My years as a Behavioral Ecologist (1973----->) [Behavioral Ecology: study of how Dispersion [Distribution & Abundance] of organisms "maps" onto Dispersion of limiting resources in Time & Space--the [John Hurreel] Crook-ian Model, John Hurrel Crook
#womeninscience #womeninbehavioralecology
1. The Science culture that I experienced 45 years ago might be called a "Brigade System" (or, perhaps, rather, an apprentice system)--hard-nosed, mostly male, rigid, rigorous--with obsessive attention to detail and no hand-holding. It was understood that many wouldn't survive the regime--we took this for granted--bad experiences were just part of the obstacle course. This system motivated me to be the best scientist I could be--emulating the work and standards of the premier Behavioral Ecologists of that time [especially, the early work of, John Hurrell Crook (birds, primates), Stephen C. Emlen (birds, humans, one of my professors), Jack Bradbury (bats, one of my professors), Ruth Buskirk (spiders, baboons, one of my professors), & Sandy Vehrencamp (birds, bats, a fellow graduate student)--the Behaviorist, M.E.P. Seligman, and the Social Biologist, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, were also critical to my early career].
2. Having said the above, we had mutual respect among all deserving parties, whatever their rank, and had a lot of fun.
3. A necessary and sufficient component of my own motivation was falling in love with fieldwork in 1973 [I was 30--a "late-bloomer"] after which nothing ever competed with my work/career. Another factor important to my progress was relieving myself of most caretaking responsibilities [in 1979].
4. At one point during my graduate training, I asked my undergraduate advisor, Harry Levin (linguistics), what was necessary to be successful as a scientist. He replied, "Learn to cope with humiliation." Afterwards, it occurred to me that I would need to have a "thick skin." It was, also, clear that I would have to make it work for me, by myself, on my own, but on others' terms--the terms set by those at the top of my fields--Behavioral Ecology, Social Biology, Ethology, and, to a lesser degree, Behaviorism. Serious Scientists would let me know--straightforwardly--when they thought I was not "measuring up." I could leave Science, or, I would need to find a way to "measure up." Combined with the ability to "hear" critical and negative feedback, I, eventually, enjoyed the challenges inherent to intense competition.
At another point--after completing my Ph.D.--my major advisor, Ethologist (birds--Agapornis) William C. Dilger, told me, "You have done less with more than any other graduate student I've had." This feedback shook me; however, the lesson was clear--it is very difficult, indeed, to earn the right to be taken seriously by a serious Scientist. Indeed, in graduate school, it was standard not to call ones-self "Scientist" until a recognized scientist had labeled you "Scientist." Dilger's comment reinforced that I needed to take myself and my aspirations seriously if I, and, more importantly, my work, were to earn the opportunity to be taken seriously. A consequence of this experience has been that I consider it a female's responsibility--to herself, more, even, than to others-- to find a way to develop her potential to the fullest, relative to the highest standards of her field[s].
These words of wisdom & feedback from two highly-regarded scientists were instrumental in motivating me to be my best while understanding realities of the academic/professional/research landscape. The path is difficult, and there are no guarantees.
5. When I found my path in Behavioral Ecology to be difficult, I reminded myself that, if I didn't find a way to make it work, there was always another female breathing down my neck who was not defeated by trying or who was making it work.
6. It is central to who I am as a Scientist to view myself having a role comparable to a Judge of the Court. My colleagues and I, if taken seriously, get to "weigh in" on difficult decisions, using critical thinking, data, other components of scientific methods, and expertise.
7. It is important to me that I never used a sex/gender card, a race card, a class card, or a disability card.
8. I consider myself a feminist in the molds of Simone de Beauvoir and, especially, Francoise Giroud whose autobiography, I Give You My Word, which I read early in graduate school, changed my life forever. Everything changed after I read that book--combined with my first field season in 1973.
9. I free myself; others do not free me. All know the way.
10. So-called "imposter syndrome" represented important, valid feedback to me that something needed to be corrected. I did not deny my gut and brain. I figured it out. I realized, there was/is always another female prepared to take my place. That other female would have dealt with her sense of imposition, if she had such, and would have self-corrected.
11. As a woman of color (WOC) in Science who conducted fieldwork, I ran away, rapidly, from anyone who wanted to treat me with kid gloves or treat me differently than the non-marginalized person. This did not always work to my advantage or prove to be the shortest route to authenticity*, but it preserved my self-respect.
12. I think I have few, if any, complaints as a WOC in Science because: [1] I almost always see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty; [2] I take almost nothing personally--what another person does or says reflects on them, not me; [3] I have an uncanny ability to focus without distraction; [4] I try, and, mostly, succeed, at not multitasking, [5] I have an uncanny ability to compartmentalize; [6] I chose, and, continue to choose, very, very carefully, whose critical feedback I weight heavily; and, [7] I, simply, kept my nose to the grindstone [though, primarily for health reasons, I started & re-started quite a few times]. Related to the foregoing, I may be "tone deaf" about what the outspoken and activist young females want to achieve as scientists [I am thinking, particularly, of fieldworkers]. It has taken me a long time to "get" the notion that what I wanted out of a career is not, necessarily, what other females wanted/want. Decisions, choices were straightforward for me. I, simply, chose whatever option[s] would get me closer to my goal which was to be the best scientist I could be, given my talents & given the fact that I did not have higher-order quantitative skills. This is a very simple decision-rule. I, actually, think that many women in Science use this strategy.
13. Just as a hunch, I would suggest that a critical factor in determining a female's success as a scientist is not so much whether she marries or has children but whether she assumes caretaking responsibilities. Whatever the case, I think these factors deserve further study. I would, especially, like to see intense investigation of what traits characterize those women who achieve high rank as scientists [as usual, I am, particularly, thinking of women who conduct fieldwork in the biological sciences]. For example, are there, beyond chance occurrences, married women with or without children who have careers like, say, Mary Willson's, or, perhaps, most notably, Louise Emmons'? If so, lets highlight these women. If not, why not? These are all issues that can be addressed empirically, including, consideration & tests of alternative hypotheses. If only by chance alone, sexism cannot account for all of the differences that we see between male scientists and female scientists in the same discipline. What are all of the factors that are at play?
Behaviour. Supplement No. 10, The Evolution of Social Organisation and Visual Communication in the Weaver Birds (Ploceine) (1964)
Conceptual Framework: FIRST PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY:: E[nergy]: Acquisition->Consumption->Allocation====> Worker &/or Reproductive &/or Dependent...(Males, T[ime] Minimizers; Females, E[nergy] Maximizers)
Conceptual Framework: FIRST PRINCIPLES OF BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY:: E[nergy]: Acquisition->Consumption->Allocation====> Worker &/or Reproductive &/or Dependent...(Males, T[ime] Minimizers; Females, E[nergy] Maximizers)
#womeninscience #womeninbehavioralecology
1. The Science culture that I experienced 45 years ago might be called a "Brigade System" (or, perhaps, rather, an apprentice system)--hard-nosed, mostly male, rigid, rigorous--with obsessive attention to detail and no hand-holding. It was understood that many wouldn't survive the regime--we took this for granted--bad experiences were just part of the obstacle course. This system motivated me to be the best scientist I could be--emulating the work and standards of the premier Behavioral Ecologists of that time [especially, the early work of, John Hurrell Crook (birds, primates), Stephen C. Emlen (birds, humans, one of my professors), Jack Bradbury (bats, one of my professors), Ruth Buskirk (spiders, baboons, one of my professors), & Sandy Vehrencamp (birds, bats, a fellow graduate student)--the Behaviorist, M.E.P. Seligman, and the Social Biologist, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, were also critical to my early career].
2. Having said the above, we had mutual respect among all deserving parties, whatever their rank, and had a lot of fun.
3. A necessary and sufficient component of my own motivation was falling in love with fieldwork in 1973 [I was 30--a "late-bloomer"] after which nothing ever competed with my work/career. Another factor important to my progress was relieving myself of most caretaking responsibilities [in 1979].
4. At one point during my graduate training, I asked my undergraduate advisor, Harry Levin (linguistics), what was necessary to be successful as a scientist. He replied, "Learn to cope with humiliation." Afterwards, it occurred to me that I would need to have a "thick skin." It was, also, clear that I would have to make it work for me, by myself, on my own, but on others' terms--the terms set by those at the top of my fields--Behavioral Ecology, Social Biology, Ethology, and, to a lesser degree, Behaviorism. Serious Scientists would let me know--straightforwardly--when they thought I was not "measuring up." I could leave Science, or, I would need to find a way to "measure up." Combined with the ability to "hear" critical and negative feedback, I, eventually, enjoyed the challenges inherent to intense competition.
At another point--after completing my Ph.D.--my major advisor, Ethologist (birds--Agapornis) William C. Dilger, told me, "You have done less with more than any other graduate student I've had." This feedback shook me; however, the lesson was clear--it is very difficult, indeed, to earn the right to be taken seriously by a serious Scientist. Indeed, in graduate school, it was standard not to call ones-self "Scientist" until a recognized scientist had labeled you "Scientist." Dilger's comment reinforced that I needed to take myself and my aspirations seriously if I, and, more importantly, my work, were to earn the opportunity to be taken seriously. A consequence of this experience has been that I consider it a female's responsibility--to herself, more, even, than to others-- to find a way to develop her potential to the fullest, relative to the highest standards of her field[s].
These words of wisdom & feedback from two highly-regarded scientists were instrumental in motivating me to be my best while understanding realities of the academic/professional/research landscape. The path is difficult, and there are no guarantees.
5. When I found my path in Behavioral Ecology to be difficult, I reminded myself that, if I didn't find a way to make it work, there was always another female breathing down my neck who was not defeated by trying or who was making it work.
6. It is central to who I am as a Scientist to view myself having a role comparable to a Judge of the Court. My colleagues and I, if taken seriously, get to "weigh in" on difficult decisions, using critical thinking, data, other components of scientific methods, and expertise.
7. It is important to me that I never used a sex/gender card, a race card, a class card, or a disability card.
8. I consider myself a feminist in the molds of Simone de Beauvoir and, especially, Francoise Giroud whose autobiography, I Give You My Word, which I read early in graduate school, changed my life forever. Everything changed after I read that book--combined with my first field season in 1973.
9. I free myself; others do not free me. All know the way.
10. So-called "imposter syndrome" represented important, valid feedback to me that something needed to be corrected. I did not deny my gut and brain. I figured it out. I realized, there was/is always another female prepared to take my place. That other female would have dealt with her sense of imposition, if she had such, and would have self-corrected.
11. As a woman of color (WOC) in Science who conducted fieldwork, I ran away, rapidly, from anyone who wanted to treat me with kid gloves or treat me differently than the non-marginalized person. This did not always work to my advantage or prove to be the shortest route to authenticity*, but it preserved my self-respect.
12. I think I have few, if any, complaints as a WOC in Science because: [1] I almost always see the glass as half-full rather than half-empty; [2] I take almost nothing personally--what another person does or says reflects on them, not me; [3] I have an uncanny ability to focus without distraction; [4] I try, and, mostly, succeed, at not multitasking, [5] I have an uncanny ability to compartmentalize; [6] I chose, and, continue to choose, very, very carefully, whose critical feedback I weight heavily; and, [7] I, simply, kept my nose to the grindstone [though, primarily for health reasons, I started & re-started quite a few times]. Related to the foregoing, I may be "tone deaf" about what the outspoken and activist young females want to achieve as scientists [I am thinking, particularly, of fieldworkers]. It has taken me a long time to "get" the notion that what I wanted out of a career is not, necessarily, what other females wanted/want. Decisions, choices were straightforward for me. I, simply, chose whatever option[s] would get me closer to my goal which was to be the best scientist I could be, given my talents & given the fact that I did not have higher-order quantitative skills. This is a very simple decision-rule. I, actually, think that many women in Science use this strategy.
13. Just as a hunch, I would suggest that a critical factor in determining a female's success as a scientist is not so much whether she marries or has children but whether she assumes caretaking responsibilities. Whatever the case, I think these factors deserve further study. I would, especially, like to see intense investigation of what traits characterize those women who achieve high rank as scientists [as usual, I am, particularly, thinking of women who conduct fieldwork in the biological sciences]. For example, are there, beyond chance occurrences, married women with or without children who have careers like, say, Mary Willson's, or, perhaps, most notably, Louise Emmons'? If so, lets highlight these women. If not, why not? These are all issues that can be addressed empirically, including, consideration & tests of alternative hypotheses. If only by chance alone, sexism cannot account for all of the differences that we see between male scientists and female scientists in the same discipline. What are all of the factors that are at play?
14. Probably the only whining I'll permit myself: ... throughout my whole career, with a few exceptions [Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Ruth Buskirk, Sandy Vehrencamp, & Mary Willson being notable exceptions], female scientists haven't given me "the time of day"... virtually, all of the scientists who have provided constructive criticism, encouragement, & who have shared ideas, have been men... additionally, with a couple of exceptions, all of the researchers who have treated me dismissively, to my face or via other sorts of communication, have been females-- all of them Primatologists-- a fact in no manner related to my low estimation of Primatology ["Biological Anthropology"] as a field...
15. Now, getting back to Science: Every material outcome has a mathematical proof.
*The hardest thing for anyone in Science is to earn the right to be taken seriously.
Clara B. Jones
929 Bonifant Street
Apt. 512
Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Cell: (828) 279-4429
E-mail: foucault03@gmail.com; mapcbj@gmail.com
15. Now, getting back to Science: Every material outcome has a mathematical proof.
*The hardest thing for anyone in Science is to earn the right to be taken seriously.
Clara B. Jones
929 Bonifant Street
Apt. 512
Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
Cell: (828) 279-4429
E-mail: foucault03@gmail.com; mapcbj@gmail.com
