be. This may be a possible way scientific societies can help out scientists of my generation. Beyond a simple jobs board, societies might open up ways of exploring these outside-of-academia career opportunities.

  One seasoned scholar, administrator, and successful Botany professor said, "I always tell my students that they want to be a weed--the plant that can jump into new areas, be adaptable, and be willing to occupy that new space that was heretofore empty. In short, be ready to change careers."

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• A mentor is a crucial part of your career development.
  

  Mentoring and the important role that mentors serve in one's career was a topic that had a uniform response from all of the participants. However, the more senior professionals--especially the women--lamented the serious dearth of women mentors during the early to middle stages of their careers. This pointed to the need for both male and female mentors for everyone, regardless of their gender. The need for mentors was seen as crucial.

  Anecdotes were shared in which some of the younger participants--especially the graduate students--felt intimidated about asking for "help, guidance, or advice" from their supervisor or major professor. This was particularly exacerbated by cultural differences. In more than one situation, it was only after a postdoc had joined a lab that he or she finally had someone he or she could turn to, "let [his or her] hair down," and admit safely (without fear of reprimand) that he or she really "didn't understand a word of what [the] supervisor/professor had just said!" They found it extremely comforting and encouraging when the new postdoc admitted that they also had had that exact feeling and reaction when they were starting out!

  We discussed the distinction between mentor and supervisor. Some shared that they felt that they could bring any and all issues to their supervisor and receive sound advice and counsel. But for just as many others, the exact opposite was true. We discussed how, in some cases, one really cannot have one's supervisor serve as the only mentor, because there may likely arise situations where what a mentor would advise would be counter to what the supervisor needed one to do! Each participant had been encouraged to seek out multiple mentors. The crucial factor was that everyone needed to have a trusted person or persons with whom they felt safe and comfortable to discuss issues that they knew would be kept confidential. The trust issue was deemed absolutely crucial.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• Social media can accentuate your career development, but not all are open to it.
  

  And finally, not surprisingly, our group spent time talking about the role and use of social media in one's professional career and development plan. One of the seasoned senior scientists said that she still keeps in touch with her past students and postdocs but now does so on Facebook (FB). She looks at her FB friends as extensions of her professional family and is most pleased with the enduring relationships that have been created and facilitated via FB. This was countered by the feeling by others that they would not and do not use FB. The adamancy and vehemence for these sentiments were equally strong on the two sides!

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  

Formal and Informal Public Audiences: I Am a Public Interface

I have a strong interest in public perceptions of science and strategies for engaging with the public associated with my day job. As a result, I was looking forward to conversations with our guests about their interactions with the public. I was curious to see whether their responses would be similar to those I have received from the faculty and graduate students with whom I interact at the University of California, Berkeley, and at professional meetings that I attend. I found (perhaps unsurprisingly) a strong similarity along three primary messages; only the supporting details varied, and those primarily with personality and experience. The highlights from these conversations were the following:

• Talking about our science (beyond conversations with peers) is a critical part of a scientist's job.
  

  Regardless of their number of years in the career, all of the participants agreed on the importance of communicating our science to the public. The reasons cited for doing so included influencing policymaking decisions; encouraging young people to consider a career in science; changing behavior (e.g., being an advocate for conversation); and promoting science to the public, who are ultimately the funders of science.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• There was consensus on the importance of improving skills for and increasing opportunities to communicate science with a broader audience.
  

  With knowing smiles, the participants acknowledged that not all scientists are good communicators, and the early-career scientists who were present revealed a broad range of comfort zones. Many seemed to be complete naturals in communicating science and willingly shared their positive (and sometimes surprising) experiences, whereas others felt more hesitant about their communication skills or found it difficult to find opportunities to interact with the public. It was proposed that part of that hesitancy might be due to lack of support from their advisors or supervisors.

  Several suggestions were offered to help increase communication skills for scientists at all stages of their careers. These included providing a Science Communication 101 course for graduate students (and others!) to focus on the skills needed for communicating with different audiences: policymakers, the press, the general public, or younger students; providing institutional support for (and encouraging) graduate students to engage in education and outreach opportunities so that they would have an opportunity to practice their communications skills; and making institutional changes that support better pedagogy to include discussion and student input, especially in large classes

  One of the later-career professionals suggested that if we want scientists to be better communicators, we need to begin at home, "within our own seminars." Instead of simply listening to a presentation and perhaps questioning the methodology or requesting clarification of a data set, we need to ask, "So what is your take-home message? Why is this important?"

  Another attendee mentioned that not all messages are easy to formulate. For instance, when discussing the impacts of global climate change, the future looks pretty dreary. How can we provide the facts and yet avoid delivering a doomsday message?

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• The majority of early-career scientists present wanted to find ways to integrate education and outreach into their research careers.
  

  This message is particularly consistent with what I have experienced in talking with graduate students in other settings. They find education and outreach both rewarding and energizing, with the added benefit of building their own confidence and skills in communicating. Students here also felt that undergraduates should be encouraged to participate in education and outreach and that there needs to be more exposure to real science at younger ages.

  When the students were asked to describe how they are currently involved in education and outreach, the activities discussed included serving as docents at the National Zoo, tutoring at middle schools, judging science fairs, teaching nonmajor classes, sharing science at church events, and blogging. Only a limited number of students were engaged in blogging, however, since most of them found it too time consuming. One particular student really enjoyed writing blogs, but his were so successful that he had a hard time keeping up with all of the comments to which he wanted to respond.

  In summary, there was full agreement that communicating science was critical, that service through outreach to others should be better valued by our institutions and community, and that tips and courses for improving communication skills should be available for scientists at all stages of their careers. We need to convey the importance, relevance, and excitement of our science, and the public needs to understand how we do it.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  

Communicating Research to Peers: Tweet Your Conclusions in 140 Characters and Sixty Seconds

As the editor in chief for BioScience magazine, I often ponder how all the rapidly changing technology is changing the way we communicate our research as professionals. I wonder about the role of social media, whether annual meetings are becoming an outdated mode of getting the job done, and how to respond to the desire of so many to see our scholarly material become open access to the public. This conversation was a great opportunity to ask some of these questions and to learn more about how a range of biologists think about the issues that challenge the scholarly publishing and research communication industry. What I took home was the following:

• Annual meetings are valuable to the professionals and the field.
  

  I was surprised by how much importance even early-career scientists still attached to going to meetings. Asked about how changing technologies were changing expectations for the way scholarly information is published, the participants stressed that they still enjoyed going to physical meetings, because despite the availability of online information, these meetings provide a valuable way to access opinions, to get up to speed on a topic quickly, and to network. "There's no substitute for one-to-one interactions," "There's more flexibility in a real meeting," and "You don't stay to chat after a webinar" were typical comments.

  That said, since many younger participants stressed that they had limited budgets, and most agreed that some access to meetings by webinar or teleconference might still be useful, especially for committee meetings. One said that she could attend only one meeting per year. Regarding webinars, some noted that the ability to review talks again later was a valuable aspect.

  Attitudes toward social media are very dependent on the individual. The professional uses of and behaviors when using these tools are still unclear.

  I was struck by the variety of attitudes to online social media. The participants were mixed in their attitudes toward Facebook (FB). Most thought of it as a social tool or advertising tool, with few direct applications to their profession. Those who had used it professionally had experimented with posting notices about their publications. One wrote blog posts and used the tool to promote them. Another, a research student, cautioned the group that "you have to be careful" with FB because if you communicated too much about research results, you might scoop yourself, and postings are considered public domain as far as patent applications are concerned. One young researcher said her principle investigator wanted the subject of their joint research kept quiet in advance of formal publication. Although the risks and benefits of communicating about research via social networking are still being sorted out, it is good to see that credible organizations, such as the Public Library of Science (PLOS), are experimenting with mechanisms to incorporate these tools into communicating research science as well.

  However, some found these tools helpful for direct communication and in reaching new or important audiences. One participant thought that social media could be useful for scoping out advisors. One used it a lot, to stay in touch with people in her home country and to convey information about science. Another said that he used FB as a news feed. One late-career scientist said that he had used FB to communicate information about a research project to people living in the study area, and another used FB and Twitter both professionally and for connecting to family.

  Most young people had less use for Twitter than for FB, although there were exceptions. Some had tweeted from a small conference and thought they might use Twitter more in the future. Some only retweeted, which is the act of reposting what someone else has said on one's own Twitter feed to help extend the potential reach of a message to a larger audience. One person tweeted from a newsworthy veterinary procedure. Most saw LinkedIn as a worthwhile professional tool. Yet, at least one young person thought that both FB and Twitter were worthless.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• Information technology is changing how professionals do their job, well beyond social networking tools.
  

  For other information technologies, young researchers have embraced the potential. One young scientist used a virtual drop box to allow specific people to access data. All of the participants seemed to recognize the value of Google Scholar. Others were using tools like Mendeley and EndNote to help manage their research, publications, and references.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• Open access is generally endorsed as a good direction.
  

  I was impressed by the high level of endorsement expressed for increasing open access to publications, as well as data, particularly for government-supported research. One young scientist did note the difficulty of paying the fees for open publication, however. Several noted that open publication of data was increasingly being required by journals. Most participants in the discussions, early- and late-career, viewed this with favor, although it was allowed that there might be a need to delay making data public if a researcher is very heavily invested in gathering it. One young scientist referred to a study suggesting that open access publications are cited more often.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  
• So much change is leading to some concern, with a nod to the strengths of traditional research communication methods.
  

  A few voices of caution about new technology were raised. A young professor saw a huge shift in students' perception of what constitutes a journal article and voiced frustration that students do not know how to cite properly. He said that they use PDFs to read article abstracts but do not read the whole article. He consequently saw a need to teach students how to use the literature in the traditional way.

  One young professor who favored data-sharing said that data are being shared but worried that without proper metadata, this may be of little value. Repositories adequate for different data types are now being built, but many participants--even those who liked the idea of data repositories--said that they do not know how to find repositories suited to their needs.

  All in all, it was clear that both the early- and the late-career scientists who participated were keen to use new technologies, but they were selective about which ones. There was ambivalence to social media, but by no means were its adherents confined to the up-and-coming generation. Some elder statespersons valued them too.

  Click to close additional comments.
  
  

To read more about AIBS activities that promote the understanding of the forces affecting scholarly societies and the field, we recommend the following:

Biology organization survey
Individual biologist survey report

Still want more? This is an evolving program of AIBS. If your organization would like to get involved, learn more, or see how to participate, contact Sheri Potter, spotter@aibs.org.