BookCrossing

Over the years, I have acquired quite a few books - some of which I love and could happily read over and over again, but there are also others that I am less fond of. More recently, however, I find myself refraining from buying books, simply because I just don't have the space to store them. One alternative would be of course to buy a bigger book shelf, but I had also thought about parting ways with the books that I probably wont ever read again. Rather that just throwing them away or giving them to a second-hand bookstore, I am considering releasing them into the big wide world, sending them on a literary adventure. Some time ago, I heard about a worldwide book sharing service called BookCrossing which simply involves registering a book, and then leaving it somewhere for someone to pick it up and read. The books can be left in cafes, hotels, on buses or park benches, and whoever picks up the book registers its new location. Once this person reads the book, it can once again be left for another unsuspecting reader in a new location, and the travels of the book can be tracked on the BookCrossing website. I think this is a really novel idea (pardon the pun), and as the BookCrossing website states, by participating you "Help make the whole world a library and share the joy of literacy." It will be interesting to see where my books end up...

Hot Cross Buns

During Easter, I would always have Hot Cross Buns. As they are not readily available here in the Netherlands, I decided to make some myself this Easter. Once again, Donna Hays 'Modern Classics Book 2' provided the recipe and around 4pm on Easter Sunday, we were enjoying butter smothered buns straight from the oven. On other occasions, the same recipe can be used to prepare a simple fruit bun, without the cross.

For the buns:
1 tablespoon active dry yeast
1/2 cup caster (superfine) sugar
1 1/2 cups lukewarm milk
4 1/4 cups plain (all-purpose) flour, sifted
2 teaspoons mixed spice
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
50g melted butter
1 egg
1 1/2 cups sultanas
1/3 cup mixed peel, optional

For the cross:
1/2 cup plain (all-purpose) flour
1/3 cup water

For the glaze:
2 teaspoons apricot jam, strained if desired
2 teaspoons water, approximate

Place the milk into a bowl and warm in the microwave (or on the stove) on a low setting for 1-2 minutes until slightly warm. Sprinkle over the yeast and 2 teaspoons of the caster sugar. Set aside for 5 minutes during which time the mixture will start to foam, indicating that the yeast is active.

Add the flour, mixed spice, cinnamon, butter, egg, sultanas, mixed peel and remaining sugar to the yeast mixture and mix using a butter knife until a sticky dough forms. Knead the dough on a lightly floured surface for 8 minutes or until it feels elastic. Place in an oiled bowl, cover with a tea towel and allow to stand in a warm place for 1 hour or until the dough doubles in size. Divide the dough into 12 pieces and roll into balls.

Grease a 23cm square cake tin and line with non-stick baking paper. Placed the dough balls in the tin, cover with a clean tea towel and set aside in a warm place for 30 minutes or until the buns have risen.

Preheat the over to 200 degrees Celsius. Combine the flour and water for the cross, place in a piping bag or a plastic bag with one corner snipped off, and pipe crosses on to the buns. Bake for 35 minutes or until well browned and springy to the touch.

Combine the jam and water in a bowl and heat in the microwave for 1 minute. The glaze should be syrupy but thin enough to brush onto the buns. Add more water if necessary. Remove the buns from the oven and brush with the warm glaze. Serve with butter. Makes 12.

Authorship Order

When preparing a scientific article for publication, there is often the question of who are the authors, and in what order should they be listed. In some cases, it is easy - the person who conducted the research (and in many cases, this is also the person who wrote the article) is listed first, while the supervisor is listed last. When there are more than two authors, however, the additional authors are usually added in order of their contribution and/or seniority between the first and last authors. As this is generally the accepted order of authorship, it is immediately apparent to the reader who did the work and who oversaw the research. But is the order of the authors important? Within a scientific article, reference may be made to another publication, e.g. "In previous studies, Smith et al. found...", and in most cases, the citation refers to the first named author of that publication. Similarly, when discussing an article with a colleague, we often referred to it as "the so-and-so paper" according to the first named author. Furthermore, when searching for articles using a bibliographical database, the results are listed by both year and the first named author. However, it has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions that having your name last on an article is even more important. As the last author, you are assumed to be the innovator behind the research, which attests to your ability as a project leader. Consequently, it is also used as a quantifier of productivity and excellence, where not only the number of publications is important but also how many have your name last. Making the transition from first to last author can be difficult, particularly when seniority and politics come into play. But unless alphabetical ordering is adopted, this authorship hierarchy is unlikely to change.

'Piled Higher and Deeper' by Jorge Cham is the popular comic strip about life, or the lack thereof, in grad school. Check it out by going to www.phdcomics.com

Raspberry Tiramisu

One of my favourite desserts is Raspberry Tiramisu, the recipe of which comes from Donna Hay's 'The Instant Cook' book. It is so simple, yet so yummy, that it is difficult to refuse a second helping. A perfect dessert for almost any occasion!

1 3/4 cups of cream
500g mascarpone
1 cup of dessert wine (I use Port)
600g defrosted frozen raspberries
1 pkt sponge finger biscuits (10-20 biscuits, depending on the size)

Place the cream in a bowl and whisk until soft peaks form. Fold through the mascarpone and set aside. Place the dessert wine into a shallow dish. Quickly dip both sides of half of the biscuits into the dessert wine and place them in a single layer in the base of a 10 cup (2.5L) serving dish (such as a lasagna dish). Distribute half of the raspberries over the biscuits followed by half of the cream mixture. Dip the remaining biscuits into the wine and place on top of the cream layer. Distribute the remaining raspberries over the biscuits and spread over the remaining cream mixture. Refrigerate for at least 1 hour before serving, although best made the day before. Serves 8-10.

delicious.

Australians enjoy good food, and the availability of produce and the variety of restaurants in Australia is testament to this. But what I am noticing more frequently is that Australian chefs are also receiving recognition on the international stage. Out of the World's 50 Best Restaurants, two are located in Sydney. In my local bookstore in Rotterdam, there are recipe books by Donna Hay and Bill Granger - translated into Dutch! Donna Hay's magazine (English version) is also now available at some Dutch newsagents. Even the delicious. magazine, established in Australia, is now published in the UK and the Netherlands, with both issues including recipes from Australian chefs. As the Dutch are not known for their cuisine, it is so exciting to think that Australians may be helping to bring about a gastronomic revolution here in the Netherlands. And with kangaroo meat being stocked in the local supermarket, it almost feels like I am dining in Melbourne again...

Citation Etiquette

In my English class in high school, I was always told that you should never copy blocks of text from a source and use it verbatim in your own essay/article. If it was not possible to write it in another way, then the copied sentence/paragraph should be enclosed in quotation marks and the source cited appropriately. Such methodology is particularly relevant when writing scientific articles for publication in peer reviewed journals. Failure to do so is not only plagiarising, but also infringes on copyright and general scientific etiquette. Today, I noticed that someone had cited one of my publications in their article and I was curious to know what aspect of my work they had referred to. When I found a copy of the article, I immediately checked the reference list to see where in the text they had referred to my article - to my surprise I was the first reference cited in the paper! When I began reading the introduction of this article, it was clear that they hadn't referred to my research, but rather had copied word-for-word the first paragraph and a half of the introduction from my article! Upon seeing this, I wasn't sure if I should be insulted or flattered by what they had done. Although both articles are about fuel cells, the papers are otherwise unrelated. In that regard, it seems irrelevant to have referred to my article. I guess there is some consolation in the fact that they did cite my article, thereby acknowledging the source of the information. And given that there is so much emphasis on the number of publications and citations, perhaps I should be happy with any form of citation, no matter the context. Although I don't agree with what they did, I am not going to take it any further. However, a colleague did suggest that I contact this group and inform them that this was not my best article and that next time they should copy another one... :)

WISER - Measuring Excellence

What is excellence? How does one assess excellence? What criteria should be used? And who should do the assessing? The measurement of excellence is frequently discussed in relation to academia and academics, whether it be in appointing a professor, awarding a grant, or evaluating the productivity of an academic. But can one really measure ‘excellence’? At the WISER Festival, this very topic was debated. Prof. Ana Proykova, a professor of physics at the University of Sofia, discussed both the quantitative and qualitative elements of excellence. The number of publications, citations, patents, grants, students and collaborators are an objective way of quantifying excellence. The quality of the work is judged by the reviewers of the work and reflected by the international reputation of the journal in which the work is published. However, Prof. Flavia Zucco, head of research at the Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine at the National Research Council in Rome, argued that scientific excellence rewards assertiveness and single mindedness, while other skills such as flexibility, creativity, diplomacy and competence are deemed less important. She referred to Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, the physics Nobel Prize laureate, who noted that women bring specific skills to research that men often lack, including the ability to create teams in research, giving students the freedom they need and keeping egos in check. Prof. Zucco remarked that the differences between men and women should be valued in the academic arena. Ms. Marieke van den Brink, a PhD student at the Institute of Gender Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen, is addressing such issues in her research. In a recent publication, she posed the question ‘Does excellence have a gender?’ in relation to the appointment of professors at universities in the Netherlands. More than 60% of the professors recruited in the Netherlands between 1999 and 2003 were appointed by a closed application process (non-advertised positions). Although Ms. van den Brink had hypothesized that such procedures may disadvantage women, the findings did not confirm this. Thus, the so-called ‘old boys’ network appears to be equally advantageous for women in the Netherlands. However, her results did show that female applicants have a greater chance of being appointed to a position when there are more women on the selection committee. This may reflect the differences in the measurement of ‘excellence’ as perceived by men and women, as women may pay more attention to gender-specific behaviour. Should gender differences be considered when assessing excellence? Probably, but integrating gender awareness into the measurement of excellence is a whole new debate.

WISER - Leadership Rules

"A woman is like a tea bag- you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." Eleanor Roosevelt.

The professional advancement of women (and minorities) in an organization often reaches a certain level, after which there appears to be a barrier that limits women from being promoted to higher positions. It is not through lack of experience or education that this occurs, but rather some other impediment that holds women back, a situation that is often referred to as the ‘glass ceiling’. Many people believe that women restrict themselves from taking on high level positions; however, there is also the perception that women who do hold such positions often do so to the detriment of the company. Dr. Michelle Ryan, a psychologist at the University of Exeter, has questioned the validity of such a statement, suggesting that women are often promoted to management roles only when a company is already struggling. In studying the performance of FTSE 100 companies in Britain in 2003 in the months preceding and following the appointment of both men and women to board positions, she found some interesting trends in the data. When the stock market was down, the companies that were performing relatively consistently appointed men to the board member positions while the companies that were struggling promoted women. After each appointment, the performance of these companies typically increased, although those with the women on board showed a much more dramatic turn around. When the stock market was up, the company performance after appointing a man was relatively stable. For the companies that promoted women under such conditions, their performance was more variable prior to the appointment, after which it was again relatively stable. From these results, Dr. Ryan concluded that it appears that women are more likely to be promoted to higher level positions when a company is performing badly. She says, “In this way, such women can be seen to be placed on top of a ‘glass cliff’, in the sense that their leadership appointments are made in problematic organizational circumstances and hence are more precarious.” What is not clear from this outcome is why such trends occur. Is it because women are perceived to perform better under crisis situations? Do women see such roles as an opportunity to prove themselves? Or are they simply being promoted to ‘scapegoat’ positions? The implications of such precarious promotions form the basis of Dr. Ryan’s ongoing research. From this study, however, it is apparent that the promotion of women to higher positions is often an effect rather than a cause of poor company performance.

WISER - Shouldn't We Be?

"There are three broad hypotheses about the sources of the very substantial disparities...with respect to the presence of women in high-end scientific professions. ...the first is what I call the high-powered job hypothesis. The second is what I would call different availability of aptitude at the high end, and the third is what I would call different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search. And in my own view, their importance probably ranks in exactly the order that I just described." Remarks from a speech given by Larry Summers, former President of Harvard University, at the NBER Conference in January 2005.

Although the above-mentioned speech ultimately led to Summers resignation, these sentiments are often shared by many people when attempting to explain the lack of women in high level positions. But rather than focusing on the reasons for the disparity, the first debate of the WISER Festival considered four possible alternatives for promoting women and subsequently increasing the percentage of women in academia. Prof. Janneke Gerards, a professor in constitutional and administrative law at Leiden University, proposed that 40% of scientific board and committee members should be women. She argued that more female representation will not only give alternative perspectives but also result in less gender bias when making decisions. Prof. Mineke Bosch, an associate professor in gender studies at the University of Maastricht, suggested that women should be made more visible by promoting them through collaborations, conferences and communication. Prof. Renate Loll, a professor of theoretical physics at Utrecht University, argued that we should raise our expectations of what women can achieve - 'believe in yourself, and all things are possible.' Prof. Yvonne Benschop, a professor of organisational behaviour at Radboud University Nijmegen, proposed that there should be a national mission for 'gender mainstreaming' by breaking down the 'ivory tower'. The festival participants were asked to vote on which proposition they preferred, with the initial count being in favour of Prof. Gerards. Many participants believed that if there was greater representation of women on boards and committees, then the other propositions would follow. This sparked further debating among the panel members and festival participants, where it was suggested that it is difficult to implement quotas. There was also strong support for 'crumbling the ivory tower' by making changes to the system. However, it was also argued that this requires one to already be in the system in order to be able to make such changes. Towards the end of the session, a second vote was cast, with the numbers then in favour of Prof. Bosch's proposal of creating visibility. This certainly requires less of a paradigm shift, but who is going to promote women? Overall, it was concluded that in one way or another, each of these propositions needs to be addressed in order to have greater representation of women in high level positions. The reasons for the lack of female academics may be multifaceted, but it is also apparent that there is no simple solution for changing the situation either.

Women in Science Education Research Festival - WISER

Last week, I attended the two day festival 'Women in Science Education and Research - WISER' in Maastricht. As mentioned in an earlier post, women hold approximately 25% of academic positions in the Netherlands, but only 10% of full professors are female. With 50% of university students being female, this begs the question 'Where did all the women go?' Over the two days, various issues were debated and discussed relating to the disproportion of women in academia and what can be done to change the status quo. Rather than trying to summarise the festival in one post, I intend to write a series of entries about some of the more interesting issues that were raised. Stay tuned for more...

H-index

Universities are continually looking for ways to quantify the research output of their academic staff. With databases such as 'Web of Science' on the Thompson Scientific ISI Web of Knowledge website, it is possible to obtain various statistics related to the number of publications for a given researcher. The factors that universities are looking for are how many articles one publishes, but also how often they are cited as a reference in another publication. The most mind-boggling statistic obtained from this analysis is the h-index. If an author's publications are ranked according to the number of citations with the most cited article listed first, the h-index is the number where the h-th article has been cited either h or more times. Huh? In other words, an h-index of 10 means that there are 10 publications that have 10 or more citations. The 'Web of Science' argues that "This metric is useful because it discounts the disproportionate weight of highly cited papers or papers that have not yet been cited." While this may be the case, it seems that it does not necessarily give an indication of the impact of the specific research or article. For example, an article that has been cited 1000 times has presumably had more of an impact on the scientific community than an article that has only been sited 100 times. So what does the h-index actually mean? Someone who has 50 articles each of which has been cited 50 times (h-index: 50) would appear to be more productive than another person who only has 5 articles that have been cited 500 times (h-index: 5), but does that mean that the first person is a better scientist? By the way, my h-index is 6.

Melt-and-mix Chocolate Coconut Cake

Looking for a quick and simple chocolate cake recipe? Try this one from Donna Hay's Modern Classics Book 2.

250g melted butter
3/4 cup sifted cocoa powder
1 1/3 cups caster (superfine) sugar
3 eggs
1 1/2 cups desiccated coconut
1 1/2 cups plain (all-purpose) flour
1 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
3/4 cup milk

Preheat the oven to 180 degrees Celsius. Place all the ingredients into a large bowl and whisk until smooth. Pour into a greased 24-cm round cake time lined with non-stick baking paper and bake for 50 minutes. Dust with cocoa and serve warm or cold with thick (double) cream. Serves 8-10.

Schmap

One of my photos I had uploaded to Flickr has been used in an online travel guide called Schmap. The picture is of the Copenhagen jazz festival and has been included in the Schmap Copenhagen city guide.

Women in Science

Last week, I met with a woman from the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) to discuss what opportunities there are for female scientists in the Netherlands and how NWO is supporting this. Although approximately 1/3 of PhD students are female, it is clear that for many women, their academic careers stop there. In the Netherlands, women hold approximately 25% of the academic staff positions in natural sciences (including biology, chemistry and physics), but less than 20% in engineering and technology departments. With a few exceptions (most notably Turkey and Portugal), the statistics are similar for other European countries and the USA.

Why are there not more women in academic positions? Having discussed this very question with friends and colleagues, there doesn’t appear to be a simple answer. It seems that many women are put off by the competitive environment and the aggressiveness that is needed to be successful in academia. Others feel that there is a lack of acceptance of female scientists, making it even harder for them to gain the recognition they deserve. Another common deterrent is the limited child-care facilities and support for women who want to have children and work full-time. For many women, there just doesn’t seem to be enough incentive to follow an academic career.

Universities are acknowledging these issues and making more of an effort to support and encourage female scientists and engineers in their education and vocation. At Delft University of Technology, the Delft Women in Science (DEWIS) network was established to provide mentoring and coaching as well as professional and personal development lectures and workshops to female students and staff members. With funding agencies such as NWO offering subsidies for female scientists and engineers, there is clearly an effort to provide more opportunities and better working conditions for female academics. It will be interesting to see if more women take advantage of such opportunities in the coming years.

Update - Second-class Citizen

After having my right to vote in Australian federal elections revoked, I sent a few emails to the Australian Electoral Commission expressing my disappointment in receiving the cancellation letter and the fact that I would not be able to vote in the upcoming election. The Divisional Returning Officer for my electorate responded to my email, reiterating the legislation but also commenting that he would consider extending my status if I was to apply in writing. Last week, I did just that, and this morning I received an email informing me that my extension has been approved! This means that I will be able to vote in the next federal election, which is expected to take place before the end of the year.