...we turn toward Deleuze and Guattaria's (1987) nomad science, in contrast to state science...A nomad science, in our reading is not driven by methodology, but by perspective. Deleuze and Guattari explain that nomad science "follows the connections between singularities of matter and traits of expression, and lodges on the level of these connections, whether they be natural or forced." -Nakayama T., Krizek R. Whiteness as a Strategic Rhetoric. Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity. Sage Publications. 1999.The authors are speaking about the social sciences, but I can't help but draw a parallel with the natural sciences. Lately I've been wondering which kind of science is practiced in the area of biomedical research. Nomad or state? Which is more conducive to a stable career? What's wiser for someone with her giant brown eyes on a faculty position?
1) I am extremely keen on becoming a full professor because it will enable me to advise students directly as well as pursue my own projects. Is it easier for faculty from underrepresented groups to get where they are by focusing doggedly to one area of expertise rather than following their curious little noses? I am assuming so, but haven't been guided by anything resembling empirical fact. Sending Data Request Beacon into the blogosphere...now. :)
2) I don't want to limit myself to one kind of problem. So far my main interest has been protein crystallography, but I don't necessarily want to spend my life trying to crystallize X number of molecules using a magical quiver of Y techniques, tweaking solvents until something gels. It seems to me like many PI's practice a kind of myopic state science, firing the same methodologies at somewhat similar problems and hoping something sticks. This is not me. At all.
Maybe I've got the wrong idea, but 1) and 2) are flying farther and farther apart in my mind's eye. Wouldn't it be easier to land a faculty position/eventual tenure if I operated like a state scientist and established myself as an expert in one teeny, tiny area? How do minority (racial, gender, any kind) PI's fare under the "nomad" path? Why do I cringe inwardly when my advisors tell me I need to specify my interests? I feel like if I do that, I'll be limiting my opportunities in the future. Am I crazy? Tell me I'm not crazy.
Update (11/25/08): DrugMonkey has offered his views on the matter here.
4 comments:
Grad students practice myopic science, post-docs get a second myopic project and so have two pursuits under their belts by the time they apply for faculty positions (thus they demonstrate "scientific breadth", whateverthefuck that means), then finally when you are a professor you scramble around to learn more techniques bc your life (i.e., funding) depends on YOU being able to do EVERYTHING since you certainly can't afford to hire any lab rats, and finally when the $$$ start rolling in you can hire other people to work on several myopic projects while you manage them from afar (ahhh, bliss!).
It seems to me like many PI's practice a kind of myopic state science, firing the same methodologies at somewhat similar problems and hoping something sticks. This is not me. At all.
This is not how my lab operates. At all. We employ a wide variety of methodological approaches and are constantly engaged in developing movel ones. What unifies all of the projects going on in the lab is the broad physiological issue that motivates everything.
Physioprof: Sounds awesome. I need to find a grad advisor like that.
A.A.: That pretty much sounds like what I'm headed for if I "play the game." My instinct is REFUSE! RESIST! ;)
Open an issue of Science or Nature. Look over the papers. The vast majority is pointless, boring, ill-written, shoddy, and will be forgotten in about a month. That's your path to a full professorship.
But if you can avoid the megalabs, the high stress advisors, the latest fad where you will be scooped, and becoming someone else's bench monkey, grad school is a great time. You get paid to play in a lab. You don't get paid much, but there's a lot of places where you won't be in poverty (either by going to a cheap place to live, or a place that pays well).
I also planned to become a professor after grad school, but in the course of my wanderings since then I've realized that this is largely a result of indoctrination, a kind of macho culture of fighting your way up the ladder to be the top dog.
Post a Comment