Photo: Brunel University campus, © Brunel University, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Warning: I’m grumpy today.
In my current role as Department Chair, I deal with a lot of administrators. Some are academics, serving as Chairs, Deans, Vice Presidents, and so on. These folks are doing important jobs (and you should consider joining them), for which they often don’t get much respect. Others – and these other ones are my subject today – aren’t academics, but rather professionals of other kinds. They may be human-resource managers, legal advisors, office administrators, accountants, financial clerks, risk-management directors, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, which is no surprise given that every university needs to operate itself, and universities are large and complex organizations. But I have a beef with some (not all!) of this non-academic group: they don’t always understand what a university is. Continue reading
Image: moving van © Artaxerxes via Wikimedia.org CC BY-SA 4.0
A few weeks ago my Twitter feed was, for a couple of days, full of complaints about how often early-career academics move, and the toll that takes on our personal lives. In particular, there was a lot of discussion of the difficulty of putting down roots, becoming connected with the local community, when you’re both recently arrived and soon to be leaving.
I’m going to make myself unpopular by pushing back a bit. Continue reading
Photos: Possibly my nerdiest T-shirt; and town of Norris Point, Newfoundland. Both CC BY 4.0.
Recently, I had to drop off a cheque at my university’s Donor Relations office. I was run off my feet that day, but that office is only one building away from mine, so I figured I could pop over and be back at my desk in 3 minutes flat. I was wrong. It was more like 20 minutes, and the extra 17 were because I was wearing my “Two bees or not two bees” T-shirt.
I wear a lot of nerdy biology T-shirts, and one of the useful (I believe) results of that is occasional bouts of what I call Accidental SciComm. Continue reading
This year, for the first time, I’m teaching a course in scientific writing (with both graduate and undergraduate versions). There were lots of decisions to be made in designing the course: what topics to cover; the blend of lecture, workshop, and assignment; how to accommodate graduate and undergraduate students in the same classroom; and more. But one decision was easy: which book to use as a text. There are quite a few books on the topic, but I assigned my own, The Scientist’s Guide to Writing, without any hesitation*.
Well, not really without any hesitation. Actually, I can’t help feeling mildly embarrassed by joining That Bunch Of Profs Who Assign Their Own Books. How arrogant! How closed-minded! How ridden with conflict of interest! Continue reading
Image: Rube Goldberg design by Stivi10 CC BY-SA 3.0 via wikimedia.org.
There are many reasons for “writing early” – for starting to write up a project before data collection and analysis are complete, or even before they’re started. (I discuss this in some detail in The Scientist’s Guide to Writing.) This is particularly true for the Methods section, which is far easier to write when you’re doing, or even proposing, the work than it is when you’re looking back on the work months or years later. But one use for early writing often surprises my students: early writing as a “plausibility check” for methods I’m trying to decide about using.
Here’s what happens. I’ll be sitting with a student (or sometimes, just with myself) and we’ll be trying to decide on an experimental method, or perhaps on a point of statistical analysis. We’ll wonder, “should we do X?” And I’ll say: “OK, let’s imagine writing a Methods paragraph describing X. How would it feel?” Continue reading
Photo: Lazy red panda CC 0 via pxhere.com
I’ve just published a paper that had some trouble getting through peer review. Nothing terribly unusual about that, of course, and the paper is better for its birthing pains. But one reviewer comment (made independently, actually, by several different reviewers) really bugged me. It revealed some fuzzy thinking that’s all too common amongst ecologists, having to do with the value of quick-and-dirty methods. Quick-and-dirty methods deserve more respect. I’ll explain using my particular paper as an example, first, and then provide a general analysis. Continue reading
I’ve been reading (OK, I’m always reading, except when I’m writing). This time: David George Haskell’s The Songs of Trees. Here are some thoughts. Continue reading