Stop that imposter!

It is no secret that gender disparities exist in academia and especially in the STEM fields. The chair of my Biochemistry and Molecular Biology department held an informal panel with female graduate students to discuss the large gap between the numbers of women in PhD programs and the much lower numbers in tenure positions. The department also organized a seminar series with successful female scientists on work/life balance where graduate students and postdocs were encouraged to engage with the speaker over lunch. 

Most of the discussion centered on the difficulty for women to become mothers while pursuing a career in science. For example, when is the best time to have children? I’ve heard everything from during graduate school, after becoming an assistant professor, to never. When do you tell your PI that you are planning to have children? Before you are pregnant, after you are already showing, or never? And how does one find the time for research and motherhood? One couple (a graduate student and postdoc) took opposite shifts in lab so that someone was always with the baby. It wasn’t clear if/when they had time for each other, or sleep, for that matter. This is to say that we have a long way to go in preventing the attrition rate of female scientists who feel they need to choose between motherhood and their career.  

But this is not what I am discussing today. Rather, I want to talk about the oft not discussed imposter phenomenon, which may be a hindrance to many intelligent women. Alas, I only learned of its existence towards the end of my PhD after admitting to a friend how inadequate I had felt. As soon as she said the words “imposter”, it clicked. I felt like an imposter.

Throughout my life I often believed I had tricked people into thinking I was more intelligent than I was and that one day someone would realize this and tell the world. There were apt opportunities for such revelations in graduate school. Up to that point, studying for long hours was enough to get good grades on what were mostly multiple-choice tests. But in graduate school you had to think critically and on your feet to a lecture-room full of peers and established (even Noble Prize-winning) scientists. And let’s not even go into the trauma that is graduate board oral exams. Unsurprisingly, the first few years of graduate school was anxiety-ridden.

The phenomenon was first recognized in high-achieving women (Clance and Imes, 1978). In a 1985 paper, Dr. Clance writes, “Impostors believe they are intellectual frauds who have attained success because they were at the right place at the right time, knew someone in power, or simply were hard workers—never because they were talented or intelligent or deserved their positions” (Clance, 1985).

While there is some debate as to the prevalence in men versus women (I tried to find more studies about this, but many were unpublished dissertations or stated on the internet without a primary source), more recent studies find that women are indeed more likely to experience imposter phenomenon (Kumar and Jagacinski, 2006, McGregor et al., 2008). Additionally imposter feelings affect the two sexes differently and is more likely to negatively affect the mental well being of women (Kumar and Jagacinski, 2006). In the same study, looking at undergraduate students, women were more likely to doubt their intelligence than men (Kumar and Jagacinski, 2006). I have to wonder if it is another symptom of our society and the cultural stereotypes of women. When internal feelings of inferiority are mixed with external pervasive stereotypes of women, it can be even harder to break free of feelings of insecurity.

Most people are familiar with the idea that women are less likely to negotiate their salary or ask for a raise. But many people don’t realize that this may be the best decision, career-wise, in our culture. Studies show that women are more likely to be perceived as aggressive and “bossy” if they do negotiate (Babcock et al., 2006, Bowles et al., 2007). So although a woman may get the initial raise, she may be hurting herself in the long run. A recent study found that having a feminine name impacts how scientists considering job applications perceive your achievements. This is all to say that gender discrimination in the workplace is complicated and the lack of retention of women in the sciences is not just about babies. Stop blaming the babies.  

So what can be done?

One of the psychologists who first categorized the phenomenon, Dr. Clance, says that the first step to overcoming the feelings of self-doubt and insecurity is to recognize that one is suffering from imposter feelings (Clance, 1985). Dr. Clance has created a test to quantify the extent of imposter feelings.

Looking back, I still cringe remembering wrong answers I gave and am more likely to focus on failure. What would have been helpful for me at the time was to know I was not alone: that many high-achieving and successful scientists felt the same way. A department could include a short introduction into imposter feelings as one of the many orientations and trainings new students have to attend.

References:

Babcock, L. Gelfand, M. Small, D., and Stayn, H. (2006). Gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations. In D. D. Cremer, M. Zeelenberg and J.K. Murnigham (Eds.) Social psychology and economics, 239-259. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bowles, R.B., Babcock, L., and Lei L. (2007). Social incentives for gender diVerences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103, 84–103.

Clance, P.R., and Imes, S.A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic interventions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice. 15, 241–247.

Clance, P.R. (1985). The impostor phenomenon: When success makes you feel like a fake. New York: Bantam Books. 

Kumar, S. and Jagacinski, M. (2006). Imposters have goals too: The imposter phenomenon and its relationship to achievement goal theory. Personality and Individual Differences. 40, 147-157.

McGregor, L.N., Gee, D.E., and Posey, K.E. (2008). Social Behavior and Personality 36, 43-48.

Still a ways to go: science faculty favor male applicants

Gender discrimination in the workplace seems to be subtler these days, for instance, the higher focus and scrutiny on women’s attire and appearance or the not-so-subtle implication that a women’s looks contributed to her success. While I have never been told that I could not achieve something because I was a woman, I was told that I would have to work harder to break through perceptions and stereotypes. So I didn’t wear make-up for my first few months of graduate school and tried to keep any tears private for fear of not being taken seriously. But a recent(ish) study in PNAS suggests that gender bias in science begins before one even sees the applicant.

The study, led by social psychologist Dr. Corinne Moss-Racusin, an assistant professor of Skidmore College, sought to identify gender bias in science professors across disciplines. Professors at universities across the U.S. were sent resumes from students applying for a laboratory manager position. The resume was identical in every way other than the name of the applicant: Jennifer or John.

Results: the professors were more likely to see the applicant as competent and worthy of mentorship and more likely to hire them if the name on the application was male. The median salary offered to John was 13% higher than Jennifer, again, despite the fact that their qualifications were identical. I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am still discouraged, that male and female professors exhibited this gender bias equally. Tenure-status did not impact the extent of gender bias either, disputing the idea that it is only old men who are partaking in discrimination. Professors ranked the female candidate higher than John on likeability. This, along with the scores from participants’ modern sexism scale survey, led the authors to conclude that cultural stereotypes affect professors’ perceptions of students’ competence and lead to unintentional gender bias within academia.

The take-away: give your daughter a gender ambiguous name?

References:

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M., and Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474-16479.

Lights! Camera! Fail! (In science, failure comes with the territory)

I recently was at Starbucks and asked if I could get some soymilk for my coffee, as it was not one of the many carafe options. The barista insisted on pouring the gallon jug herself, saying, “we don’t want you to spill it everywhere.” As I indignantly watched her pour too much, I wanted to reply that I have a PhD in pouring things so I think I can handle it. As this is the only decent coffee shop near work, I thankfully held my what could easily be perceived as arrogant tongue.

A PhD in pouring things is of course not really true, but I think the general public, if and when they envision scientists at work, do not realize how much time is spent pouring and aliquoting liquids. Aliquoting is a favorite science buzzword that means to divide a larger sample into smaller volumes. I've linked to a somewhat maddeningly banal video demonstration of aliquoting. The volumes that need to be maneuvered range from nanoliters (on the order of 0.00002 fluid ounces), which require specialized hand-held instruments called pipettes, to ten liters (roughly 2.5 gallons), which require some muscle and a steady arm. In fact, scientists spend so much time pipetting (an average of 2 hours/day) that it puts them at risk for pipetting-related repetitive strain injury (Björksten et al., 1994). But the science part comes in that this has to be done very accurately and that what we really care about is what happens when we mix liquids containing different chemical properties and biological agents (such as cells and proteins) together. We then determine the outcome through complex assays that allow us to record what we cannot see with the human eye. From this we make conclusions about how our cells work.  

The other component of science overlooked by the general public is the extent of failure that scientists experience every day. I am trying to imagine other jobs where failure is experienced, not just on a large scale (the company makes a product that doesn’t sell well, the company folds, you are fired) but also continuously on a small scale. MOST experiments don’t work. This is due to many factors: equipment, faulty reagents, miscalculations, contaminated stocks, and just random factors (for instance the amount of facial hair of the researcher in the case of x-ray crystallography (detritus from the beard may act a seed for protein crystals to grow)). “Troubleshooting” is as ubiquitous a term in science as, well “ubiquitous”. But it can be demoralizing; demoralizing to spend several 10 hour plus days waiting for one result, a sheet of film for instance to come out of the developer, only to see…nothing. It is best not to calculate the cost of reagents and manpower to create this blank sheet of film.

Failure comes with the territory and even Einstein said that “if we knew what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” And this is where colleagues come in, as well as the occasional happy hour, as safe guards against letting little failures like these stand in the way of achieving…bigger failures (say determining that your hypothesis or model was wrong. But these bigger failures are actually advancing science, creating a platform for the next hypothesis. While relatives and friends of a scientist probably hear never-ending complaints about frustration, they may not hear as much about the exhilaration of having an experiment work, and, as a result, learning something new in science. It is indescribably fulfilling to contribute to the field of science (that same field that makes up the dry textbooks you read in high school) in however a small way. It is hard to imagine that any scientist forgets the first time they publish a paper, and even more so, the first time other scientists cite that paper.

And so the small advances, the feeling of achievement, perseverance, and curiosity about the next step, is what makes all the past failures (and pipetting) worth it.

References: Björksten M.G., Almby B., and Jansson E.S. (1994). Hand and shoulder ailments among laboratory technicians using modern plunger-operated pipettes. Applied Ergonomics. 25, 88-94.

Lady Lab Scientist Legos

Heard about this on the BBC while driving to work. This reminded me of a recent post on policymic about stereotypes reinforced by toy companies (and some amazing toys that break these stereotypes)  I heard recently  that some toy companies, including Legos, have actually become more gender-directed in recent years, which is crazy! It doesn't even really make economical sense. Thankfully, there are potential consumers, like the 7-year-old girl featured in the Washington Post story that are demanding change.  

Lego scientist. Photograph: Lego (from Washington Post)

New Blog Mission Statement

I recently received a PhD in Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and have begun a postdoctoral position. For non-science people, the postdoc is the transition period between being a student and a professor. It is a nebulous time with no real specific end point; the goal is to get enough publications, experience, and grants to become an attractive candidate for evermore-competitive faculty positions.

I don’t really consider myself a “blogger” (I doubt that a few months on LiveJournal count), so although I have long entertained ideas of making a science-oriented blog, I have always hesitated. I wasn’t sure what I wanted or even had to say and I hate starting and stopping things. So why now? Because I do have things to say. I see blogging as an opportunity to communicate experiences and advice within the science community and just as much to improve my skills in communicating science with the wider public. I believe there is no reason that the general public cannot understand scientific research and it is the impetus of scientists who receive taxpayer dollars to communicate their science to the public.

My objective is to write about my own side steps and ever-continuing exploration in science as well as larger topics in science such as gender/social issues, the science lexicon and other barriers to science, and whatever else gets my goat that particular day. As part of my role as a liaison with the general public, I invite any questions about science. Ask me about a scientific study you heard about in the news and I will do my best to educate myself and clearly communicate this knowledge to the layperson.