I was giving a final exam in my graduate class yesterday and elected to use the time to clear up some of the items in my to-read pile. Near the top was the May issue of "The Scientist". The magazine is described as being for life scientist, but even an organic chemist like me can find in every issue at least one item of interest. In the current issue there was an article titled, "Evolution of Science" about a 2009 article from Trends in Biochemical Sciences by Alexander Shneider.
Shneider's article is rather interesting. It reminds one of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which Shneider does make note of. He builds an argument for there being four stages of development of a scientific discipline and four stages of scientists. Mismatches of stages of scientist and science, or stages of grant or paper author and stage of reviewer can result in problems staying in the field or with getting funded or published.
Stage one is a conceptual idea stage where someone sees something not previously recognized and adds new objects or phenomena to the discipline. In stage two, new methods and techniques are developed to move the new discipline forward. Stage three is where most academic scientists reside and where new methods and techniques are applied to the new discipline to define and expand the discipline. In stage four the science is institutionalized as the knowledge generated in the first three stages is applied and in many cases makes the science "real world".
In dealing with the STEM pipeline and retaining students one might consider the stage our students reside in. As Shneider suggests, if a student is attracted to science by stage one ideas and is funneled into a stage three or four science career they will tend to become unhappy. Students might be better served by recognizing the stage of evolution they are attracted to and guiding them to a field at a similar stage.
The thought I had on reading this is that many of today's students in my classes are really stage four folks, looking for careers and institutionalized knowledge rather than the stage one-three thinking of their faculty mentors. In trying to make them into stage three scientists we may be contributing to the pipeline problem, by chasing these students out of the profession. In a related fashion, much of our NIH and NSF STEM resources are focused on encouraging creation of stage three people. Again, by placing emphases on a single stage of evolution we may chase those in the other stages away from the professions.
We might be better served by recognizing the value of having professionals of all stage types and encouraging the development of professionals of all stages. Of course this will require that we faculty are open enough to appreciate those stages other than our own.
T.S. Hall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree about most students being stage four. Perhaps the costs of college or of life may have pushed them in this direction, it's likely. But there are people needed at all these stages.
ReplyDeleteThe four stage idea does seem to fit into my experiences. I would say most young professors I've met are very much in stage three. Very detail oriented, emphasize correctness and attack anything new. There's no room for some crazy ideas with these people. Their way or the highway. Their work is formulaic and really only takes diligent work to publish.
Older professors seem to be stage one or two. They're really trying to make some unique discoveries. Just look at some of James Watson's politically incorrect quotes or Freeman Dyson's heresies. Even George Whitesides seems to take a whole new look at things, watch his TED talks. Maybe it's their secure positions or they really are in those first two stages.
My fear would be that grant reviewers are procuring lots of stage three scientists. And we will be stuck in the muddy details for a very long time.
Good points! I would love to have an open forum at a meeting like ACS for everyone to through in their two cents on this topic. OF course if Shneider is the stage one scientist, that would make the organizers stage two and the participants stage three. The editors of the ACS monograph would be stage four.
ReplyDelete