A little while ago PUI wrote a post that explored what one's inherent capacity or potential for creative work is. One aspect she brought up is one's ability to focus for long periods of time. She mentions a collaborator (verbatim from PUI's post):
I worked with an amazing scientist on a project recently. Let's call him Co-author. He would wake up early, be in lab early, and work with intense focus until very late into the night. He didn't even seem to slow down for mealtimes. He had the ability to either be doing exactly the right thing at the right time in the right order or thinking about the next step and the experimental design while waiting for something to happen. He was highly successful in his career and could really make things happen in a short amount of time.
It strikes me that Co-author likely does not have family obligations (can stay at work every day for 12+ hours), which means he either has no family or someone else is holding the fort. I am positive different people have different capacity, but I am also completely sure that parents of young children, who are actually involved in childrearing, are not working at their full potential. And that's the way it should be, at least from the standpoint of family. When it comes to intellectually nontrivial pursuits, my most productive times used to be early mornings and evenings, but now I am up to my elbows in diapers and dishes at those times. I have almost made my peace with the fact that this is how it has to be, at least for now. Sometimes I really wish I didn't have to leave at 5:30 when I am in the middle of something exciting, but that's not an option... Another aspect is the job: like most faculty, I work well over 40 hours a week, but much of this work is not extremely intellectually challenging (administration, reports, much classroom teaching). Due to a combination of the job requirements and family obligations, I do not work at my full intellectual capacity, not even close. I do, however, work over capacity for sleep deprivation, mindless busy work, and overall aggravation.
I believe that the ability to focus is inherent only in part (see Proflike Substance's take on the issue); the other, very large part is what counts as a societal gift -- no obligations requiring you to break the focus -- and it varies with life choices. Most of us in academia simply don't have that gift any more: the ability to immerse oneself in one's intellectually challenging pursuits is a priviledge of grad students and postdocs, especially if they are unattached; I wish they would appreciate and savor it more. I wish I had appreciated and savored it more.
Regarding the necessity of focus in success I recommend "You and Your Research," by Richard Hamming (a big name in computer science). If you google it there are a bunch of links to the same transcript of his famous 1986 colloquium, most html, the link I provided is to a pdf. Hamming does advocate a fairly extreme view of the balance between work and life (hint: it's all work), but the read is provocative and invites us all to think about the quality of problems we work on. When I first read the transcript I was a bit enraged, as he does ride a high horse. But, what I chose to take from this text is the following message: Choose what you work on wisely: work only on really important problems, problems that matter. This becomes exceedingly important if you don't have unlimited time to devote to creative work.
13 comments:
A very good post! Even as a childless/tie-less person, I find that so much of the work that needs doing is actually not that challenging, but that's the work that takes time and often also can't be 'scheduled out' without messing up the rest of the job. Colleagues, for example, who will not see a student outside of (usually anti-social hours and short) office hours even with an appointment have more creative time - and the student in need takes a little piece of time and a larger piece of capacity away from someone else (like me. Because I think the departmental policy of putting students at a high priority in teaching time is actually a good one). Some parts of that work are highly creative - but not scientific. Becoming a faculty member offers two choices, lose most of the time for 'creativity' or be uncollegial and screw up the rest of the job for the sake of 'creativity'.
The more ethical solution, it seems to me, is to learn how to make the most of the bits of time you do have, and not blame the job/life choice - after all, yes, as a post-doc I relished the time. But the insecurity and mobility I really don't miss!
Great post! I also miss the days when I could just think about my problem to the exclusion of almost all else (that was when I was in grad school). I will say that towards the end, when I was in crunch to finish mode, my then fiance took over the mundane tasks in my life (laundry, bill paying, shopping, food prep) for a few weeks, and it was awesome! I was amazingly productive and had very, very few distractions. It was then that I finally understood the overwhelming advantage that someone with a SAH, home-managing type partner has over the rest of us.
That said, I find that I am more creative when I don't work more than 50-60 hours a week. One thing I really liked about my division at National Lab was the culture that said "if you can't get your work done in 50-60 hours/week, you don't have the horsepower to work here". So much the opposite of the often masochistic work-all-the-time culture of academia.
I am also a lot more efficient than I was in grad school due to the extra time pressure--if I could go back to those conditions now, I would be a results generating machine!
thanks for the link to Hamming's lecture. I had seen it before, but I think I needed to be reminded again.
JaneB, Prodigal, Venkat, thanks for the comments! You bring up an excellent point -- that one needs to maximize the productivity in the little time one actually has for creative pursuits. This is where I think the individual ability to focus comes to play -- how long it takes you to get fully immersed into the problem. Clearly, people who can focus really quickly have the upper hand over the rest of the mortals...
I have come to realize that, at least for me, time and productivity increase linearly but starts to reach a plateau at around 50 hours/week. Go up to 70 and I think it starts to go into reverse due to the clumsy exhaustion induced mistakes.
Certainly I have learnt to work smarter and although I did not work as hard as I did as a grad student I have been far more productive as a postdoc.
I have been conditioned to believe that a person cannot succeed in academia if they are not workaholics, and I am not convinced that is true. However, I cannot think of an example to the contrary, so it might well be true.
I had a friend in grad school who was a single mother to a young child. She had no role models because the only faculty with children had stay-at-home moms. Even the postdocs with children managed more than a 40 hour a week. She completed her PhD working by working 40 hour weeks and promptly left academia because she was made to believe such behavior was not welcome - despite her productivity. I think this is sad.
Dr. G, great comment. I had my first child in grad school. It's brutal, I can tell you that. You are severely constrained by the daycare hours. And when the kid is sick you are out for days. And all the students around you are working 12-14 hours per day (how much of that is productive is another story).
Luckily, I had a great PhD advisor who always said he cared about productivity, not how long I spent in the lab. With me, I think the fact I knew I was severely constrained for time made me focus really hard during the times when I could work, so I had a ton of papers when I graduated, many more than an average student from the group who would put in 12+ hours a day (most of which
I presume was surfing the web). I suppose ti helped that my advisor gave me a lot of freedom about the topic of research, so I could really get my teeth into it with gusto.
I think for students and postdocs it really is important how your advisor/PI views the whole hours vs productivity thing. I constantly tell my group members that they should work hard but must also take care of themselves -- keep regular sleep schedule, eat healthy, exercise and socialize. As you said, sometimes less (hours put in) is more (effective work per unit time).
Thanks for reminder, GMP! My reader was still reading from your old site... :)
Neo
It's funny. I'm a postdoc, and I realize I should be savoring my time to focus, but I can't stop worrying about career prospects and whether I'll have enough for retirement (much less marriage, reproduction, and semi-permanent shelter). I cut my research work short so I can earn money on the side, and it's hard for me to focus on long-term development when I keep wondering if I'll have a job in three or five years.
Neo, nice to hear from you again!
Anon at 3:33, yes, I am of course speaking based on my 20/20 hindsight. Like you, when I was a grad student, I could not wait to finish and thought that whatever this TT business was like it had to be better than grad school. Only now, in retrospect, do I wish I had savored it more, but I know that once you're in the midst of it, it's hard to do. Your future is not secure and you may be overwhelmed with issues of bare existence... I totally understand and sympathize! Still, for what it’s worth, try to get enjoyment from your work as much as you can -- with more responsibilities, especially once you have your own kids and your own trainees -- the chances for pure scientific enjoyment are fewer. That's all I am saying. Best of luck in your future endeavors!
I'm Anon at 3:33. I'm beginning to think the academic track selects for specific personality or socioeconomic types that are incidental to one's quality as a scientist. Working for $40,000-45,000/y for 3-5 y after ~5 y of earning $20,000-25,000 as a PhD student (all with very meager benefits, especially for retirement) means you're either very naive, have some preexisting financial cushion, really need nothing (especially for those living in cities), or so excited about science that you'll sacrifice most other things for it. I doubt the latter is a good gauge of research quality. A recent government report--I'm sorry I don't have the reference--showed that female postdocs of all life stages were significantly more concerned about having time and financial resources available for current or future family. I'm personally worried about having to select between academia and having one kid. (I will only consider it if financially secure. If I do two postdocs, which is typical in my field, *and* have a TT option ahead, this means I could have one around age 35 or later. If the TT position doesn't materialize, I might have to wait a year or two to find alternate income). My boyfriend and I will also split up if it looks like I can't have a kid, since having one is important to him.
Having seen my parents' retirement savings collapse in the past few years, and knowing Social Security might not be available in a few decades, it seems practically disingenuous to continue earning a pittance in this field--I would feel differently if the 'secure' TT option were less uncertain or if my field had industry options. It makes me *so sad* I can't focus more on the science right now! If I knew less about personal finance or had lower standards for childcare (or a trust fund! or rich significant other!), I'd probably be a more productive scientist. I'm sure most people would be more productive if they had fewer financial concerns, but it seems that severe financial stress is practically built into the structure of an academic science career. I don't think it helps the science.
Sorry, one further comment: I don't mean to criticize people who have children earlier, e.g., while earning a postdoc's (or grad student's) salary. I wish I had the energy.
Anon, I am so sorry to hear that you are feeling so hopeless...
I can tell you that my husband and I had a kid in grad school, we didn't exactly plan it, and we were international student so there was absolutely no financial cushion for us. It was just our measly stipends. We raked up some debt at that time but that was the only way to stay afloat in the light of looming daycare costs. However, we deemed it acceptable because we knew I could get my PhD fast and would have a good shot at a TT position, and then we could slowly pay it off. It was either that, or abortion, or have kid and go back to home country. The latter two were really not options for us. Everything worked out, but we are still paying off some of the debt. It was my focus on science, and my publication record that resulted in a TT position, which helped us get through the financially difficult sitaution.
You cannot plan everytihing perfectly. Sometimes you have to take chances, some big -- but hopefully controlled -- risks. If you want a child, I urge you not to wait forever -- too many of my female colleagues are childless as they waited too long and they can no longer have kids (too old/eggs gone bad or run out). If you want a child, and have a guy you want to have it with, just do it. Having a child as a student actually gives you much more flexibility than later career stages.
And I cannot even begin to describe how enriching having a kid is to your life: it is hard, but wonderful, and totally worth all the sleepless nights. I too thought I would never have the energy, but I did, and I think you will too.
If you want kids and a family, no career is worth sacrificing the family for. I am absolutely adamant about this. It's better to go work at Burger King and have the family you want than wait for TT which may or may not come and then realize in your late 30's that you may end up not having a family after all...
Good luck!
(Anon again.) Ah, if only it were possible to get a TT position w/o the postdoc! It's not possible in my field, unfortunately--I haven't heard a single case of it happening in the past five years or so.
Contributing to society through my work has been a lifetime goal of mine, and it's one of the main motivations of my research. This goal remains slightly more important to me than having a kid. I will keep your comments in mind, though. Thank you!
Post a Comment