A question of time management

In my experience, effectively managing one’s time is an important part of succeeding in academia, because for the most part no-one else is going to do it for you. True, there is the occasional fixed deadline around conference time, and any involvement in teaching will also impose some structure on your days; but when it comes down to the nitty gritty of research – producing data and turning into papers – the structure has to be imposed from within. It requires a certain amount of self-discipline, and I’ve recently been confronting the fact that I’m not being as efficient as I could be – or as I need to be to be really effective (blogging being one of the many balls in the life of Chris that has been fumbled recently).
I don’t certainly don’t lack in things to do. At the moment I have a number of different pending projects – which range in completeness from the ‘write the sodding paper already!’ to the ‘it would be quite cool if I could work out how to do this’ stage. Each of these projects can be broken down into a number of different sub-tasks – from struggling with the idiosyncracies of my lab equipment, to reading through a stack of papers for background information, to producing and interpreting pretty graphs. The question is, what’s the best way to cut through the fog of lists and work out what is most important? How should I divide my time between all of the things that need to get done, without flitting between different tasks so rapidly that I don’t give myself the opportunity to really concentrate on, and make solid progress in, any? How much time should I sacrifice away from projects with the shortest immediate payoff in order to keep other promising avenues simmering? When it comes to concurrent projects, how many is too many?
Half of the problem, of course, may well be that I don’t feel I’m getting much done because I’m spending too much time obsessing over how to chop up my day. Part of me thinks the solution might lay in thinking in terms of larger chunks of time; rather than saying ‘I’ll spend the morning doing x and the afternoon doing y’ perhaps I should be thinking ‘I’ll spend the next two days/week concentrating on x before moving onto y’. But I’d be interested in hearing my readers’ suggestions, and stories of how they decide what to do with their days.

Categories: academic life

Introducing myself

Hi! Chris has graciously been cajoled into formally sharing this blogging space with him. I am thrilled and honored to become a semi-irregular co-blogger at Highly Allochthonous. Hopefully, between Chris and I we can manage to provide interesting and witty content on a more regular basis. I’ll leave the witty part mostly to him, though.
I’ve been sporadically guest blogging here for a year or so, but I never properly introduced myself, so now is my chance. I’m an assistant professor at UNC Charlotte, with origins in the Driftless Area of southeastern Minnesota and the Cascades of Oregon. I have a hard time defining what exactly I do, but it tends to blend hydrology with geomorphology, geology, and/or climate. Right now I’m in the midst of a flurry of grant applications, so my take on the fascinating reports of groundwater withdrawals in India will have to wait, but if you have lingering curiosity for how one blends water, rock, and air, you can go below the fold for a description of the field trip I’m helping lead at the upcoming Geological Society of America meeting and a couple of abstracts from the same meeting.

Continue reading

Categories: bloggery, by Anne

Survey: women geoscientists, blogs and recruitment

Whilst I continue my struggles to regain the blogging muse, here’s a much better use of your time:

Over the past several years, the geoscience blogosphere has blossomed so much that this fall, the Geological Society of America (GSA) will be convening a Pardee Keynote Symposium called “Google Earth to Geoblogs: Digital Innovations in the Geosciences.” Kim Hannula started wondering how blogs serve women geoscientists. Kim recruited the rest of us and we decided to approach this problem as scientists – by collecting data and analyzing the results. Specifically, we’d like to know how blogs might help in the recruitment and retention of women and minorities. We plan to discuss our results at the GSA session on “Techniques and Tools for Effective Recruitment, Retention and Promotion of Women and Minorities in the Geosciences.” We have designed a survey, gone through the Institutional Review Board process (completely foreign to us geologists), and now we need help from you.

We are asking you to complete a short (5- 10 mins), anonyomous, survey. The survey focuses on your participation with science blogs, why you read science blogs and what you gain from reading science blogs. It will also ask you to list blogs you find to be particularly useful and a little about yourself. No questions are required, all are optional. We are primarily interested in the responses of women and minority geoscientists, but non-minority men, please feel free to fill out the survey as well. Your answers will be a useful point of comparison. Note also that we are definining geosciences rather broadly. If you are or can be a member of GSA, AGU, AAG, AMS, ASLO, their international counterparts, or similar organizations, please consider taking the survey.

All the data collected are anonymous and no individuals can or will be identified. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You are free to withdraw at any time without having any negative affect. If you have questions concerning the study, please contact Dr. Anne Jefferson at ajefferson (at) uncc (dot) edu.

To start the survey, just click here.

Sincerely,
Anne Jefferson
Kim Hannula
Pat Campbell
Suzanne Franks

Categories: academic life, by Anne

Inspiration in ancient rocks and simple physics

[a post by Anne Jefferson]
If you ask my mom how I got started in geology, she’d tell you that it began with her taking 3-year-old me to see landslides coming off steep hillslopes during the spring thaw. That makes a nice story, but its not the real reason I got sucked into geology. Truth be told, I picked geology because it was the field of science my parents knew nothing about.
In my hometown public school system, the smart kids were herded towards doing in-depth middle school science fair projects. There was a wonderful teacher who helped us find projects and mentors, and taught us the art of visual displays and public teaching. As the child of two scientists, I was a natural fit for the program. There was only one problem: I didn’t want to do anything with which my parents could help. That was my mild form of early teenage rebellion. With my parents’ expertise in biology, chemistry and computer science, I felt I only had one choice: physics. But physics had too much math for my taste. (Little did I know just how mathy geology can be.)
Then a family friend suggested a geology project, I took it and ran with it, and the rest is history. My family friend was a resident of the Bayfield Peninsula, which juts up into Lake Superior from northern Wisconsin. Our friend was a sailor and nature enthusiast, and he pointed out that all of the rock cliffs along the lakeshore had right-angle fractures. He wanted to know why.

Figure 1. Shoreline at Big Bay State Park, Madeline Island, Wisconsin.
Figure 1. Shoreline at Big Bay State Park, Madeline Island, Wisconsin. Photo by Anne Jefferson, July 2007.

That question was the inspiration for my first real science fair project was “Fracture characteristics and geologic history of the Chequamegon Sandstone (Bayfield Group, Late Precambrian).” I collected dozens of stones from the rocky beaches of Madeline Island, where the Chequamegon Sandstone is exposed. I measured the angles between all sides of the stones, and tried to correlate them with grain size, induration and other characteristics. I made my first and last thin sections and I sieved samples using the same sort of Ro-Tap machine I now teach students to use. I also learned about things like properties of non-crystalline materials, the North American Mid-continental rift sytem, paleocurrents, and Pleistocene glaciations.

Figure 2. More shoreline made of Chequamegon Sandstone in Big Bay State Park, Madeline Island, Wisconsin. Glacial scour marks are visible on some of the rock surfaces.
Figure 2. More shoreline made of Chequamegon Sandstone in Big Bay State Park, Madeline Island, Wisconsin. Glacial scour marks are visible on some of the rock surfaces. Photo by Anne Jefferson, July 2007.

I don’t think my conclusions were particularly startling to people who knew anything about rocks. The rocks generally broke along their bed planes, and then at 90 degrees from their bedding, with more than 50% of the rocks exhibiting fractures between 80 and 100 degrees from bedding. Secondary modes were 60 and 120 degrees from bedding. More tightly indurated rocks had a higher propensity to have obtuse fracture angles.

Figure 3. The young scientist at work.
Figure 3. The young scientist at work. Photo by Carol Jefferson, August 1991.

That first project led to a second project, a year later: “Strength, porosity and fractures in the Chequamegon, Mount Simon, and Eau Claire Formations,” in which I contrasted the material properties of two building stones and an aquifer. Then the Mississippi River floods of 1993 pretty permanently steered my interest from ancient rocks and materials properties towards the more dynamic modern landscape. I’ve never again worked on rocks within an order of magnitude as old as my first rocks, and these days I’m more apt to think about the water flowing over and through rocks than the rocks themselves. But sometimes I’m in the field, and my eyes will be drawn to an outcrop, boulder, or piece of float. And I still find myself silently inspired by the amount of geologic history that rock has experienced to end up in the stream bed, hillslope or lakeshore obeying simple laws of physics.

Figure 4. Perpendicular joints in the Chequamegon Sandstone at Big Bay State Park, Madeline Island, Wisconsin.
Figure 4. The adult scientist still inspired by those perpendicular joints in the Chequamegon Sandstone at Big Bay State Park, Madeline Island, Wisconsin. Photo by James Jefferson Jarvis, July 2007.

Categories: by Anne, fieldwork, geology

More fuss over Enceladus

ResearchBlogging.org It seems that there is at least one person in the Nature office with a sense of humour: two contradictory answers to the same question, published one after the other in the same issue.

naturepage.jpg

The plumes of vapour being emitted from the south pole of the Saturnian moon Enceladus have been causing a fair amount of excitement in the past couple of years. However, it’s still unclear exactly where this vapour is coming from. Could it be coming from an extensive sub-surface ocean, or from smaller, isolated melt pockets just beneath the surface? One way of distinguishing between these two possibilities is to look for sodium salts in the vapour. If it’s coming from a deep subsurface ocean, it should contain sodium salts leached from rock silicates of Enceladus’ core. If the source is shallow, the plumes’ composition should be much closer to pure water.
And here we have two searches for sodium yielding different results: Schneider et al., using ground based telescopes, don’t see and suggest that sodium salts can only exist in very low concentrations; in contrast, Postberg et al. have directly analysed particles collected by Cassini and find that a subset of them are indeed rich in sodium salts. The latter authors explain away the contradition by suggesting that the sodium rich particles might mostly fall back onto the Moon’s surface.
It appears that assessing the significance of these results might be tricky. Although the ultimate source of the sodium might be through chemical exchange with a rocky core, that exchange – and the transfer of salts to the surface – could easily have happened a long time ago – ancient ice volcano eruptions contaminating the purer ice closer to the moon’s surface (and if salt-rich particles are falling to the surface today, that complicates things even further). Although a nice sub-surface ocean would cause (oh sorry – is causing) the water=life brigade to erupt in yet another of their paroxysms of premature joy , I think there’s a bit more argument to be had yet.
Postberg, F., Kempf, S., Schmidt, J., Brilliantov, N., Beinsen, A., Abel, B., Buck, U., & Srama, R. (2009). Sodium salts in E-ring ice grains from an ocean below the surface of Enceladus Nature, 459 (7250), 1098-1101 DOI: 10.1038/nature08046
Schneider, N., Burger, M., Schaller, E., Brown, M., Johnson, R., Kargel, J., Dougherty, M., & Achilleos, N. (2009). No sodium in the vapour plumes of Enceladus Nature, 459 (7250), 1102-1104 DOI: 10.1038/nature08070

Categories: geology, paper reviews, planets