Imposter Syndrome

There’s been a lot of attention paid online lately to “Imposter Syndrome”. It’s that sneaking doubt that makes you feel like you don’t belong somewhere because you aren’t qualified, and eventually someone will realize the mistake and fire you.  In short: that you are an Imposter.  It’s extremely common among graduate students and young faculty.  In fact, I haven’t met a graduate student that didn’t doubt themselves and whether they deserved their place in a research program at some point in their studies.  Most studies on this phenomenon have been relatively small and in specific populations of people, thus estimates of affected individuals range from 40 to 70%, at some point in one’s life.

cat-imposterFrom my experience, in academia, Imposter Syndrome stems from feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information that you need to learn, or the amount that you need to accomplish.  The interdisciplinary approach to graduate studies has increased the number of scientific fields you now need to be familiar with, and compounds the amount of material that you have to memorize.  This seems to leave many students feeling inadequate and dumb, because they are unable to perfectly recall every fact they learned in two or three years worth of graduate courses.  For post-doctoral researchers and assistant professors, your To-Do list only grows longer by the day, as the reduction in federal funding increases the competition for fewer and fewer job postings and more pressure to distinguish yourself.  These tasks seem insurmountable, and that you simply aren’t up to them.  You start to doubt your abilities, and think that there has been some mistake.  You think, someone will realize how dumb I am, and that I don’t deserve to be here.

At best, Imposter Syndrome makes you nervous, at worst, it can lead to a lot of work-place stress and low self esteem.  It can also prevent you from taking risks in your research, or being ambitious in the positions you apply for, or make you feel guilty about taking time off when you feel that you should be using the time for career development.

 

screen-shot-2016-10-13-at-3-03-33-pm

Imposter Syndrome, or more clinically, Imposter Phenomenon, has been studied for several decades, and is reviewed thoroughly here.  Originally it was thought to be a symptom found only in professional women who weren’t emotionally strong enough to deal with the stress of the workplace.  Later, after it was described by Dr. Pauline Clance in 1985, and observed in many different careers and both genders, we came to understand that this sexist stereotype was in fact common to high-achievers, “perfectionists”, and those with anxiety and the motivation to succeed.

Correlations have also been found between feeling like an imposter and low or conflicting family member support, low self-esteem or general self-doubt, neurotic behaviors, or when there are negative consequences to achieving success.  For example, if a person is ostracized by friends or family for working hard, studying, getting an education, or generally wanting a “better life” than the cohort has.   This can also occur when there is jealousy or competition between coworkers, where a promotion or other success would alienate you.

Own your success

goddess.jpg

When graduate students express feelings of self-doubt to me, I remind them that they already got into grad school.  Their graduate program was satisfied by their application, their PI or advisor chose them for their accomplishments.  I remind them that in academia, you can’t compare yourself to anyone else.  Everyone has come from different backgrounds, has different work experience, took different classes, read different papers, and has different research and career goals.  Maybe you got PhD but you don’t want to do research, only teach.  Maybe you only want to do research.  Maybe you want to publish ten papers a year, or maybe you only want to publish once a year because that is more consistent with the pace of your research and the type of work that you do.  Maybe you have more post-docs who work on complicated questions, or maybe you have undergraduates and your projects are smaller.  Some research fields (especially literal fields) can’t be rushed, and it’s unrealistic to expect prolific publications from everyone.  Cognitive behavior therapy guidelines for dealing with Imposter Syndrome recommend distancing yourself from the need for validation from others, to improve your self-awareness about your own abilities and needs, and to lessen the feeling that you need to hide the real you.

There is no litmus test for whether you are a “good graduate student”, or a “successful researcher”, except for your own demanding self-assessment.  All you can do is try to set realistic goals for yourself.  And not vague, large ones, such as “I want to publish 5 papers this year”.  Be more specific, and more short-term: “This week, I want to finish the Methods section of this paper, and hopefully have a working draft of this manuscript by the end of the month”.  I also find it helpful to keep a written record of what I’ve done.  Maybe keep a running To-Do list, and at the end of the week, month, or year, look back and see all of the things you have crossed off.  This is most helpful to me when I find that projects are getting delayed, or analyses need to be redone, or I generally feel like I am spinning my wheels.  Or, when I write a number of grants but some of them don’t even get submitted.  I still did all that work, but if I don’t have that item crossed off my list, I don’t have a visual reminder that I accomplished something.

And keeping a tally of everything you’ve done- not just the things that get published, can help you prove your worth and your effort when it comes time for job assessment.  Whether it’s a weekly meeting with your PI where you need to account for how you’ve spent your time, an annual performance review, or the tenure process.  If you have a written record of all the things you have done, all the little things that you spent your time on, you have proof that you have been productive.  Remember that success and failure are often out of your hands- especially in research.  Sometimes all you can do is try your best and hope that your fairy grant-mother rates your proposal wish as “outstanding”.

cinderella.jpg
Cinderella, 1950

A collaborative study on virulent Streptococcus got published!

Dr. Benfang Lei is an associate professor here at Montana State University in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, who has previously collaborated with my previous post-doc advisor, Dr. Carl Yeoman.  As a lab member at the time, I consulted with Dr. Lei about the whole-genome shotgun sequencing that his lab group had performed on several Streptococcus pyogenes isolates.  S. pyogenes is pathogenic in humans and, among other symptoms, causes fever for which it is named.  Some of Dr. Lei’s isolates were much more virulent than others, and his study was to identify differences in the genome that would account for this.  I helped perform some of the genome processing and analysis, and am happy to be a small part of such an interesting study.

Wenchao, Feng, Dylan Minor, Mengyao Liu, Jinquan Li, Suzanne Ishaq, Carl Yeoman, and Benfang Lei. 2016. Null Mutations of Group A Streptococcus Orphan Kinase RocA: Selection in Mouse Infection and Comparison with CovS Mutations in Alteration of in vitro and in vivo Protease SpeB Expression and Virulence. Infection and Immunity.

My first soil microbial ecology paper was just published!

After a long year of data analysis and interpretation, my first paper on soil microbial ecology was just published in Microbial Ecology, found here.  Previously, I presented the data at a poster at this summer’s ASM conference in Boston.  The project led to further collaborations and, of course, led to my current post-doc position!


 “Impact of Cropping Systems, Soil Inoculum, and Plant Species Identity on Soil Bacterial Community Structure”

Suzanne L. Ishaq, Stephen P. Johnson,Zach J. Miller, Erik A. Lehnhoff, Sarah Olivo, Carl J. Yeoman, Fabian D. Menalled. 2016. Microbial Ecology: 1-18.

Abstract

Farming practices affect the soil microbial community, which in turn impacts crop growth and crop-weed interactions. This study assessed the modification of soil bacterial community structure by organic or conventional cropping systems, weed species identity [Amaranthusretroflexus L. (redroot pigweed) or Avena fatua L. (wild oat)], and living or sterilized inoculum. Soil from eight paired USDA-certified organic and conventional farms in north-central Montana was used as living or autoclave-sterilized inoculant into steam-pasteurized potting soil, planted with Am. retroflexus or Av. fatua and grown for two consecutive 8-week periods to condition soil nutrients and biota. Subsequently, the V3-V4 regions of the microbial 16S rRNA gene were sequenced by Illumina MiSeq. Treatments clustered significantly, with living or sterilized inoculum being the strongest delineating factor, followed by organic or conventional cropping system, then individual farm. Living inoculum-treated soil had greater species richness and was more diverse than sterile inoculum-treated soil (observed OTUs, Chao, inverse Simpson, Shannon, P  < 0.001) and had more discriminant taxa delineating groups (linear discriminant analysis). Living inoculum soil contained more Chloroflexi and Acidobacteria, while the sterile inoculum soil had more Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Gemmatimonadetes, and Verrucomicrobia. Organically farmed inoculum-treated soil had greater species richness, more diversity (observed OTUs, Chao, Shannon, P  < 0.05), and more discriminant taxa than conventionally farmed inoculum-treated soil. Cyanobacteria were higher in pots growing Am. retroflexus, regardless of inoculum type, for three of the four organic farms. Results highlight the potential of cropping systems and species identity to modify soil bacterial communities, subsequently modifying plant growth and crop-weed competition.

Keywords

16S rRNA, Avena fatua, Amaranthus retroflexus, Conventional farming, Illumina MiSeq, Organic farming, Soil microbial diversity

Preparing for my first greenhouse trial

As the 2016 growing season comes to a close in Montana, here in the lab we aren’t preparing to overwinter just yet.  In the last few weeks, I have been setting up my first greenhouse trial to expand upon the work we were doing in the field.  My ongoing project is to look at changes in microbial diversity in response to climate change.  The greenhouse trial will expand on that by looking at the potential legacy effects of soil diversity following climate change, as well as other agricultural factors.

First, though, we had to prep all of our materials, and since we are looking at microbial diversity, we wanted to minimize the potential for microbial influences.  This meant that the entire greenhouse bay needed to be cleaned and decontaminated.  To mitigate the environmental impact of our research, we washed and reused nearly 700 plant pots and tags in order to reduce the amount of plastic that will end up in the Bozeman landfill.

We also needed to autoclave all our soil before we could use it, to make sure we are starting with only the microorganisms we are intentionally putting in.  These came directly from my plots in the field study, and are being used as an inoculum, or probiotic, into soil as we grow a new crop of wheat.

This is trial one of three, each of which has three phases, so by the end of 2016 I’ll have cleaned and put soil into 648 pots with 648 tags; planted, harvested, dried and weighed 11,664 plants; and sampled, extracted DNA from, sequenced, and analyzed 330 soil and environmental samples!

After only a few days, seedlings are beginning to emerge.

 Stay tuned for more updates and results (eventually) from this and my field study!

Citizen Science: year 2 of the Gallatin Microplastic Initiative

The Gallatin Microplastics Initiative is beginning its second year of sample collection along the Gallatin river in Montana.  Volunteers organized by Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation gathered this weekend for our training and first sampling of the year.  ASC brings together local adventurers to help collect difficult animal or environmental samples for large-scale research projects.  While some of their projects are location-specific, some like the Global Microplastics Initiative are open for anyone to participate.

Last year, Lee and I went to Deer Creek in September, December, March, and June to collect water samples to look for microplastics.  This year, we are collecting samples from Storm Castle.  New year, new location, let’s begin a new adventure!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

Work-life balance: the unicorn that is the 40 hour academic work week

In the first installment of the work-life balance discussion, I discussed the different levels of employment for university faculty and gave general information on the different functions they performed on a daily basis.  I also talked about how many of them work longer than 40 hours a week, including nights and weekends, and may even work summers without compensation.  For example, in a 1994 report, the American Association of University Professors reported that professors worked 48-52 hours per week, and this had increased to  53 hours by 2005.  Other sources over the past five years have reported more: 57 hours per week at a Canadian research institution, 50-60 hours per week in the UK.  But like with anything, work quantity does not equate to quality.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy

For one thing, working long hours without sufficient weekly time off, or vacations, can significantly increase stress.  And this stress can lead to all sorts of different mental and physical problems.  Working long hours can interfere with our normal circadian rhythm– it can disrupt our sleep cycles, throw off our eating times and appetite, and make it difficult to exercise regularly.  Longer hours have been directly correlated with incidence of hypertension and other cardiovascular problems (also reviewed here).

Moreover, long work hours and work stress can negatively impact mental health (12, 3, 4), and increase the use of legal and illegal substances (reviewed here).  A study of work hours on over 330,000 participants in 61 countries found that working more than 48 hours a week was associated with heavy drinking in both men and women.  Stress, lack of sleep, and a subsequent difficulty paying attention can also increase the frequency of injury at work, and this injury rate directly relates to the increase in hours.  Jobs with overtime hours have been associated with as much as 61% more work-related injuries than those without.  In fact, there is so much research on stress, health, and occupation, that there are numerous journals solely dedicated to reporting on those findings: The International Journal of Stress Management, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, just to name a few.

Having a life makes us better employees

But for all that personal sacrifice, mounting evidence shows that a reduction in work hours is what promotes productivity, not a 24-hour work day.  Reducing weekly hours increased productivity as employees were less likely to be absent from work due to poor health (reviewed here).  Taking scheduled breaks instead of skipping them was also responsible for improving cognitive function in students.  Even brief diversions were shown to improve focus and cognitive function. Besides giving us a rest from our current task, or engaging our attention with something novel, taking a break allows us to daydream.  While this may seem like a waste of time, letting our minds wander activates different parts of our brain- including those involved in problem solving and creative thinking.  If you’ve ever come up with a brilliant solution while doing mundane tasks, then you’ve experienced this.  For my part, I tend to think of great ideas when I’m washing dishes or biking home.  Daydreaming, or taking a break, also helps release dopamine, a chemical neurotransmitter involved in movement, emotions, motivation, and rewards.  It’s very helpful in the creative process, as explained in a discussion of creativity in the shower.  Restful thinking also seems to be involved with promoting divergent thinking, emotional connectivity, and reading comprehension.

Going on regular annual vacations was correlated with a lower risk for coronary heart disease: not only are vacations great for reducing stress, but they also provide opportunities for more exercise, mental downtime, and creative outlets.  Mandatory time-off during nights and weekends for consultants resulted in a reported increase job performance, mental health, and attitude, though many said it was a struggle to enforce “time outs” from work in the beginning because they felt guilty about not working during their personal time.  This was seen again in a study of Staples managers who did not take scheduled breaks out of guilt.

It’s this persistent feeling that you should be working at home, and that you could be doing more, which is largely reported by “driven” employees and workaholics.  This feeling has lately been coined “tele-pressure“.  It’s particularly invasive these days as you have access to work emails and other communications via smart phones, laptops, or tablets.  In fact, by syncing many of these devices, your attention is compelled by multiple simultaneous electronic signals and vibrations whenever someone contacts you.  It’s no wonder we can’t shut off at the end of the day. (And for the record, I wrote this on a Sunday evening.)

More important than knowing that taking regular breaks and vacations will help manage your stress and improve your productivity, is remembering that you are entitled to it.  We have labor laws for a reason, and you are entitled to your nights, weekends, and your X number of weeks a year.  You are entitled to stay home when you are sick, or whenever you feel like it.  It’s your personal time, take it.

So, if you’re in academia, what do you do to unwind?  Leave me some comments!

What I do for a living Part 4: Teaching

In addition to my post-doctoral research, I also do a small amount of teaching.  Last fall, I taught the laboratory section of a course on Host-Associated Microbiomes at Montana State University.  I redesigned the lab to focus on teaching students how to process and analyze sequencing data, which they had no previous experience in.  Starting with raw data from mock samples, students had to assemble sequences into contigs, pass them through quality assurance steps, align and classify them based on a reference database of their choosing, and statistically compare diversity between samples.  This culminated in a final scientific manuscript, which presented the student’s findings and gave them experience with scientific writing.

This fall, in addition to teaching the lab section, I’m very pleased to announce that I’ll also be teaching some of the class lecture portion.  Most of that will be presenting an introduction to microbial ecology, theory, terminology, and technology.  This will give a base of knowledge for the rest of the course on microbiomes.  Scientific discovery is inextricably linked to the ability and accuracy of the technology available at the time.  To understand how we went from discovering there were microscopic organisms living in water to being able to sequence the entire genome of that organism to understand how it interacts with medications in the human body, we need to understand the technological steps in between.  That way, we can better understand how scientists worked through microbial theories of the past (like disproving Spontaneous Generation), so that we can learn how to work through the microbial theories of the present (like Hygiene Theory).

BIOM405class_9-12_SpeciesDivergence

Summary of JAM conference

The Joint Annual Meeting brings together the American Society of Animal Science, the American Dairy Science Association, the Canadian Society of Animal Science, and this year, the Western Section of ASAS.  Or I should say, JAM did bring these together, as this was the last year that all the societies would be meeting jointly for some time.  The meetings bring together researchers, students, educators, animal producers, and animal feeds and industry together to discuss issues facing animal production and how to best solve them.

After patiently waiting for the recordings of my presentations to be made available, I find that they are not available to the public for a year!  So, here are links to the written abstracts for my presentations, and I’ll upload the videos next year.  By that time, hopefully both these projects will already have published manuscripts!

Abstract 1768.  Ground redberry juniper and urea in DDGS-based supplements do not adversely affect ewe lamb rumen microbial communities.

S.L. Ishaq, C.J. Yeoman, and T.R. Whitney. 2016.

 

Abstract 1522.  Influence of colostrum on the microbiological diversity of the developing bovine intestinal tract.

S.L. Ishaq, E. Bichi, S.K. Olivo, J. Lowe, C.J. Yeoman, and B.M. Aldridge. 2016.

 

Work-life balance: what do professors do?

Outside the academic world, there is a lot of misconception about what faculty and university personnel actually do and when.  While this varies by position, university faculty have a variable mix of teaching, research, advising students, grant writing, administration of grant budgets and workloads for persons working in the lab, being on institutional committees (curriculum planning, graduate student committees, candidate search committees), and community outreach (presentations, generating informative publications for the general public, etc.).  As universities have sought to increase student populations while decreasing faculty, this has led to an ever-increasing number of hours spent working.

The Academic Ladder

To understand the problem with workloads, we must first understand the positions generally available.  It’s taken for granted that graduate students will work more than 40 hours per week.  Graduate teaching assistants are paid a stipend to teach a certain number of credits per semester, and generally their tuition is covered by the department they are teaching for, although this does not always include university fees and health insurance.  At the University of Vermont as a GTA, I still paid around $1,200 per semester, despite having my tuition and some of my student health insurance comped.  As a graduate research assistant, a research grant pays your stipend and, potentially, your tuition.  Either way, you are taking classes and expected to do your own research, and it is very difficult to excel at all aspects while try to only work 40 hours per week.

Post-doctoral researchers have attained their Ph.D., and are specializing in an area of research.  Often, PhDs go from post-doc position to post-doc position waiting for a professorship in their field to open up.  Depending on the positions, post-docs also have to write their own grants, and may have to teach, although this is often unpaid.  In 2005, post-docs in the US reported working an average of 51 hours per week, diluting their salary until their effective hourly pay was lower than Harvard janitorial staff.  As reported in the study, average post-doctoral salary ($38k/year) was also less than the average salary of someone working outside of academia with only a bachelor’s degree ($45k/year), and much less than those with professional degrees ($72k/year).

From there, a variety of academic positions available, but these generally fall into three tiers: assistant, associate, and (full) professor.  For example, if you are a research professor, you do not have to teach and often do not mentor students outside of your graduate students, and you can be at the level of assistant-, associate-, or (full) research professor depending on your years of experience.  These are almost always non-tenured positions, meaning you work by contract, and you often have to fund your own salary through grants.  There are also adjunct professors, as well as lecturers or instructors.  Like research professors, they perform fewer functions (generally just teaching and advising), and have short-term contracts.  Adjunct positions are part-time with no benefits, while lecturers are full-time and come with benefits, and their prevalence in research universities is increasing.

Traditional faculty positions, on the other hand, have salaries paired through the department, and are contracted for longer periods of time.  You can also be at the level of assistant, associate, or (full) professor, and you may also apply for tenure.  Tenure is a permanent contract with the university, and it is a grueling review in which all of your career moves are carefully examined by a panel of your peers.  The idea behind tenure is that once it is awarded, you cannot be fired except under special circumstances, allowing you to pursue less trendy and more daring research topics.  Tenure is not awarded lightly, and assistant (or associate) faculty spend years trying to accomplish as much as possible, such that they are driven to work longer hours. Faculty without tenure reported working an average of 56 hours per week, which is likely driven by assistant professors that reported working 56 hours per week.

All of these positions may be offered as 9 (September to May) or 12 month appointments, meaning you are only paid for working that many months.  There is a perception that faculty don’t work in the summer, and that’s because those 9 month appointments are not required to work.  However, most take the opportunity to catch up on research or generating teaching materials, and many academics report working longer hours in the summer.  While you might be awarded grant money to pay salary for the three months of summer that you spend catching up on research, many academics will end up working uncompensated just to keep up.

Responsibilities

1470706987609657018716

In a preliminary study by anthropologist Dr. John Ziker, called Time Allocation Workload Knowledge Study (TAWKS), 30 professors from Boise State University were asked to recall everything they had done over the past 24 hours.  Participants reported an average of 61 hours per week spent working, including about 10 hours on the weekend.  The breakdown of their job functions is below:

1b
TAWKS preliminary data, Dr. John Ziker

 

Other studies report similar findings, with an average 53 hours per week spent on all activities, and a breakdown as such:

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 9.07.18 AM.png
Link et al. 2008, Economics of Education Review

This seems to be skewed towards assistant professors:

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 9.09.59 AM.png
Link et al. 2008, Economics of Education Review

as well as non-tenured faculty:

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 9.14.14 AM.png
Link et al. 2008, Economics of Education Review

 

As I mentioned, professors are responsible for teaching, research, advising students, grant writing, administration of grant budgets and workloads for persons working in the lab, institutional committees (curriculum planning, graduate student committees, candidate search committees), and community outreach (presentations, generating informative publications for the general public, etc.).  Here is a very long list that one professor made of their responsibilities.  Enrollment in college has increased over the past few decades, but faculty hires have not kept pace: there are an average of 16 fewer staff members per 1,000 full-time students in 2012 than there was in 2000.  While the number of faculty positions in the US has increased numerically, this growth has been overwhelmingly in part-time hires, with a 121% increase from 1990 to 2012 as compared to a 41% increase in full-time hires.  The increasing number of students, expansion of faculty responsibilities, and the rise in part-time employees who often travel to multiple universities in a day for work have pushed staff and faculty to work longer hours, yet this does not always translate into better quality of work, as some work functions take priority over others over time.

In the follow-up segment, I’ll discuss the importance of time off and finding a work-life balance (as I write this on evenings and weekends), and how this contributes to reduced stress, as well as improved health, productivity, quality of work, and quality of life.

If you’re in academia, what do you do on a daily basis?  Leave me some comments!

Intellectual property and the tug of war between confidentiality and transparency

Intellectual property (IP) is anything that you conceptualize or create: whether it is written, played, sung, viewed, or synthesized in a lab. Different countries, universities, and companies have legislation regarding intellectual property.

In academia, the IP usually belongs to the researcher, with approval of the university, and thanks to the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, universities can patent and sell IP. Since you are an employee, and the university owns the building, arranges for the electricity bill to be paid, manages your grant funds so you don’t run into accounting problems, and technically owns the equipment that you buy with grant funds, they have a stake in your work even though they don’t outright own it. This means you are free to publish anything that is true and verifiable, and both governmental funding agencies and college policy generally dictate that you have to honestly publish your results no matter the outcome. The best you can do is not publish a project, but you can’t keep anyone else from replicating your work and then publishing it.

In fact, that is where a lot of confidentiality concerns surrounding IP come into play. For example, if you are working on something, and another group publishes a similar project first, you’ve been scooped and your work is no longer novel. In the rare cases that someone stole your work, and you can prove it, the university will back you on IP rights. While competition can be fierce in many fields or work settings, outright theft of data is not common despite the widespread fear of it.

Confidentiality is a large part of academic work, but in most cases is a temporary part. You might not be able to publish a commercial lab’s proprietary procedure, but you can and are encouraged to make publicly available all your methods and all your raw data. Once you publish it in some way, your name is now tied to it, and you will have a citation credit. The availability of raw and processed data is hugely important to most fields today. Not only does it allow you to analyze your work in reference to someone else’s results, but it provides the opportunity for large-scale data mining. There are quite a few studies that downloaded and reanalyzed a large number of similar data sets in order to better compare them and gain new insights into trends, as well as drug-prediction studies that use DNA or protein sequences from other projects as models against their drug to test its ability to bind and work effectively before trying it out in the lab.

Personally, I try to be transparent about what I work on at the local scale, and a bit vague on social media until the experiment is concluded and results published. For my thesis, I opted to wait six months after the University of Vermont had accepted it to make it open access. Print copies could be ordered, but it would not yet appear online. This was because several chapters were manuscripts which had not yet been published, and once it appears in print online that is considered “published” and some journals would not want to publish it again in an identical format. I tend to be very descriptive in how I present my bioinformatic workflows, because when I was learning the trade, a methods section that played things close to the chest made it very difficult for me to understand how others had analyzed their data. Once published, though, I think it’s very important to disseminate and publicize your work as much as possible; it doesn’t do the scientific community or the general public any good if they never see it.

 

Featured image: https://fbombmedia.com/patent-patent-mobile-apps-intellectual-property/