May 5, 2009
Category: blogging
Four years and four months ago, almost to the day, I started a humble little blog way over in a tiny corner of the blogosphere. Back in the day, there were few voices of women scientists in the blogosphere, and even fewer of women computer scientists. I had never had much luck keeping any semblance of a journal before, and I had no idea what I was going to say, really, because who really wants to hear the rantings musings of a lowly pseudonymous computer scientist? I'm not a betting woman, but I thought this little experiment would last one month, tops.
Boy, was I wrong.
Read on »
Posted by Jane at 8:00 AM • 36 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 23, 2009
Category: tenure
Recently b* (who is my tenure buddy, apparently! we're going up at the same time! w00t!) wrote a post that, I think, captures perfectly the angst, anxiety, stress, and mental craziness that the tenure process induces in otherwise sane people. In her case, it was a procedural change that sent her into somewhat of a tailspin, emotionally. This post struck such a chord with me, because not so long ago, I too found myself in an emotional tailspin over tenure, and I must admit that I was completely blindsided by it (which I don't think helped me get over it as quickly as I should have). So b*'s post inspired me to share my story.
One of the normal parts of the tenure process is submitting a list of external reviewers. This is a list of people (I'm guessing the number varies by school, but in my case N is around a dozen) that you think could "fairly" evaluate your work, for some definition of "fairly". There are all sorts of rules around who can and cannot be on the list: no one on your thesis committee, no coauthors, must be tenured at an academic institution, etc.
This sounds simple enough, but as with most parts of the tenure process (I'm finding), there's some gamesmanship that occurs. You want to pick people whom you think will review your work favorably, but you don't want to stack your list exclusively with your fan club (because that looks suspicious). You want to make sure that the people on your list understand the type of institution you are at and will review your work through that particular filter (so, for instance, someone at an R1 evaluating someone at a SLAC will not expect the research production of an R1 prof). But you also know that only a few people are going to be picked from your list, so you have to think about maybe leaving someone off and hoping they "magically" end up on the committee's list...and so on.
And this is where I got stuck.
Now, I should preface this by saying that I feel pretty confident about my research. I've been publishing steadily, at an appropriate pace and in appropriate venues for my institution. My work is well-reviewed, and there is some interest in my subfield for this particular line of research that I'm doing. So this really should have been a pretty straightforward exercise for me.
Instead, I panicked. Totally and completely panicked. As I started to compile my list, I immediately started second-guessing myself. "Hmmm, this one works exactly in my area and we've exchanged ideas and papers over email. But how do I know he doesn't think my work is crap? What if this person is bad-mouthing my work behind my back? And what about this one---oh my god, he publishes sooooo much! There's no way he's going to find my publication pace adequate. And I have to add this guy, but I think he might be idealogically different in his assumptions about X, and may decide to trash my work on X! Oh, and this person who works on Y---but I don't know her that well; what if she hates my work? Crap, I can't add FanClubGuy because I forgot we collaborated years and years ago. And I need to find a Z person, but I only know people in industry in that area!"
So about 5 minutes after I started, I had myself completely convinced that (a) I was a total and complete fraud, (b) my research is crap, (c) no one in fact likes my research, and (d) no one could ever possibly review my research positively.
At this point I (wisely) decided to put the list aside. The problem is that I found that I couldn't pick the list up again---every time I tried to go back to the list, I panicked. Meanwhile, the deadline came and went, and I started getting emails asking me where my list was, which made me panic even more. I was in a serious spiral and I couldn't get myself out.
Finally, I came to my senses and---duh!---ran the list by a couple of my senior colleagues. And they helped pull me out of my Serious Meltdown state, enough so that I could sit down and finish the list. But I still panicked a bit when I submitted the list---still found those feelings of total professional inadequacy sneaking in.
I *think* I'm mostly ok with the list now, although there's really not much I can do at this point! (Because I'm guessing bribing my potential external reviewers would be considered bad form. I'm kidding, of course.) I ended up putting some questionable names on there---questionable in the sense that I'm not entirely sure how they will review my work, to be honest. But there's a part of me that probably won't relax until I see the external review letters. And the saga is still not over, because at some point (soon, I'm guessing) I will get the committee's list and have to go through this whole feeling like a fraud thing all over again. Gah.
I mentioned that I was blindsided by the fact that I reacted so strongly and so negatively to what's really a routine part of tenure. I think I was blindsided because I'm pretty confident in the research part of my package, and so I didn't think the tenure panic would come from the research side. My reaction also reminded me, though, that I can *say* all I want that I'm going to be all zen with the tenure process, but that saying it doesn't make it true. You know what? This whole hazing process is stressful. There's no way it can't be. And I'm sure now that at every other stage of this process, I will also freak out at least a little (ok, probably a lot) because the stakes are so high. So maybe having my complete freak-out early is a good thing, because it will prepare me for the other freak-outs I will inevitably have.
We'll see how the rest of the process goes....
Posted by Jane at 8:30 AM • 12 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 15, 2009
Category: research • teaching • tenure
I have a To-Do list that's longer than my arm.
I have multiple deadlines that are Looming Large this week.
My scholarly materials are due fairly soon, and there are a couple more things that need to be sent out into the Great Reviewing Stream ASAP.
I have about 20 research-related tasks that must be done Right Now.
I have been completely neglecting Mr. Jane. We are not even 2 ships passing in the night....we are 2 ships flying in completely different solar systems.
So what have I spent the last 4 hours doing? Writing a homework assignment. (And actually, much of that was tweaking the assignment details, since I wrote the basic assignment earlier this afternoon.)
In my defense, it's a brand-new assignment, in a topic area I'm not completely comfortable with, and I needed to do some sanity checking and write the solution to make sure that I was giving them something do-able. But honestly? I could have finished the assignment in maybe 2 hours, tops. I spent way too much time finessing the assignment, for very little gain.
Perhaps it's time to remind myself that there's no tenure category for "kick-ass homework assignments".
Posted by Jane at 12:20 AM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
April 6, 2009
Category: miscellania
- Today, as I was driving around and flipping through the radio stations, I heard a song from late in my college days....on the classic rock station. (At least it wasn't the oldies station?)
- I've recently been friended on FB by friends from waaaaay back....and they are all posting hideous photos from junior high and high school. (There should be a law against this sort of behavior.)
- Toddler Jane's upcoming birthday....she'll be 2!! 2!! How did this happen?
- I'm having to explain more and more of my cultural references to my students. Today I had to explain what I thought was a pretty common SNL skit to them, and none of them had ever heard of it.
- I went for a run the other day....and I'm still trying to recover from it.
- My upcoming divisible-by-5 college reunion.
- Realizing, as I was putting together my external reviewers list, that many of the people I've recently met at conferences and such have been junior to me. I am no longer a junior person in my field. Huh.
What's making you feel old these days?
Posted by Jane at 11:25 PM • 15 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 26, 2009
Category: mentoring • research • scientiae
I probably should have noticed the warning signs about my graduate program earlier---like, in the first week, when I went to meet my temporary assigned advisor and he said "Oh, uh, I don't want any more students right now. Go find yourself another advisor." (I guess he didn't really understand the whole idea behind "temporary advisor".) I probably should have trusted my instincts to run away to saner pastures, but I decided to stick around for a bit. What I didn't realize at the time was that things would soon get much, much worse.
Read on »
Posted by Jane at 11:36 AM • 26 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 24, 2009
Category: computer science • gender • mentoring
For my Ada Lovelace Day post, I wanted to focus on someone who is doing interesting and interdisciplinary work in computer science, and whose work has interesting and important applications. Justine Cassell, Director of the Center for Technology and Social Behavior at Northwestern University, is just such a person.
I first heard about Dr. Cassell's work in this article:
Using "virtual peers" -- animated life-sized children that simulate the behaviors and conversation of typically developing children -- Northwestern University researchers are developing interventions designed to prepare children with autism for interactions with real-life children.
...
Cassell and researcher Andrea Tartaro collected data from six children with high-functioning autism aged 7 to 11 as they engaged in play during an hour-long session with a real-life child, and with a virtual peer named Sam.
In an analysis of those interactions, they found that children with autism produced more and more "contingent" sentences when they spoke with the virtual peer, while their sentences did not become increasingly contingent when they were paired with the real-life children.
"Certainly we're not saying that virtual peers make the best playmates for children with autism," said Tartaro. "The overall goal is for the children with autism to generalize the skills they learn in practice sessions with virtual peers to meaningful interactions with real-world children."
Nor are Northwestern researchers saying they can teach "contingency" -- appropriate back and forth conversation -- in a single session. But their findings hold promise that virtual peers can be useful in helping children with autism develop communication and social skills.
Teaching appropriate social interactions can be difficult even for milder cases of autism/autism spectrum disorder. Here, virtual peers hold a distinct advantage over other mechanisms:
For starters, children with autism often like technology. "It interacts to us," said one child with autism upon first meeting a virtual peer.
What's more, said Cassell, virtual peers don't get tired or impatient. "We can program their conversation to elicit socially-skilled behavior, and we can vary the way that they look and behave so children with autism are exposed to different kinds of behavior."
The work with autistic children is just one facet of Dr. Cassell's work:
Our research includes the interaction between humans and virtual peers we call Embodied Conversational Agents (ECA), as well as how humans interact with each other through computer-mediated contexts on the Internet and in online communities. We are also interested in how gender and ethnicity mediate technology use, including issues of power and empowerment. Finally, we are interested in how technology can be used for positive educational and developmental initiatives, such as improving literacy skills for children who do not grow up speaking Standard American English, or social skills for children with Autism.
What I think is so awesomely cool about this work is how many areas it touches: Medicine. Psychology. New media. Computer science. Linguistics. Educational studies. Heck, even gaming, if you consider avatars to be a byproduct of the gaming world. Seriously, go look at the backgrounds of the people in the ArticuLab. It's way impressive. Geeks and social scientists and new media types, all working together to help further our understanding of how communication happens.
I think it's also pretty damn cool how Dr. Cassell got her start:
She holds a master's degree in Literature from the Université de Besançon (France), a master's degree in Linguistics from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), and a double Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, in Psychology and in Linguistics.
Cassell's research interests originated in the study of human-human conversation and storytelling. Progressively she became interested in allowing computational systems to participate in these activities. This new technological focus led her to deconstruct the linguistic elements of conversation and storytelling in such a way as to embody machines with conversational, social and narrative intelligence so that they could interact with humans in human-like ways. Increasingly, however, her research has come to address the impact and benefits of technologies such as these on learning and communication.
And if there's any doubt left as to just how awesome Dr. Cassell is:
Cassell's interest in the use of technology to empower and give voice led her, in 1998, to direct the Junior Summit. This international project brought together 3000 children from 139 countries in a 6 month on-line forum that allowed children to communicate with each other across languages on topics of international concern. The forum culminated in a 6-day program at MIT where 100 of the children met with world leaders. The technology and design of the program focused on bringing voices to the table that are not often heard, to help children reach beyond clichés to the areas in which they can make the most valuable contributions, and potentially increase their role on the world stage afterwards. Cassell has continued to follow these young people, and has published on the children's interaction during the Junior Summit, and the effects of the Summit on their later development. Her work is demonstrating that these young people were launching a new kind of leadership style where strength was found through engagement with the community.
This is why I chose to highlight Dr. Cassell for my Ada Lovelace Day post: she's a woman of vision, a computer scientist with a diverse background who came to CS via other fields, a true multidisciplinarian, and a woman who's committed to making the world a better place, through her work and her outreach efforts. When I think "computer scientist", my ideal picture looks a lot like her---and I think CS, as a field, would do a lot better if our collective ideal looked a lot like her as well.
Posted by Jane at 7:00 AM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 23, 2009
Category: blogging • computer science • gender
Just a friendly reminder that tomorrow, March 24, is Ada Lovelace Day, a day devoted to highlighting women in technology. Get your posts together! (Even if you didn't sign the pledge, please join in on the fun!) Details on how to post and tag are here.
I am so excited about my own post---the woman I am posting about totally rocks, and I can't wait to introduce you to her and her work.
Also, while we are on the subject of reminders: If you're not familiar with fellow scibling Isis the Scientist....well, why the hell aren't you reading her already? Anyway, you definitely want to click through to her site this month, because she is donating all of her blogging income this month to fund an American Physiological Society scholarship for a young undergraduate woman who submits the best abstract to the Experimental Biology meeting. Details are here. So go show her some clicky love, ok?
Posted by Jane at 10:18 AM • 1 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 18, 2009
Category: teaching
- One of the questions on the exam asked the students to explain the efficiency of a particular solution to a common problem. We've been doing variations of this analysis since Day 1 in this class. I believe we even did an almost identical problem in class one day. Two-thirds of the class got the problem wrong on the exam.
- Another question was taken word-for-word from one of my exams from a previous year. No one seemed to notice. Most people got it wrong.
- Note to students: If the programming portion of the exam is worth 40% of the points on the exam, and you do not hand in *any* answers for this portion of the exam....well, can you guess what's going to happen to your grade?
- A few students apparently were stumped by one of the programming questions. Instead of taking a legitimate stab at the question, they all copied and pasted another, unrelated snippet of code and added on the appropriate method signature. (Did they think I wouldn't notice? Did they think they would get some credit for trying, even though the code didn't answer the question, like at all?)
- Reading Is Fundamental. Once again, some students lost a boatload of points for not reading directions....and then acted surprised about losing a boatload of points for not reading/following directions.
- This was even true for the guaranteed-five-points-easy question.
- There seems to be a negative correlation between how smart students think they are (and how vocal they are about their mad skillz) and how well they do on my exams.
- Another odd data point: The students who are at the top of the class and blowing away the rest of the class on these tests....are not CS majors.
- Within minutes of posting the exam grades, I got my first grade complaint. Am wondering how many more I will get over the next day or so....
Posted by Jane at 10:18 PM • 10 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
March 12, 2009
Category: tenure • work-life balance
Um, hi. Apparently I've been gone for a while. Yeah. Sorry about that. Life's been a bit crazy around here lately, and I feel like I'm barely keeping my head above water. I'm not sleeping. I'm not taking care of myself. I'm sick. I'm stressed to the gills. I have way too much to do. I feel like I work all the damn time. Hmmm, maybe that's because I *do* work all the damn time.
In addition to not having time to breathe blog, I haven't really been in the headspace to blog. I have a ton of stuff on my mind, but I'm not sure how to blog it. It's all about tenure, of course: the price of it on my health and relationships, the continued hazing aspects of it, my yearning for a less-encompassing job, the weirdness of starting to think about your long-term relationship with your institution, and how who I consider to be my "peers" is changing as I go up for tenure. It's all swirling around in my head, but not in a way that I can easily put into words. And of course there's a lot of student stuff going on that I feel like I should talk about, and the phone call incident that refuses to be resolved (still).
The good news is that things are starting to calm down and slow down a bit---or at least, that's how it looks now. And I think sitting down and blogging about some of the stuff that's on my mind will help me focus more clearly on what needs to get done. So you'll hear from me soon---I promise. For now, I'm going to do something good for myself for a bit before I get back to that huge pile o' work.
Posted by Jane at 10:43 PM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks
