Analyzing scientists at a meeting: 5 of 5

Written 10/1/08, posted later
This is the fifth and final post from the grant agency meeting.

The organization of this meeting is okay. The schedule could have used some proof-reading. Today there were two talks scheduled for the same time. Yesterday there was a 15-minute void.

My poster was also listed wrong. The title was completely wrong and it was listed under my advisor's name on the printed list. At least they fixed it on the website.

There was half an hour at the end of each sessions for discussion, but each half hour was way over-scheduled. It was another case of scientists-have-no-sense-of-time. These discussions were also dominated by a few people each time. They were generally not terribly enlightening. They more served as a summary of the session, so if you were listening to the talks, the summary was useless.

My advisor seemed to know that this meeting would be dull and hinted that most academic meetings are like this. I suppose I'll have to suffer through them for quite a while. When I am my own PI, I'll be able to choose the meetings I attend and I'll choose ones that are more generally interesting to me. I hope to include some that emphasize education as well as science research.

Anyone want to ruin my rosy view of the future?

Up next: the post-poster post

Analyzing scientists at a meeting: 4 of 5

Written 10/1/08, posted later
This is the fourth post from the grant agency meeting.

Why is something considered unprofessional in a young scientist seen as funny or charming in an older scientist?

Why is disrespectful behavior more tolerated at a meeting than in a classroom? I've heard conversation that makes it difficult to hear the speaker and cell phones ringing, sometimes quite loudly. Many people (like me) have been using laptops during talks, and I doubt they are all taking notes on the talks. It is regular practice for a scientist to finish a talk at a meeting during another scientist's talk.

I realize that there is some difference between professional meetings and classes, but why is there such a divergence in manners? A teacher would never tolerate a ten-minute quiet-down period at the beginning of a class.

Such conduct also makes me wonder if these scientist respect each other equally or if there is a hierarchy (either well-defined or varying by person).

Analyzing scientists at a meeting: 3 of 5

Written 10/1/08, posted later
This is the third post from the grant agency meeting.

I do not like traveling alone. Granted, the advisor is at this meeting, too, but I do not want to follow him everywhere. That leaves me confined to my hotel after dark because it is not safe for me to walk around alone at night.

Last night I had to get my supper quickly because the sun was setting. I ended up settling for a meatball sub. I got no dessert because it would have cost at least $10 from a hotel restaurant.

I know of no remedy for this besides going places with random people from the meeting or traveling with more people. The former is difficult because I'd be tied to whoever I left with, whether or not I wanted to do everything they wanted to do. The latter is difficult because I don't have a choice when I travel for work. I did not even include my usual idea to carry a spiked bat because I think I'd be arrested and it'd be difficult to get through airport security.

At least this is not a big sight-seeing location or I'd be even more disappointed.

Analyzing scientists at a meeting: 2 of 5

Written 10/1/08, posted later
This is the second post from the grant agency meeting.

Many of the "questions" are comments that bring up something about the speaker's research that was left out of the presentation or relate the commentor's research to the talk. Such exchanges do not initiate very good discussion.

I'm trying to decide if this group is too heterogeneous or too homogeneous to generate really good discussions. I'm leaning towards both.

They are too heterogeneous in that there are a few distinct cliques in the group who work on a particular phenomenon or project together. These are the people that comment on talks rather than ask questions.

On the other hand, they are too homogeneous within these cliques. As a result, they have largely the same view on the overall results and only reinforce each other's views rather than critically questioning them.

Analyzing scientists at a meeting: 1 of 5

Written 10/1/08, posted later
I've been at a meeting related to my grant agency for the past three days. It has highlighted several oddities of science and scientists. This is the first of five posts from this meeting.

Have no fear--I will provide a post-poster analysis in a subsequent post. At the moment, however, I would like to talk about the meeting for which I made the poster

The most apparent thing was the lack of quality in presentations and sometimes posters in comparison to a national, large professional organization meeting. The talks here seem ill-rehearsed or not well thought through. Does it have something to do with the perceived importance of each meeting, the quality/experience of the scientists, or something else? In many cases, I think I could present my research better.

They also seem to have time management issues. Most talks go over time. Scientists should have a better sense of how many slides can fit in 15 minutes, or, failing that, one practice run should clue them in. This is not a difference from the large organization meetings--it seems to be a larger habit.