I thought I'd tackle a simple editing question today. This was spurred by an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on "Is 'Mens' Becoming a Word?'" In this article, the author notes how he is starting to see signs and uses of the word "mens" as possessive without an apostrophe. He seems open to our evolving language, usage, and grammar, but the word mens does not sit well with him.
This got me thinking about apostrophes or lack thereof that never sit well with me, and the first thing that came to mind was when I'm using the abbreviation for Principal Investigators in the plural. When I write PIs as plural, I have an urge to include an apostrophe: PI's. Why? Why do I want to do that when I'm not using the possessive? Well, it's because of other uses that I am comfortable with that use an apostrophe for the plural, non-possessive. Phrases like, the 90's or the ABC's. Neither of these phrases are necessarily possessive, but many of us are comfortable with the apostrophe in these cases, right? However, as shown in the APA blog below, we probably shouldn't be using apostrophes in the 90s or the ABCs.
OK, so I won't drag it out any further. The thing to do when you aren't quite sure which way to go or get that uneasy feeling when you make a grammatical decision, is to go to the authority. Who is the authority, you ask? Is it APA, MLA, Chicago, or Turbian? No, in this case the authority is the agency to which you're applying. If you're writing for the NIH or the NSF, go use the search engine on their site to see what grammatical rules they're using, and follow their lead. If you're wondering, like I was, about possibly including an apostrophe in the possessive form of PIs, a quick search tells us. No, neither the NIH nor the NSF include an apostrophe - it's PIs and POs.
Whew, glad I sorted that out! :)
Resources:
Is 'Mens' Becoming a Word? - Ben Yagoda, Chronicle of Higher Education
Pluralize Numbers and Abbreviations Without Apostrophes - David Becker, APA Style
Friday, January 27, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
Tackling taboos to build collaboration
I've worked in or with institutions of higher education for 13 years, which I realize is a drop in the bucket for some of you veterans. However, in these years and with each institution I've worked with or for, I've been struck by the power that taboos and historical grudges can have in relationships that preclude a lack of communication and collaboration.
Some of these taboos are based on real incidents that have happened in the past, some taboos are handed down through successors, e.g., upon being hired, one seasoned faculty member tells the new faculty member to watch out for this department or that person. And, sometimes these taboos are completely based on assumptions, perhaps one researcher assumes that another is critical of their work and decides not to discuss or collaborate with them because of it.
My sense is that these taboos seem to manifest more in higher education for a couple of reasons. The first is that in higher education you have many faculty and administrators that are there for a long time. These folks are a wealth of knowledge and historical perspective, but they can sometimes get stuck in those perspectives and can be resistant to change or moving on. The second reason is the climate in higher education: it's stressful, competitive, and it's traditionally been set up as each woman or man for themself. To suggest collaboration in that environment seems futile, and we can see how the lone-wolf researcher is itself a taboo that wards off any attempt to collaborate.
So, taboos are a barrier to communication and collaboration, but they can be broken down to make way for relationships and research collaborations. Here are some ways to begin breaking down little taboos.
Ask about them: Much like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes," as soon as you name a taboo, it begins to lose it's power. If you sense there is a story or a reason someone doesn't seem to want to work with someone else or you, identify it and ask about it.
Example: "So, Larry, I hate to bring this up and maybe it's just me, but every time I ask about bringing Andrea into this collaboration, you change the subject. Do you have concerns or know something I don't that makes you reticent?"
Don't assume: Oftentimes, when people sense something is taboo, they assume the worst and move along with that assumption. Along with asking about the seemingly taboo topic, make sure you're acknowledging and checking your own assumptions.
Example: "Susan, you seem to be avoiding me since I gave you feedback on your grant proposal. Am I reading into this or did my comments frustrate you?"
Research collaborations themselves can generate new taboos, particularly if the team doesn't discuss work allocation and order of authorship, or other high-stakes decisions. So, to avoid taboos in your current or future teams, begin by discussing and clarifying these items. And, whenever you sense a taboo starting to form, ask about it and check your assumptions.
Resource:
Taboo Triangles - Charles M. Lines
Some of these taboos are based on real incidents that have happened in the past, some taboos are handed down through successors, e.g., upon being hired, one seasoned faculty member tells the new faculty member to watch out for this department or that person. And, sometimes these taboos are completely based on assumptions, perhaps one researcher assumes that another is critical of their work and decides not to discuss or collaborate with them because of it.
My sense is that these taboos seem to manifest more in higher education for a couple of reasons. The first is that in higher education you have many faculty and administrators that are there for a long time. These folks are a wealth of knowledge and historical perspective, but they can sometimes get stuck in those perspectives and can be resistant to change or moving on. The second reason is the climate in higher education: it's stressful, competitive, and it's traditionally been set up as each woman or man for themself. To suggest collaboration in that environment seems futile, and we can see how the lone-wolf researcher is itself a taboo that wards off any attempt to collaborate.
So, taboos are a barrier to communication and collaboration, but they can be broken down to make way for relationships and research collaborations. Here are some ways to begin breaking down little taboos.
Ask about them: Much like the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes," as soon as you name a taboo, it begins to lose it's power. If you sense there is a story or a reason someone doesn't seem to want to work with someone else or you, identify it and ask about it.
Example: "So, Larry, I hate to bring this up and maybe it's just me, but every time I ask about bringing Andrea into this collaboration, you change the subject. Do you have concerns or know something I don't that makes you reticent?"
Don't assume: Oftentimes, when people sense something is taboo, they assume the worst and move along with that assumption. Along with asking about the seemingly taboo topic, make sure you're acknowledging and checking your own assumptions.
Example: "Susan, you seem to be avoiding me since I gave you feedback on your grant proposal. Am I reading into this or did my comments frustrate you?"
Research collaborations themselves can generate new taboos, particularly if the team doesn't discuss work allocation and order of authorship, or other high-stakes decisions. So, to avoid taboos in your current or future teams, begin by discussing and clarifying these items. And, whenever you sense a taboo starting to form, ask about it and check your assumptions.
Resource:
Taboo Triangles - Charles M. Lines
Friday, January 13, 2017
Responding to NIH's Rigor & Reproducibility Requirements
The NIH's new Rigor and Reproducibility requirements are in full swing according to many study section reviewers. Reviewer reports of the discussions and emphasis being given to these requirements are reinvigorating the discussion amongst NIH funded researchers and those aspiring to be funded by NIH around the best way to respond to these requirements.
It's useful to consider the origin of these requirements. This NIH initiative was in part a response to several articles that came out a few years ago that reported a surprising number of research projects published in top journals couldn't be reproduced or had fundamental flaws.
These new requirements fall into four general categories:
Scientific Premise:
Scientific premise refers to the body of completed research and data (by the proposing PI and others) that form the basis or the justification for what the PI is proposing as a next logical step. The NIH wants to make sure that the research they're funding stands on reliable data and/or fills in necessary gaps in the current research.
Rigorous Experimental Design:
According to the NIH website, "Scientific rigor is the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results. This includes full transparency in reporting experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings." Thus, this is where the NIH is hoping to remedy funding research that cannot be reproduced; if experiments are designed rigorously then they remove the question marks that keep other researchers from being able to replicate.
Relevant Biological Variables:
Historically, NIH funded research that used a disproportionately high number of male animals. This had an unintended consequence on the results of such research not taking into account sex in various experiments where it might make a difference. To remedy this, the NIH is now asking for researchers to account for both sexes in research and to provide better justification if only one sex is being used in research. Although better inclusion of females in experiments is a priority, the NIH has identified other variables they want justified in grant proposals.
Authentication of Resources:
Authentication of resources is simply a requirement by the NIH to make sure the chemical and biological resources you use in your experiments are reliable.
Dr. Jennifer Kemp, the Director of the Research Office in our Department of Medicine recently offered some tips on how to address these requirements. Even if your research has always met these requirements, you need to be more explicit about them in your grant proposals. According to Dr. Kemp, each of these requirements should be addressed under a subheading naming it in your proposal. Scientific Premise should be addressed in the Significance section, Rigorous Experimental Design and Relevant Biological Variables should be addressed in Approach, and Authentication of Resources should be addressed in a new attachment.
To learn more about the NIH's requirements and Dr. Kemp's suggestions, please see the resources below:
Resources:
Rigor and Reproducibility - NIH
Update on NIH Grant Proposal Requirements - Dr. Jennifer Kemp
It's useful to consider the origin of these requirements. This NIH initiative was in part a response to several articles that came out a few years ago that reported a surprising number of research projects published in top journals couldn't be reproduced or had fundamental flaws.
These new requirements fall into four general categories:
Scientific Premise:
Scientific premise refers to the body of completed research and data (by the proposing PI and others) that form the basis or the justification for what the PI is proposing as a next logical step. The NIH wants to make sure that the research they're funding stands on reliable data and/or fills in necessary gaps in the current research.
Rigorous Experimental Design:
According to the NIH website, "Scientific rigor is the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results. This includes full transparency in reporting experimental details so that others may reproduce and extend the findings." Thus, this is where the NIH is hoping to remedy funding research that cannot be reproduced; if experiments are designed rigorously then they remove the question marks that keep other researchers from being able to replicate.
Relevant Biological Variables:
Historically, NIH funded research that used a disproportionately high number of male animals. This had an unintended consequence on the results of such research not taking into account sex in various experiments where it might make a difference. To remedy this, the NIH is now asking for researchers to account for both sexes in research and to provide better justification if only one sex is being used in research. Although better inclusion of females in experiments is a priority, the NIH has identified other variables they want justified in grant proposals.
Authentication of Resources:
Authentication of resources is simply a requirement by the NIH to make sure the chemical and biological resources you use in your experiments are reliable.
Dr. Jennifer Kemp, the Director of the Research Office in our Department of Medicine recently offered some tips on how to address these requirements. Even if your research has always met these requirements, you need to be more explicit about them in your grant proposals. According to Dr. Kemp, each of these requirements should be addressed under a subheading naming it in your proposal. Scientific Premise should be addressed in the Significance section, Rigorous Experimental Design and Relevant Biological Variables should be addressed in Approach, and Authentication of Resources should be addressed in a new attachment.
To learn more about the NIH's requirements and Dr. Kemp's suggestions, please see the resources below:
Resources:
Rigor and Reproducibility - NIH
Update on NIH Grant Proposal Requirements - Dr. Jennifer Kemp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)