Seeing what you want in the mirror

This month’s Scientiae asks about mirrors, reflections, and perspective. One of the things that has become clear to me as I’ve persisted in physics is that one can see almost anything one wants when looking in the mirror, particularly with regards the status of women in physics.

Are things getting better? It seems so, according to the National Academies’ latest report on women in academic science.  Reflected in this mirror, the situation looks promising. As the executive summary notes: “For the most part, men and women faculty in science, engineering, and mathematics have enjoyed comparable opportunities within the university, and gender does not appear to have been a factor in a number of important career transitions and outcomes.”

Is there still significant bias? Sciencegeekgirl highlights a recent study about student bias in the evaluation of their high school science teachers, and the Backpage editorial by Anne Lincoln, Stephanie Pincus, and Vanessa Schick in this month’s APS News notes how gender influences APS awards. Both reflect a less rosy picture about equity for women in the sciences.

These larger contradictions, and the corresponding desire to see what one wants in the mirror, are a reflection of contradictory views at the personal level. If you hold a mirror to my professional path, it looks like a straight one, but when I consider how I’ve gotten here, I see much more meandering. The seredipitous events, changes of heart, simultaneous excitement and uncertainty about the possibilities–none of this is visible to an outsider, and yet this is how I characterize my journey. Now on the tenure track, the path is well-tread and clearly marked. Yet in the search for personal-professional balance, the effort to be authentically myself, and the challenges of balancing my personal goals and expectations against societal expectations about women, physics, career, and family, there is no well-worn path. And it is precisely the lack of well-worn paths and the variety of personal perspectives upon looking in the mirror that makes the larger picture so difficult to discern.

Research experiences for all physics majors?

As a member of the Physics and Astronomy Division of the Council of Undergraduate Research (CUR), over the past few months I’ve gotten several e-mails about the effort by CUR, the Society of Physics Students, the American Astronomical Society, and the American Physical Society Committee on Education to adopt a statement on undergraduate research. The CUR statement reads as follows, “We call upon this nation’s physics and astronomy departments to provide, as an element of best practice, all undergraduate physics and astronomy majors a significant research experience.” It is unclear that there is agreement about this proposal, particularly depending on what one means by “significant research experience.” Does significant research imply collaborative work with a faculty member that makes an original intellectual contribution to the discipline? Or can a significant research experience be something more independent that is original for the student, but perhaps not an original contribution to the discipline?

According to CUR, about 70% of undergraduate physics majors participate in a research experience. For those who are considering graduate school in physics, I think a research experience is a must. And I believe that every physics major who wants a research experience should be able to participate in one. Research experiences help retention, increase motivation, build confidence, and provide a sense of being part of the scientific community—all significant benefits.

From a scientific perspective, research experiences provide students opportunities that are hard to replicate in a standard curriculum. Arjendu has previously mentioned the four types of problem solving, and research experiences offer the opportunity for practicing innovative problem solving. Other objectives for research experiences include gaining exposure to project design, using advanced instrumentation, experimental techniques, and computational tools, engaging in data analysis, and learning to communicate complex ideas. However, in talking to students, research experiences vary widely from REU site to REU site and from lab to lab, and the quality of the experience is hit or miss. Although the best research experiences provide innovative problem solving experiences and intellectual ownership of a project, many aspects of the experience can be provided through careful design of the laboratory curriculum, including open-ended project work.

I’m happy to encourage students to pursue research experiences, but should we go beyond encouraging research experiences? Let’s assume for a minute that we aren’t considering issues of capacity or the costs for faculty. In an ideal world, should all physics majors be required to participate in a research experience beyond the curricular level? For those students who will continue in physics, research experiences are a critical first step in their careers. It’s important that not just the most motivated or the most enthusiastic students participate in research programs, as research experiences can be particularly valuable for those who are uncertain of their next steps. Although research experiences are beneficial for all students, I also want the physics major to be a big tent. For future medical professionals who are interested in spending the summer working at a health clinic, or future educators who want to teach as part of a summer science enrichment program, or for students who want to work for a family business, I’m uncomfortable saying that research is more important than exploring other interests and opportunities. And I don’t think most schools have the capacity to support research experiences for all majors during the academic year.

Should research be encouraged? Yes. Should it be required? That, I’m still considering.