GeoLog

Early Career Scientists

A young person’s journey through the largest geoscience conference in Europe

A young person’s journey through the largest geoscience conference in Europe

Today we welcome, potentially one of the youngest participants of this year’s General Assembly, Pimnutcha Promduangsri: a 17-year-old science baccalaureate student at Auguste Renoir high school in Cagnes-sur-mer, France, as our guest blogger. With a deep interest in the environment and taking care of the environment, Pimnutcha was a keen participant at the conference and gave an oral presentation in a session on Geoethics. Here she describes her experience as a young person in Vienna.

My first time at the EGU General Assembly, April 2017, was exciting for several reasons:.  Itwas the first time that I had ever been to a conference, let alone a large one like the  General Assembly.

It all started when my stepfather asked me if I would like to go with him.  I immediately jumped at the chance.  As the dates fell in term time, I decided to ask my high school teachers if they would agree to my being absent from school for a week.  Without hesitation, they agreed that it would be a great opportunity for me.

We arrived in Vienna on Sunday, 23 April, where it was colder than my hometown in the south of France, and much colder than my native Thailand.  So began a marvellous week, discovering so much about the Earth, geosciences and geoscientists  I shall tell you about only some of my highlights here.

Probably the most exciting thing for me was helping to present during a session on geoethics.  I did the introduction for a presentation titled ‘The ethics of educational methods to teach geoethics’.

Doing the introduction to the presentation. (Photo by Iain Stewart)

It was also exciting to talk with people who visited our poster, ‘On the necessity of making geoethics a central concern in eduethics world-wide’.

Our main message is that we must make geoethics the core of all education, and make ethics the core of all geo-education.  Indeed: “our planet is in dire need of geoethical behaviour by all its citizens.  That can only be achieved through education, on an intergenerational basis.  Geoethics education needs to tackle real issues, not with a philosopher’s stone, but using ethical practice.  Geoethics happens essentially, not in what we say, but in what we do” (from the abstract for the presentation).

Also “learning to behave ethically needs far more than knowledge about energy imbalance, pollution, acidity, ice melt, etc.  It needs people to learn, and grow up learning, about what is right and wrong in regard to each aspect of our personal Earth citizen lives.  That needs nothing short of a revolution in educational practice for all schools across the globe – a tall order, and an intergenerational process.  The most powerful way to mitigate climate change, pollution, etc is to make geoethics the core of education across the globe.  …  we … emphasize the need to boost strong eduethics, so that the positive effects are passed on from generation to generation”  (from the poster abstract).

At the end of the presentation, someone said to me “you must be the youngest presenter” at EGU’s General Assembly.  Maybe, but we must start young to fight for our planet, and not simply wait for something to happen.  I was proud to be among such a wonderful group of people.

I love drawing.  So for the poster I made three pictures, with help from my sister, Pariphat, to illustrate the message that we want to convey.  I hope that you enjoy them.

I would like to thank everyone I met at the conference for being so kind with me.  I appreciated their patience in explaining things.  I cannot list them all here.  One exciting highlight was to meet with Iain Stewart, well-known for his BBC films.  Another was a hands-on session, where we participated in some practical activities, for example, a demonstration of a volcano, erosion with real water, a model of the uplifting of the Himalayas with a sand box, and earthquakes with shaking platforms.  I was impressed by their positive approach.

I wish to thank Silvia Peppoloni and Giuseppi Di Capua for letting me be part of their session.  I admire the work that they are doing in the IAPG – the International Association for the Promotion of Geoethics -.  I hope to see more young people at the General Assembly next year.  Meanwhile, please tell your whole family and friends about how important it is to fight against climate change.  I have started my LinkedIn profile; please join me there.

Demonstration of an earthquake and building resonance, by high school teachers from France. (Photo by Pimnutcha Promduangsri)

By Pimnutcha Promduangsri, science baccalaureate student at Auguste Renoir high school in Cagnes-sur-mer, France

Conversations on being a woman in Geoscience

Conversations on being a woman in Geoscience

While at this year’s General Assembly in Vienna, Keri McNamara, one of the EGU’s press assistants, spoke to a number of female geoscientists (at different career stages), to get their perspective on what being a female in geosciences is like.

At this year’s EGU General Assembly I decided to construct a blog out of conversations I had with several women in geoscience, to learn about their research and experiences. While I’ve been lucky enough to be supported by many amazing female scientists, I know that this isn’t always the case for others who have felt undervalued or overlooked.

This year at the EGU’s General Assembly year there have been great sessions on addressing gender inequality in the geosciences. Many celebrated the gains made in a generation in terms of female participation in science. Others painted a concerning picture of male dominance especially at the higher levels.

In the EGU for instance, all of the medal awards are named after male geoscientists and only 22% of them were awarded to women in 2017. There is a gender imbalance at all levels in the EGU membership statistics but the early career scientists have the most female input with an encouraging 35% of the share.

In the charming age of ‘grab ‘em by the pussy’ it is more important than ever to ensure that women from all backgrounds feel they can be amazing scientists. It’s about fighting the male smirk when you say you’re learning python, refusing to feel embarrassed squatting behind a bush while on a field trip or demanding not to be pressured to turn down that post-doc because you want to have a kid.

Below you’ll find the interviews with several women in geosciences, from PhD students to CEOs. I hope they are a source of information and inspiration for other female geoscientists. As Dr Véronique Garçon of  Future Earth (an international research platform for the advancement of Global Sustainability Science) said in her EGU talk on promoting equality:

Never give up!


Chris McEntee:  CEO and Executive director of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

AGU is a 60,000-person earth and space science membership organisation with 40% of its members from 136 countries outside the United States. She has been the first woman CEO of three different membership organisations including AGU.

If you want to take on a leadership position get training to be an effective leader, says Chris McEntee. (Credit: EGU/Kerri McNamara).

What are your experiences of being a woman in a leadership position?

I think things have improved over time. It’s much better in the US than other countries.  At the same time I still think there’s a lot of problems. AGU has delved into sexual harassment, bias and discrimination and the stories are pretty alarming. There’s some unique things in geosciences because of field and ship experiences that can make women more vulnerable in certain situations.

What are you doing to address this?

In the past couple of years AGU has been trying to increase awareness through town halls and our sessions at our general meeting. Last year we received some funding from the National Science Foundation to bring together leaders in science societies and expert individuals on the treatment of women. Out of that has come a new AGU initiative on ethics and harassment. It will have tools, resources, bystander training, and workshops.

We want to continue the research too. The data is pretty compelling – a very substantial number of women have experienced sexual harassment in some way. We’ve also learned that meeting the legal standard for harassment and discrimination is difficult- it’s a very high bar. So there is a lot that occurs that might not meet the legal definition. We really have to stop it at the beginning by changing this culture.

We also need to provide a space so that if a woman is feeling something is inappropriate, but it’s not too serious, they have somewhere they can talk about it. Last year at the AGU Fall Meeting we had a ‘safe AGU’ campaign where staff and volunteers had buttons and said ‘if you feel unsafe, come to one of us and we can help you’. We are updating our code of ethics for our members to include harassment and discrimination as behaviors that are inappropriate.

What would you say to young women in science who hope to take leadership positions?

Get training to be effective leaders. It can be hard to find the time to add this type of training as the work of science is so demanding. Also find peer support groups and mentors who share your experience and can provide advice, counsel and support.

There are some great options available such as the Association for Women Geoscientists and the Earth Science Women’s Network. You are not alone and there are people who want to help. If you feel something’s not right, don’t think it’s you. Find someone that can help you think it through- there are a lot of men who are also supportive!


Dr Claudia Alves de Jesus-Rydin: Research Programme Officer at the European Research Council (ERC).

Claudia is also the coordinator of the gender activity group in the scientific department at ERC and an active member of the working group on gender balance in the scientific council of the ERC.

Claudia Alves de Jesus-Rydin feels women can find self-promotion harder. (Credit: EGU/Keri McNamara)

What are your experiences of being a woman in Geoscience?

I have to refer to the data that I observe at the ERC. We see that there is a change from the starting grant through to the advanced grant. What is really amazing is that systemically, in the Earth Systems Sciences, female applicants have higher success rates than male applicants at the starting grant and consolidated grant level: The female applicants are pretty competitive. The biggest issue I observe is the submission rate.

Of course there is the risk that once you increase the submission rate, maybe there will be a drop of the success rate.  The community is filtering themselves before they submit, perhaps they only submit if they are very strong? At the moment the key thing is encouraging more women to apply.

Why aren’t more women applying?

Often the problem is that women find the prospect of rejection harder.

There is this joke: ‘there is this guy in a bar and he walks up to a woman and he tries to buy her a drink. Eventually she gets really fed up and she says “Look, you have a one in a million chance with me” and the man replies “Yes! I knew I had a chance!”. If a woman got a reply like that they would just grab their things and move but a guy thinks ‘yes I have a chance’.

Also, self-promotion can be harder for women; the profile of car salesman is a very male one. I’ve heard woman say ‘ I don’t want to write a proposal saying how good I am.’ We really need women to push harder.

What about early career scientists?

I think early career scientists are doing well, but later on in their careers there is always the issue of the family. I think that’s when most support is needed; from colleagues, institutions, supervisors and partners at home.

I think role models are a great way to address this; to show it is possible. You don’t have to sacrifice your personal life, you can still have a good balance being a good Mom, a good woman and a good scientist; a scientist that has achieved really great things.


Credit: EGU/Keri McNamara

Helena Łoś: PhD student at Warsaw University, Poland.

Can you tell us about your research?

My background is Geodesy and I specialise in photogrammetry and remote sensing. I work with satellite SAR (synthetic aperture radar) data. I compare data with different parameters to check how the values influence the possibility of the detection of river ice.

What about your experiences as a woman in Geosciences?

I don’t find there’s a big difference in terms of gender in geosciences. I think it’s most difficult in the future; often a post-doc is short-term, perhaps 3 years. If you want to have a family you might want to have a year off for maternity leave and that could become problematic.


Dr Nolwenn Le Gall: a post-doc at the University of Manchester.

Nolwenn completed a PhD at Université d’Orléans, CNRS, France

Credit: EGU/Keri McNamara

What is your research area?

I am an experimental volcanologist working on the degassing of basaltic melts. I’m trying to reproduce natural processes. My PhD was on bubble nucleation. Now I work on the same things but looking at crystallisation instead. It’s still basaltic melts and the conduit so similar experiments. But now I will have to do some experiments in-situ too.

It’s really nice that my post-doc is three years, I don’t have to apply for new position. I have some technique development that will take time so it’s useful to have a longer post-doc.

How do you feel as a woman in geosciences?

I feel fine. I don’t really see differences. You see more problems higher up- there are more men. But that was before and I think now, during conferences we see that there are a lot of women giving talks and posters. It seems to be almost a 50:50 gender balance. I’ve never had any problems with men treating me differently because of my gender.

What advice would you give to other women who want to become geoscientists?

Do what you like. Just enjoy it- if you enjoy your work, that’s always better.


Dr. Grace Shephard: researcher at the University of Oslo.

She completed her PhD at the University of Sydney and is now well into her second post-doc. She is also received the Arne Richter Award for Outstanding Young Scientists at EGU in 2016.

“If, professionally, something positive happens to you I think you should try to bring up the other women you work with,” says Grace Shephard. (Credit: EGU/Kai Boggild)

What are you research interests?

I have a few different avenues of research. I’m primarily working with plate tectonics in the Arctic region so I research how the Arctic Ocean opened and how the surrounding continents and oceanic plates have shifted about. To investigate how and when an ocean subducted deep into the mantle, I try to integrate lots of different datasets, including on global scales. I completed a three year post-doc at the University of Oslo and then I was lucky enough to get my own funding to continue.

What are your experiences of being a woman in geosciences?

I’ve been following with interest the recent article in Nature about molehills building up against women in geoscientists specifically. I can only speak from my own experience- but I’ve never found it a big issue. I’ve been lucky that I’ve had very supportive supervisors and environment to work in. I have experienced isolated throw-away comments at conferences but I don’t let it define the geosciences and my experiences, so I just move on.

What would you recommend to young geoscientists?

Identify researchers you are interested in, and will enjoy working with, and don’t be shy to approach them with an idea and see how it goes. I think you have to be quite proactive and that’s something that you have to go through with the transition of when you become your own independent researcher.

Also, you should support people- it goes both ways. If, professionally, something positive happens to you I think you should try to bring up the other women you work with. I guess in the context of EGU- I was very fortunate to receive an award last year. I was nominated by two senior female researchers so I feel the need to give back to the community even more so.

 

Interviews by Keri McNamara, a volcanology PhD student at the University of Bristol who worked at the EGU meeting as a press assistant.

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated in the interviews, whose views may differ from those of the European Geosciences Union. We hope the post can serve to generate discussion and a civilised debate amongst our readers.

The publication issue: the opinions of EGU early career scientists!

The publication issue: the opinions of EGU early career scientists!

The EGU’s General Assemblies have a long tradition of Great Debates – sessions of Union-wide interest which aim to discuss some of the greatest challenges faced by our discipline. Past topics have included exploitation of mineral resources at the sea bed, water security given an ever growing population and climate geoengineering, to name but a few.  This year’s meeting saw the first Great Debate aimed, specifically, at an Early Career Scientist (ECS) audience which boasted an innovative format too: Should early career scientists be judged by their publication record? A set of group debates. Today’s post, written by Mathew Stiller-Reeve, a convener of the session, summarises some of the main outcomes of the discussion.

We, early career scientists, are told that we need to become expert writers, presenters, and teachers if we are going to make it in the world of research. Many of us agree such transferrable skills are extremely important. But if we invest time in developing these skills, it sometimes feels like time wasted. All said and done, we only seem to be judged on our publication record and our h-index. How many papers have we published in high impact journals, and how often have they been cited?

Early career scientists seem very clued up on transferrable skills. They want to invest in these skills. Therefore, we wanted to hear from them about whether ‘early career scientists [should] be judged mainly on their publication record?’ And so we put this question to them (and others) at a Great Debate at the EGU’s 2017 General Assembly. We also wanted to test out a new format where the audience had the opportunity to voice their opinions about important issues concerning modern academia. The publication issue affects us all, so we should have a say.

With only 8 people at each table and over 40 minutes to debate, everyone had an opportunity to speak their mind and contribute to developing solutions. The room was buzzing with over 100 early career and more established scientists discussing, agreeing, disagreeing, and finding compromises.

In the end, each table was tasked to debate and boil their thoughts down to one or two policy-type statements. These statements will be presented to the EGU Council to inform them of where EGU early career scientists stand on this matter.

So without further ado, here are the conclusions of the tables:

– We need more criteria. Quality is most important, measured by prizes, PhD results and the incorporation of the community via new media.

-More activities need to be taken into account in a measurable way, but according to scaled categories #notjustanumber.

-The current system is cheap, easy and fast. A person should be judged on the broader contributions to society, to their colleagues, to their disciplines. We should move beyond metrics.

-Because scientists are more than a list of publications, assess them individually. Talk to them and read their output, including publications, blogs and chapter/book contributions.

-We should not be judged on publication record alone. We need a multi-variant set of criteria for assessment for judgment of impact beyond just academic publications.

-One suggestion is a weighted metric depending on the position you’re applying for which considers other factors such as teaching, outreach, conference participation etc.

-No, the h-index should not be the sole number, even though it is not a totally useless number.

-Quality should be judged on more than quantity and the large number of authors on publications devaluates the contributions of early career scientists.

-Publications are the accepted way of communication in science, but there is not any one number describing the quality of the early career scientist, whom in our humble opinion should not only be judged on the quantity of papers but also on their quality as a part of a complete set of research skills, including other contributions such as project development.

-We acknowledge the publication record as a reliable metric, but we suggest an additional step for assessing applications, based on video or audio presentations to emphasize your other outstanding qualities.

-We doubt that we are mainly judged on our publication record and we think that publications should be part of what we are judged on.

-When hiring, follow the example of the Medical Department at Utrecht University: only ask for the 3 papers, teaching or outreach experiences you think are important for the position you are applying for: we are more than numbers.

Should they be adopted? Do you agree? How can we adopt them?

The message in many of the statements from the Early Career Scientists at the European Geosciences Union is quite clear: We are more than numbers! Several suggestions arose from the debate: new metrics, video presentations, and even new application processes. Now the statements from the debate are recorded. This will hopefully inspire us (and others) to find better solutions. At the very least, the discussion has begun. Solutions are impossible if we don’t talk!

By Mathew Stiller-Reeve, co-founder of ClimateSnack and researcher at Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Norway

Editor’s note: This is a guest blog post that expresses the opinion of its author and those who participated at the Great Debate during the General Assembly, whose views may differ from those of the European Geosciences Union. We hope the post can serve to generate discussion and a civilised debate amongst our readers.

At the Assembly 2017: Tuesday Highlights

At the Assembly 2017: Tuesday Highlights

Welcome back to the second day of the 2017 General Assembly! Today is packed full of excellent sessions, and this list of highlights is by no means comprehensive! Make sure you complement this information with EGU Today, the General Assembly newsletter, to get the most out of the conference – grab a copy on your way in or download it here.

Today, the General Assembly programme features two Interdisciplinary events, which tackle a common theme through an interdisciplinary combination of approaches. The aim of the sessions is to foster cross-division links and collaborations.  The first session starts at 08:30 presentations from seven different divisions explore R’s deliberate role in the Earth science. Monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals with the huge remote sensing archives is the focus of the second Interdisciplinary event, which kicks off at 10:30. Both events take place at PICO spot A (second floor, red level, in Poster Hall A).

The first of this year’s Great Debates takes place today too and discusses one of the most contended topics in the Earth sciences: what really caused the demise of the dinosaurs? Although popular belief is that the Chicxulub meteorite was the sole cause of the extinction of the dinosaurs, many geoscientists are not so sure. The causes of all mass extinctions will be debated by a panel of experts. Join in the debate from 15:30–17:00 in E1. You can follow the session on Twitter with #EGU17GDB, and, if you’re not attending, tune in with the conference live stream.

Don’t forget that when you need to kick back and relax, you can head on over to GeoCinema, and enjoy a geologically themed film (10:30–19:00 daily in the GeoCinema Room, 0.90 on the yellow level). Today’s pick is Ichiro and the wave, a fisherman’s first-hand account of his boat being struck by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. It is showing from 14:30.

The day is full of fantastic scientific sessions, from understanding earthquake source processes (SM2.1/EMRP4.12: Orals 08:30 to 12:00 and 13:30 to 15:00 in Room M1 / Posters from 17:30 in Hall X3), through to getting beyond the case study: Concepts in Earth Sciences (GM1.1/EOS20/CL5.18/SSS13.1: Orals from 10:30 to 12:00 in Room L1 / Posters from 17:30 in Hall X2) and studying the climate of the last two millennia (CL1.03: Orals from 13:30 in Room F2 / Posters from 17:30 in Hall X5).

Today is also a bumper day for  Medal Lectures, there are eighteen taking place throughout the day covering various areas of the geosciences. Make sure you check the programme so that you don’t miss them. The Jean Dominque Cassini Medal Lecture by Luciano Iess (ML4: 12:15 – 13:15 / Room E1) is being streamed live.

If you’re an early career scientist (ECS), this year’s conference has more than ever on offer for the ECS community, and today is a bumper day, packed full of ECS-related activities. Meet the EGU Union-level ECS Representatives (Laura Roberts, Lena Noack and Roelof Rietbroek) at the EGU Booth from 11:15 to 12:45, to find out more about the Union and how to get involved. Throughout the day, a number of the ECS Representatives will also be available at the Booth, as will various division presidents. Check the programme for full details. If you want an opportunity to network and meet established scientists who can offer advice on anything from how to prepare a research grant to how to balance your research and personal life, why not come along to the EGU’s Early Career Scientists Networking & Careers Reception – now open to all ECS – from 19:00 in room F2. Light snacks and drinks will be served when you arrive!

The ECS lounge at EGU 2014. Credit: Stephanie McClellan/EGU

If you want to hone your transferable skills and dedicate a bit of time to developing your career, then today’s short courses are for you:

There is also a treat of Townhall Meetings on this evening. These meetings allow for a lot more open discussion than many of the Assembly’s other sessions and take place outside the usual time blocks. Here are some of the highlights:

And there’s a suite of smaller Splinter Meetings organised by conference participants too. Why not join the discussion on how to improve the data format/structure of preliminary EUSTACE-products (give publicly available daily estimates of surface air temperature since 1850 across the globe) (SMP21: 08:30 – 12:00 / Room 0.51)? Otherwise, learn about measuring ambient ammonia (SMP29: 12:15 – 13:15 in 2.61) or join the  subdivision meeting for SSS4: Soil Biology, Microbiology and Biodiversity (SMP40, 10:30–12:00 / Room 2.83).

Have a lovely day!

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: