Archive for: September, 2017

Science administration: what’s that?

Sep 23 2017 Published by under alternative career

watchingforsunbreaks is a research administrator living in the pacific northwest. After getting a PhD in biochemistry, she switched to a career in research administration and hasn’t looked back. In her free time, she enjoys cooking, photography and travelling the world.

 

When I went to grad school, I didn’t really know what I wanted to do. During my undergraduate studies, I really liked working in a research lab. It was more fun to run experiments than study out of textbooks, so I figured I should just go get a PhD. Well, I got one and then realized I still didn’t know what I wanted to do. By the end, I was burned out. Instead of jumping into a postdoc, I decided I would take a break, try to find a job still related to research and de-stress. If I missed the lab in a year, I’ll try to go back, but if I didn’t, then I needed to move on and find an alternative career. Suffice to say, I didn’t go back to the lab and now several years later, I’ve ended up in a career path I never really thought I would be in, science administration.

Maybe I’ll go into how I got started in this career in another blog post, but for this one, I’ll just try to describe what Science Administration is, how my research background is useful and some pros and cons of the job.

Science administration – what is it?

I think of science administration as having two broad components, research administration and program administration.

Research administration covers everything related to grants, contracts, and sometimes project specific work if it is a large award encompassing multiple projects and multiple sites. People are often divided into pre-award and post-award, where pre-award is all about finding sources of funding, getting research proposals together, putting together a budget and making sure applications conform to not only sponsor requirements but also institutional requirements. Post-award is everything that goes into making sure once a proposal is funded, that the money is spent in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant and that the project progresses in a timely manner.

Program administration is more generalized, more similar to admin you would find at any organization encompassing personnel onboarding/offboarding, providing support and guidance for program activities such as seminars and recruitment, and financial support for core funds (money that does not come from external sponsors). Program administration roles are often more strategic, looking into what the needs of the department/program or institution are and how to working toward fulfilling those needs through a mix of institutional resources and sponsored funding.

Do I use any of my science training?

Short answer is not really. Vast majority of science admins don’t have a science background at all. This is changing, though. Since I started in this career, I’ve seen more and more people with science backgrounds and even a few more PhDs starting in this field. I’m not sure if that’s in part due to there just being too many graduates in biosciences who are looking for alternative careers, or if the field itself is professionalizing more and thus looking for people with more science background.

While I rarely use my research training, I do find that it is helpful. I can look for funding opportunities that are more directly related to the work my faculty do, I lightly edit their research proposals (though more with postdocs than with PIs), I can put together budgets that are more in line with the actual project and not just based on generalized estimations. But mostly, I think it helps with just being able to anticipate the questions faculty have and be a better conduit between them and sponsors since I’m familiar with how they work and their thought process. I can speak in their language and that makes them more comfortable and confident in me, which then allows me to be better able to help them. There are lots of science admins who have no science background who are great at their jobs, so this is definitely not a necessity.

Pros

  • My values are aligned with the goals of the institution I work for. It might sound hokey, but the fact that the goal of the organization I work for is to cure cancer is really important to me. I still feel like I’m contributing to a cause I believe in even though I’m not doing the hands on research anymore.
  • Good work/life balance. I have regular hours and I rarely take my work home.
  • Good colleagues and work environment.

Cons

  • It’s boring sometimes. I’m always looking to learn more but most of the time, the work is not particularly challenging.
  • It can be hard to advance. People in this field tend to stay and hold on to their jobs for a long time since the pay is decent and the job is stable, so there’s not a lot of opportunities to advance within the organization.

That’s a pretty quick and dirty introduction to science administration. For researchers looking for an alternative career path, I think it’s definitely worth considering.

 


One response so far

Gender exclusive STEM education?

This summer I enrolled my 6-year old daughter in a math camp exclusive to girls, “Girls Rock Math.” I knew about the existence of the camp before my daughter was old enough to enroll, and this year as she became eligible I did not hesitate to sign her up. She is showing keen interests in numbers and math, constantly performing arithmetic in her head. The one-week-long camp was held at a botanical garden, with its theme “Math-Magical Garden.” The campers explored patterns, shapes, mental math, and logical reasoning inspired by nature. My daughter had a great time. Everyday the camp ended with singing of inspiring and empowering songs about math, girls, female mathematicians, pi number, and not giving up, and she still sings the songs after five weeks.

In Seattle where I live, there were many other STEM camps and programs exclusively for girls. I marveled at the number of opportunities and thought this is a great era. Given the current demographics in STEM fields, girls interested in STEM could use all the opportunities and encouragement.

As summer ended I came to find out that Seattle Parks and Recreation newly created a science class for parents and children to attend together, called “Sonsational! Mad Science.” The original description of the class indicated that this class was for boys only. There was a bit of an uproar, and many concerned parents protested that it gave wrong messages to girls, and that the boys already had enough opportunities in STEM there was no need for new one. The office responded and claimed that the class was created in response to community requests. The city held “father-daughter dance” for more than 25 years with good attendance, and they were asked to organize a similar event for boys. Yes, nice dinners for girls and science for boys. Parks and Recreation later edited the description that even though the class is titled “Sonsational,” it is still open for all children. The office also claimed that the “father-daughter dance” is open for parents and children of any gender.

There were many responses and entertaining discussions in social media.  Many responders advocated to make the event title, description, and event itself gender neutral. Why not make it all inclusive? Why single out one sex in any activity? I got to thinking, should STEM education / programs be segregated between the sexes?  Is it helpful? To both sexes?  What are pros and cons?  

I asked my daughter, what if there were boys in the math camp?  Would things be different?  Would she still have liked it?  She said, boys tend to / can be more rough and disruptive than girls. The presence of boys would have made the camp less calm and peaceful.  She really enjoyed being with just girls and female teachers and assistants.  

Is this answer positive or negative?  Has she already formed a stereotype for boys?  A preference for not working with boys?  Should she just learn to get over roughness and disruptions and deal with it? Should she learn to cultivate and pursue her interests in any type of environment?  Is “Girls Rock Math” a good idea?

There are studies (for one) showing that graduates of all-girls schools have higher confidence in their math and science skills compared to their cohorts in coeducational schools. The proportion of girls who pursue careers in STEM fields is much higher in alumnae from single-sex schools than coed.  What is it about female-only education that produces such outcomes?

A recent survey by Microsoft lists conformity to social expectations, gender stereotypes, gender roles, and lack of role models as reasons girls steer away from STEM fields. Perhaps those stereotypes and traditional gender expectations are less obvious and less reinforced in female-only surroundings.  So do we educate girls and boy separately, and build up their skills and confidence, and send them to the world?

Eventually, girls will grow up, go to college, and work side-by-side, up-and-down with male colleagues/superiors/subordinates.  If neither party was exposed to each other in professional settings until that point, would there be more seeds for conflicts than potentials for successful collaboration? Perhaps gender stereotypes are even more strengthened in segregated settings. If my daughter continued in girls-only camps and classes, she may never find out how to work with boys, or that there are calm and cooperative boys out there, too.

I suspect that the Google employee who wrote that now famous memo was never sufficiently exposed to female counterparts during his training.  If he was exposed to more female colleagues (i.e. bigger sample size), he might not have formed those blatant prejudices regarding women. Would not mutual respect be more likely together than separate?

It is a conundrum. How do we achieve equality, when one group is underrepresented?  Is segregation of the lagging group the best way?

Would I still enroll my daughter in “Girls Rock Math” next summer?  I have 6 months to think it over (sign ups start in Feb!).  My current parental challenge lies in maintaining my daughter’s math interest beyond the age of 15, segregated or not.


One response so far