Growing up in a small town in West Virginia, I was always taught to be respectful of other peoples’ opinions. It was important, I was taught, not to be overly aggressive with my criticisms or unnecessarily mean. If I didn’t agree with someone, I was taught to express my alternate idea freely, but taking great care not to cross the boundary of disrespect. Now that I live and work as a scientist in Boston, I find that I frequently encounter individuals that were obviously raised with different social practices. Now, I am not naive enough to think that everyone will play nice, but I was shocked when I first started graduate school at how prevalent snarky criticisms of other people’s abilities and science seem to be in this world. Deep down, I can’t help but think that no one has a right to treat another individual as despicably as I have seen and experienced since entering the scientific establishment – not matter who you are. In fact, the prominent you are in you field, the more sensitive you should be to this issue so that you can bring out the best performance in people (not tear them down), which is good for science as a whole.
We all know that science is not a career for the thin-skinned. You have to be able to take harsh criticisms of your work, often given in public. You also have to be able to harshly criticize your own work and abilities, or else you risk publishing work that is incomplete or arriving at conclusions that are incorrect. Furthermore, there is a time and a place to be assertive if you want to get some respect yourself (especially if you are a petite blonde haired, blue eyed woman like myself); but I never interpreted “assertive” to mean cruel or snarky.
Despite observing these behaviors in fellow graduate students and senior scientists many times over, I still do not think it is necessary, or even appropriate, to criticize one of my peers (either in private or public) while using a disrespectful tone. Don’t we criticize the science (and no, you don’t have to sugar coat things- blunt is ok)? Why is it that many people feel that criticizing science must also be extended to a personal attack of the individual doing that science? Is this the way one scientist establishes “dominance” over another?
I write this hoping that someone reading this will help me to understand this behavior. Is it necessary? Or even effective?
Neither necessary nor effective, but hardly unique to science. My dad was a welder in his day job. It was the same way in the shop. People are funny, especially concerning how they deal with insecurity. As Mohandes K said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.”
West Virginia, huh? Nice place.
I think this kind of behaviour tends to happen more when there is no “comeback” on the aggressor, i.e. when the aggressive comment is written in absence of the person to whom it is addressed.
We see a lot of this online, in blogs and comment forums (thankfully not that I have noticed on N Network), for example (by no means limited to science!)—Jennifer Rohn has called this practice “recreational outrage”. I have been subjected to it on several occasions and when it is the projected rage of someone, who is attacking you personally for some perceived failing of an organisation you represent or just some acting-out behaviour of the aggressor, it is very unpleasant.
As an editor of a journal, we ask our peer-reviewers to be frank but courteous, and not to cause needless offence in their reports. Similarly, when we as editors write letters to scientists, they are courteous and calm, whatever news they have to convey.
I wish I could say the same for many emails I’ve received over the years. But receiving aggression in a personal email or letter is quite a different subjective experience, I have found, to receiving it in an online forum where the world can witness them. Particularly cowardly is the habit in the blogging world for the attacker not even to alert the target of the attack—for example there was a recent attack on Nature and actions and feelings ascribed to the Editor by name, in a blog by someone who one would have thought would have known better—all disguised as humour so that any reaction from anybody named in the attack could be characterised as “bad sport”. No heads-up was provided.
It is the practice in scientific journals to allow a person being criticised to respond before a journal’s editors make a decision about publication. Similarly, journalists seek comments from all parties before writing their stories. Wouldn’t it be nice if peopele planning to write online attacks on individuals, whether in a blog or a comment thread or elsewhere, sought a view from that person first, or at least, told them of the attack so that the person could, if they so wished, correct inaccuracies, and/or defend him or herself?
I really do not like online bullying. But I don’t think it is limited to science. And simiarly, in your post, I suspect that other professions can be equally tough and aggressive—possibly even worse, from hearing what friends in, say, the financial sector say.
Not that this excuses any of it. I wish that people had more impluse control and that more people in the world were as civilised as those who don’t indulge themselves in what I think of as “toddler behaviour”. It is the way they were bought up, I guess, which brings us back to your point about West Virginia!
I think this kind of behavior is to a big part influenced by the atmosphere of the community one comes from, and the experiences one has had oneself etc. Just read your opening line: I was always taught to be. I have seen really bad behavior by senior people in my community, towards colleagues their age, but (worse) towards much younger researchers who were noticeably discouraged and troubled (I’ve had friends who started crying after their seminar, the person attacking them thought he was being witty). The problem is though, they learn how to do exactly the same thing. At some point they will start to argue, if you want to survive in this field you will have to learn how to cope etc.
In other communities where I’ve been people are overall polite. It’s not that they are nice or don’t argue, they are just polite. And if that tone is set, nobody wants to break it.
I guess what I am trying to say is the only way I think one can deal with these people is to tell them it’s completely inappropriate and to drop it. And hope that the message spreads. In many cases (that applies for online bullying as well), the problem isn’t only the person bullying but all those who remain silent and passively approve his behavior by not asking him or her to stop it.
You have nailed, Sabine, the half-formed thought that I was incubating in response to Maxine’s comment. This weblog of which she speaks: They should be named and shamed (/rpg guiltily looks towards his own house)
Hmm, someone has gone in and crossed out some of my words, and it was not me! Big brother or big sister, maybe.
(Richard, the blog of which I write is not on N Network).
Maxine – I think that’s just NN playing up – when I read your comment in Richard Grant’s on ennui post this morning your text all had strike-throughs, now they’ve disappeared. I don’t think it’s Big Brother, just little glitch.
There are some people who are blunt, but with no scientific value. From these we must keep distance…
But on the other hand, there is a non-infinitesimal number of mediocre researchers and students that lend themselves either to know too little, and deliver empty talks and articles, or to pretend they know too much, wasting the time of their colleagues with pointless junk. We call this “to fill the sausage” in Portuguese. This is an inadmissible scientific crime, even tough often committed more or less inadvertently.
Some non-mediocre scientists just run away from those. Some others just keep there, suffering when submitted to a bad article or talk. Some others can’t stand it, and decide to “fight”. They may be blunt, but most of the times they are right…
I’ve heard that one example of such “intransigent” minds was Per Bak. This was one scientist I would be very glad to hear criticism from, no mater how rash…
I agree. I have seen people being arrogant because they want to dominate. Also, I have seen people approving arrogance as if they believe that if one is arrogant, one knows more. For some people, being arrogant meaning being superior over the other. Now, in other words, does it mean that if one is not arrogant, s/he is weak or has less knowledge?! Suprisingly, some also seem to believe so!
Only thing one can do is that ignore the arrogant people and their tricks and try to see the real picture when ‘arrogance’ is being played.