• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Scientists Want More Children

August 8, 2011, 6:28 pm

Scientists at the nation’s top research universities say the pressure-filled road to tenure— publishing, grant-writing, and long hours in the lab—keeps them from having as many children as they would like.

And according to a new study, “Scientists Want More Children,” women aren’t the only ones lamenting how their science career short-circuited their family plans. Men aren’t happy about it either. One-quarter of male scientists reported that they had fewer children than they wanted, and that had a more negative effect on their life satisfaction than it did for women, said Elaine H. Ecklund, an assistant professor of sociology at Rice University, who co-authored the study with Anne E. Lincoln, an assistant professor of sociology at Southern Methodist University.

“Men seemed to be harder hit than we thought by this reality” that science careers and family life often don’t mix, Ms. Ecklund said. “Women go into science, and they know all about the hardships already” because most most research on scientists and work-life balance tends to focus on women. Nearly half of the women scientists surveyed by the authors said their careers kept them from having more children.

The study looked at data from more than 30 research universities and 2,500 scientists in the fields of physics, astronomy, and biology. Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows were among those surveyed, and from their vantage point, work-life balance in the sciences looks pretty bleak. Nearly 30 percent of women worry that if they choose to pursue science, then they will have to give up on having a family.

In fact, the study shows, once graduate students and postdocs have fewer children than they want, they are more likely to consider a different career. Ms. Ecklund said one solution could be for institutions to make a concerted effort to provide mentoring programs for early-career scientists—both women and men—that focus on how to achieve work-life balance. Some scientists interviewed for the study also talked about how on-site day care is a great help as well.

But Ms. Ecklund and Ms. Lincoln plan to do 150 follow-up interviews with scientists to find out more about what resources and institutional policies would make it easier for them to balance work and family.

“I think we’ve too often thought of this as a personal thing that people should figure out on their own,” Ms. Ecklund said. “But our research shows that if universities do nothing, people will think their only option is to leave, and that really hurts the future of science.”

If you’re a pretenure scientist with children, how do you achieve work-life balance? What does your university or department do to help?

This entry was posted in Faculty@Work, Work and Life. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • 11147066

    This study (as described here….I
    have not read the original)is ridiculous. We have no contextual basis
    for evaluating these numbers. Maybe it is
    overall human nature to have child regret (make decisions about child
    bearing at each stage based on economic and social realities, and then
    at the next stage wish you had had more). Maybe, in fact, there is MORE
    child regret among blue-collar workers than among academics. I think
    most thinking people (or at least most progressives) would agree that we
    need ALL working places to be more family-friendly. Many of us think
    that we need a more family friendly SOCIETY (e.g., government subsidized
    day care, socialized medicine). But this study tells us nothing about
    academia. 

  • haohtt

    I actually HAVE read the study, so I disagree with your opinion that it says nothing about academia.  It has a lot to say about the condition of academic scientists and the correlation between life satisfaction and job satisfaction and the attrition of academic scientists.  Now, having said that, your observation that these effects are not unique or limited to an academic setting is absolutely correct.  Any person found in the same situation as these academics will likely suffer similar results.  However, if we are looking for answers to address the issue of highly trained academic scientists leaving prior to tenure, this study has some useful findings. 

  • grward

    I just read (albeit quickly) the original study, and I just don’t see why it would be a ridiculous study because it doesn’t address whether “…there is more child regret among blue collar workers than among academics” or whether “…it is overall human nature to have child regret…” Perhaps I’m just unintelligent (or at least more unintelligent that I thought I was) but the study seems to provide some information about just how widespread is the discontent among academics regarding having to choose (or at least the perception of having to choose) between family and career and whether that discontent affects decisions (which will have to be explored more in future research, obviously).

  • digiwonk

    This is perhaps not the most professional response I’ve ever left on an article but the truth is this: this article, and this findings it reports, have left me just incredibly sad. Incredibly sad.

    To be forced to choose between a career and a family is not only heartbreaking, but … well … the idea that such a choice is necessary, natural, part of life is ridiculous. An academic career is a long thing, as is parenthood, and each has ebbs and flows.

    I had a child while on the tenure track: despite my very generous Canadian leave, I was a basket case for a good 18 months or so. But I did some great teaching nevertheless, and now my research is really going places and my daughter is five. As it turns out, it is possible to do both: the problems that make it impossible (long hours, funding structures, six years up or out) are structural and cultural and can, and should, in the name of simple humanity, change.

  • butteredtoastcat

    God bless Canada.

    Please don’t follow the US into the abyss.

  • maryza

    On-campus high quality affordable childcare is part of the solution.

  • dale1

    Would that we had it. Sadly, austerity means it can cost literally hundreds of dollars a week, have insane waiting lists, or both.

    One might ask whether it’s an institution’s responsibility to provide and subsidize this activity. I would say that it is, if they want to attract and retain quality employees. Sadly, the ROI on such programs is incredibly difficult to measure.

  • manoflamancha

    Two of the lowest academically ranked major universities are the top ranked in football coaches salaries. Marvelous, just marvelous.

  • mkt42

    I’ve still got my copy of “Bored of the Rings” … apparently it’s still in print.  Some of the humor was based on brand names which no longer exist or are obscure:  Goodgulf the wizard, Moxie and Pepsi the bumbling boggies, etc.  But some of it is still current:  “‘Aiee!’ cried Legolam.  ‘A Ballhog!’”

  • 11182967

    There is still a market, I suspect, for writers willing to pen such letters for others to send, or even to speak directly on their behalf.  I got the part of Cyrano on stage as a senior in high school in part because I had been known for polishing up the sweet nothings of classmates–the Abe Burows of love notes.   But more than the words themselves, the decline of love letters has probably been a consequence of the decline of penmanship.  These days hardly anyone (myself included) can “write a good hand,” and a typed love letter, even converted to a fancy font, just won’t do.  Even in those old high school days when guys copied my suggestions in their own handwriting for authenticity they were often so struck by the disjuncture between the sentiments and penmanship that they couldn’t go through with sending the note.  I did make sure I got my dollar first.  

  • m_ryall

    Typical or not, Spitzer’s apology doesn’t right the wrongs. His “research” helped to naturalize the idea that homosexuality is an aberration, and has prolonged the injustices that gay people have to endure. That Spitzer now wants to rid himself of guilt over his part in it is really revolting. I for one am not applauding him for suddenly seeing the light. It’s way too easy and way too late.

  • vanandel

    And what would you prefer that he do now?  Should he remain silent and let the work stand? 

  • woodstock

    Baloney Dr. Spitzer, no “scientific” research. The gay community forced the APA brass to drop the Homosexuality diagnosis. The occasion was the 1973 APA convention in San Francisco: the gay community got control of the convention site infrastructure and and demanded the APA drop the homosexual diagnosis or else no convention. The APA brass complied immediately.  Nothing “scientific”, but political force. 
    More to be done with the rest of the APA  300 plus ”scientific” diagnosis!!!

  • anon1972

    No, but he needs to understand — and probably does — that his ‘mea culpa’ will not automatically allow people to forgive and forget the damage his work caused.

  • big_giant_head

     Huh. I had no idea the “gay community” had such power. I wonder when I’ll get my secret decoder ring?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/6Q5A3WFLMNOL3NHAEUDSZYFAVE Dawn

    my buddy’s ex-wife makes $73 hourly on the internet. She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her income was $14514 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more CashLazy.c&#111m

  • anthonylea89

    my best friend’s sister-in-law got paid $14696 the prior month. she is making money on the inte<!–truth is almight–>rnet and bought a $372500 home. All she did was get blessed and work up the steps uncovered on this link ===>> ⇛⇛⇛⇛► http://seekingguru.blogspot.com

  • borso

     Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 32, Number 5, October 2003 , pp. 419-468 has an extensive range of peer responses to the paper in the same issue, followed by a response. Peer review in public?

  • m_ryall

    I agree with anon1972. The apology is accepted, It’s fitting, appropriate, and overdue. But Spitzer should not expect us to hold a parade for him. His work speaks for itself and the apology is a footnote.

  • woodstock
  • woodstock
  • 11182967

    Thanks, Borso.  This journal isn’t one of those that, like Jay Leno, I’d refer to as “my Bible.”  So if there was substantial–and I presume mixed, at the least–reponse at the time, the question would be why the article came to be influential, at least to a particular audience.  The answer to that is pretty obvious, of course. 

    What’s disturbing about the larger story is the way in which it reflects many Americans’ fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.  While scientists recognize that much (virtually all social) science is statistical, non-scientists run around claiming that anything which is not 100% “proved” is essentially unproved.  Which is then interpreted to mean, ironcially, that any one research result, no matter how wacky, can be seen as “just as good as” any other: nothing is certain, ipso facto, everything is equally (un)certain.  

  • lross1

    Woodstock, I’ve read the sources you cite, and they don’t support your statements.  You seem to be confusing the disruptions that took place at the 1970 APA convention in San Francisco and the non-disruptive events that took place at the 1973 APA convention in Honolulu.  There is no reference in any of your sources to any attempt to shut down or otherwise interfere with the 1973 convention.  The segment from “This American Life” seemed to be the most detailed and even-handed account of the 1973 events.

  • rt_firefly

    What emerges as really disturbing to me is that the collection of peer commentaries does a fairly decent job of dismissing the study (to that extent the journal did some due diligence), but this was obviously ignored by the usual suspects, including (I assume) the pop press.

    For example, it didn’t take long to find a methodological critique by Helena Carlson that pointed out that: “… this is a population of highly religious, White, Protestant, middle aged, and middle class men and women. There is little evidence that they are representative of a diverse gay community.”This is a pretty basic demonstration of what happens when people don’t do their homework – either willfully or negligently, or just flat out distort the facts. And it happens all the time.

  • mawickline

    Time marches on. I, for one, am grateful that Dr. Spitzer had the grace to do this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1600660751 Robert Oscar Lopez

    I’m bisexual and don’t feel like I need to apologize to anyone. Straights need to accept that I’ll always find men attractive. Homosexuals need to accept that I have a choice and they can’t cure me of women by saying I’m in denial. It’s shocking how crude the level of discussion is especially from my gay supposed allies.

  • panacea

    I agree; the sources don’t support your claim.  Your “This American Life” source claims a secret conspiracy, but that’s not the same thing as what you claimed happened. 

    And I don’t believe the “American Life” claims.  The membership would not have gone along with the changes if the literature at the time didn’t support it. 

  • panacea

    What’s your point?

  • pianiste

    “Homosexuals need to accept that I have a choice and they can’t cure me of women by saying I’m in denial.”

    Professor Lopez has, on CHE blogs, a longstanding and severe tic about gay activists who believe that one’s sexual orientation (and not, mind you, “preference”) is innate being somehow the cause of a lot of the misery of gays. The overturning, under their pressure, if DADT in the military is an example he gives. He seems to think that one has a “choice” not only in one’s sexual deeds, but in one’s sexual attractions; he apparently chooses to be sexually attracted to women as well as to men.

    The civil rights of gays can be, and often are, truncated by the “choice” argument, i.e., if they “choose” to be gay, then they–perhaps with the help of psychiatric and/or religious counseling–could become able to choose not to be gay, and thereby not commit the sins (often said to be crimes) that get them in trouble.

    I think that with most people, this kind of alleged “choice” is a lot of
    poppycock, and I’d like to see if Professor Lopez, or anybody who
    agrees with him, would care to explore the logic of his apparently
    choosing his sexual orientation. For instance, a good many of Professor Lopez’s politically conservative and Christian cohort, believe that bisexuality is as bad, if not worse (especially if one is a married parent) than simple homosexuality, so I’m curious how Professor Lopez would square his “choosing” to be bisexual (he says, “I have a choice”) with others who share his political and religious, um, preferences.

  • polonius_p_angloss

    Cheers to both sides for conducting a fact-based argument. 

    To recap: a claim was made. A challenge was issued. Citations were requested and links were supplied. Those links were read, analyzed, and responded to. Informed discussion being scarcer than unobtanium today, I feel compelled to draw attention and praise to even this one small but perfect example. Kudos!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Vinson-Carmichael-Jr/25016944 James Vinson Carmichael Jr

    Very interesting recantation, especially dear to baby boomers.

  • jefischman

     Thank you for your comments on the role of scientific apologies and journal retractions in correcting science. I left out another important example of a mea culpa: James M. Wilson, the U. of Pennsylvania gene therapy researcher whose experiment led to the death of a patient, Jesse Gelsinger. Wilson– after Federal investigators found a raft of problems with the experiment in 2005–admitted responsibility in 2009 for ignoring guidelines that would have prevented Gelsinger from participating in the trial. But he continued to insist that Gelsinger’s reaction could not have been predicted. Still, he published long cautionary notes in science journals warning other researchers about making these errors. Here’s a newspaper summary: http://articles.philly.com/2009-05-08/news/25273873_1_paul-gelsinger-gene-therapy-jesse-gelsinger

    And here’s his general caution not to rush ahead without good oversight: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5928/727.full

    And his full explanation of where he thinks he went wrong, in a science journal that you have to pay to read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211285?dopt=Abstract

    And a comment from Paul Gelsinger, Jesse’s father, on the slowness and apparent reluctance of Wilson and the scientific/legal system to try and right the wrong: http://www.bioethics.net/2008/01/a-comment-from-paul-gelsinger-on-gene-therapy-and/

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037