Story 1- A few months ago, I wrote about my long-held view that graduate students should not bring snacks to committee meetings (even if they want to). Then in April while attending a committee meeting a student proudly whips out some snacks. I promptly (put my foot in my mouth by) tsk-tsk-ing them, and encouraged them to read my post about why snacks for their committee are unnecessary. That did not go over well with the major professor for this student. So I got to thinking, how does my colleague not know that snacks are passé?
Story 2- As a new faculty member, recruiting graduate students is one of the most important responsibilities I have to establish my lab. I was learning about the graduate recruiting process for my department and saw that we require the GRE. That’s not all that unusual, except for the strong movement towards GRExit, or departments no longer requiring the GRE with the aim of increasing the diversity of graduate applicants. In September I emailed my department’s graduate director and chair and asked where we stood on GRExit, and if we should consider it so that we remain competitive with peer institutions. I was told that it would be looked into. Fast-forward to June and I get an email from the grad director with a link to a piece published in Science about GRExit, with a note about it’s that thing I mentioned months ago, and how now they were really going to take it seriously and study a policy change. Again I’m thinking, this issue was old news when I initially brought it up, and now we’re just past a tipping point if Science is covering it.
(Since you read the title, you know where I’m going.) The difference between my colleagues and myself is that I’m on Twitter. These interactions highlighted a feeling I’ve had about Twitter for several years- that the culture of academic science is discussed and decided on Twitter, then implemented in real life. This means that scientists that are not on Twitter have a limited voice in the direction of scientific culture and norms.
But the effect of not being on Twitter seems larger than simply not participating in conversations, it really means that many (perhaps a majority of) academics hear about fairly large cultural shifts in big fell swoops. That must be disorienting. My experience is to see the trickle of new ideas, a lite back-and-forth with countering ideas, an emerging consensus position, that then grows rapidly as people change their actions in their home departments and report back. These conversations can take months to years; but if you never “hear” the discussions over time, it must feel like the rug is pulled out from under you. I’ve gotten this sense that colleagues feel hurt as they start to question how/why their experience and training as a scientist is out dated (especially early career researchers).
Solutions
The obvious solution is for more academics to get on Twitter. I think it helps when those of us on the platform explain that “science Twitter” is a community of academics across career stages (undergraduates to National Academy members) that promote papers, network, support colleagues, report on conferences, post jobs opportunities, and discuss these cultural issues. And within science Twitter there are as many sub-networks as there are sub-fields. I think it’s critical to explain that Twitter is what you make it, and that the news media (because it is their job) report on “journalism Twitter” and “politics Twitter” but that doesn’t mean your feed will look like a 24-hour news cycle.
(If you’re interested in getting started on Twitter but not sure how, check out this post.)
But what about the fair critique that social media is a time suck that not everyone wants in their lives. Not being on Twitter is a valid choice when weighed against all of scientists’ other responsibilities. Two suggestions; first, have the social media manager give an annual trends update at faculty meetings. Second, bring up these emerging issues during cookie time before seminar or at happy hours. This second one is a great way to pull in diverse perspectives from trainees.
What are these cultural shifts?
At the top of this piece I mentioned graduate students providing snacks and GRExit as two issues that had extensive Twitter discussions. Other issues I’ve observed shifts in include:
• Deposition of data into repositories. This was followed by many journals changing their data archiving policies from optional to mandatory.
• Preprints and the establishment of bioRxiv. Some biology papers went on arXiv early, but as that grew and people posted their preprints on Twitter with calls for feedback, we saw a snowball that eventually led to the establishment of bioRxiv in 2013 and a greater diversity of researchers using preprint servers.
• Discussions of sexual harassment in science and calls for accountability. Far before #MeTooSTEM, science Twitter was discussing sexual harassment, especially of trainees. We’re now seeing those conversations shift offline as harassers are removed from plenary speaking spots or the National Academy of Sciences.
• Fieldwork safety. Related to #MeTooSTEM, reports of sexual and non-sexual harassment of women, LGBTQ, and disabled scientists at remote field sites highlighted one reason for low retention of these groups in the academic pipeline. Thus, there are calls to develop policies to keep all researchers safe in the field.
• Diversity. Twitter has allowed members of many minority groups to describe their experiences of barriers, microaggressions, and harassment in academia to a broad audience, and suggested ways to support individual groups.
What academic cultural shifts have you observed move from Twitter to IRL? Leave a comment below.
WildlifeSNPits 