Success Stories
A Compromise Between Family and Science Is Possible
Recently habilitated Markéta Holá has managed to combine a scientific career with family life. “The female element is needed in every research group,” says Holá. According to her, women do not have to give up science even despite maternity leave and raising children.
doc. Mgr. Markéta Holá, Ph.D.
Markéta Holá has long been interested in the method of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. In her research, she focuses mainly on studying the interaction of laser radiation with the surface of samples and on the analysis of geological materials.
In 2003, she began working at the Laboratory of Atomic Spectrochemistry at the Department of Chemistry as a research assistant. She currently holds the position of associate professor. Over the years, she has published 130 scientific papers and has managed to combine her scientific career with family life.
Do women and men contribute differently to science?
In my opinion, the female element is needed in every research group. Most of the time, I was almost the only woman in the team, or there were perhaps just two of us. I think that the presence of women in a team brings different ways of thinking and communicating, which is beneficial both for research and, for example, for working with students.
In what way exactly?
For example, in terms of practicality. Women who have experience with parental leave can be particularly practical. Taking care of a family can also lead to developing good organizational skills—especially when it comes to time management. All activities have to be arranged in a way that makes them feasible.
Parental experience can also be beneficial when working with students. Teachers can understand them better if they have children of their own and can more easily put themselves in their students’ shoes.
In my opinion, university education is not only about passing on knowledge, but also about shaping students, which is something we try to focus on in our group. Having both male and female role models is an advantage here.
You mainly focus on studying the interaction of laser radiation with sample surfaces. How did you get into this field?
From the very beginning, it was all a matter of chance. If I go back to the start, I never actually wanted to study chemistry—I was always drawn to biology. In the end, however, I graduated in pure chemistry.
As for my focus on geochemistry, my supervisor played a major role. He had previously worked in geological exploration, was close to geology, and saw that our method had great potential for this field.
How would you describe the LA-ICP-MS method?
ICP-MS is a relatively widespread technique, mainly used to determine trace element concentrations in various types of samples. If you want to find out the composition of any sample, you first need to convert it into liquid form. Then, very low element concentrations can be measured. It is a bit like determining one spoonful of a substance dissolved in the Brno Reservoir.
LA stands for laser ablation, which is a special way of sampling not only liquid samples but also solid ones. These do not need to be dissolved before analysis, because individual laser pulses can release a very small part of the sample, from which the instrument can then determine even very low element contents.
The main benefit of this method is that you can analyze a specific spot in a sample. Most samples are not homogeneous—their composition changes. For geologists, whom I work with a lot, this is very important, because they are interested in the exact composition of, for example, a specific grain in a sample, which is possible using the LA-ICP-MS method.
What is it used for in practice?
That depends on the application and on the questions researchers are asking. The method primarily serves as a tool that helps us answer experts’ questions as accurately as possible.
We also use it to analyze archaeological samples. One of its advantages is that although the laser burns a small hole into the surface of the sample, it is often difficult to see with the naked eye. This allows us to analyze samples that we do not want to destroy. For example, archaeologists may be interested in what source material was used to make an object, whether the sample has been contaminated by the surrounding environment, or, in the case of bone analysis, even what disease a person may have died from.
Geologists usually have a clear idea of what the information means for them—whether mineral transformations have occurred over time, why elements migrate, and many other equally interesting phenomena.
After completing your PhD, you interrupted your career because of maternity leave. What motivated you to return to research?
After finishing my doctorate, I was full of energy, motivated, and enthusiastic about everything. At that time, I started attending international conferences and internships, and I obtained my first research grant. Because of maternity leave, I interrupted this path for almost six years. Only towards the end did I have the opportunity to gradually adapt, as I was partially coming to the university.
My main motivation to return was the fact that I enjoy working at the university. It is creative work; routine jobs would not suit me. My colleagues helped me a lot in returning—they showed me that they needed me. It is important to know that you are valued and that you have skills the group depends on.
The academic environment presents itself as equal and based on results. Where do you think this idea clashes with reality?
I think that until people reach the stage where they have to decide whether to put their career aside because of children and family, they usually do not see any inequality. For example, the numbers of female and male students in chemistry seem quite balanced.
It is only later that the path can become a bit more complicated for women. In the Czech Republic, access to education is very equal, which is of course a good thing. However, women are often naively led to believe that this equality will last throughout their lives.
Women are often encouraged to study and build their careers, but at the same time, at a certain point, they are expected to prioritize family. Finding a balance between these expectations is not easy. There are certainly cases where women have managed to combine both. But everyone chooses the path that works for them. For me, maternity leave meant a complete interruption of my career.
What was the most difficult part of returning?
The period after parental leave is, in my view, one of the most critical moments. This is often a point when some women consider not returning to science at all and instead choosing a more stable position where they do not have to be so competitive.
Probably the hardest part was seeing how much my colleagues had progressed during that time. You feel like you can never catch up. Over time, this gap can narrow, but at that moment it is very frustrating. It is also difficult because you know you cannot devote 100 percent of your energy to both science and childcare. Finding a personal balance is probably the key to success.
You managed to obtain your habilitation in your field. What does that mean to you?
I first started hearing from my colleagues that I should pursue habilitation—often from those who already had it, and who, for example, had not taken parental leave. So in a way, it was again my colleagues who encouraged me, probably because they saw that I had the potential to achieve it. Honestly, it is a lot of work, so you really have to consider whether it is worth the effort.
One of my strengths is that when I decide to do something, I do my best to see it through to the end. Once I had considered all the possible difficulties and realized that there was a strong chance of success, I decided to go for it.
My habilitation thesis focused on studying the fundamental principles of the LA-ICP-MS method. It is not a very attractive topic for grant projects, because it is hard to present, but I find it interesting. It is important for improving the method. I was pleased that I was able to turn the results of this research into coherent conclusions for my habilitation thesis and realized that this long-term research had a clear academic impact.
Is it more difficult for women to succeed in science than for men?
Science is a competitive environment. Building a position in teams where men strongly dominate is, in my opinion, difficult for women. They may not feel comfortable in such settings. Those who are not afraid to promote themselves and their ideas generally have a better chance. For many women, however, this does not come naturally and may feel uncomfortable.
In many ways, it seems like an environment that suits men better.
I think there are mainly two types of women in science. The first type focuses primarily on their scientific career. These women are often very successful, and their results can match those of men. Women who choose a compromise between family and science can also be successful, but they have to accept that their results and the pace at which they achieve them may differ.
Unfortunately, today’s world and academia place a strong emphasis on comparison—numbers, publications, indices, everything. This can disadvantage women who devote part of their lives to family. And this does not only apply to maternity leave, but also to the period after it. However, I would like to encourage female students not to give up on science. A compromise between family and science can work, as long as people set realistic expectations for themselves.
Do you feel that conditions for women in science have changed since you returned after parental leave?
I think they have. When I returned to science, for example, working from home was not even an option. No one paid attention to the fact that if a woman’s child fell ill, there was often no one to look after them.
Today, there are many grant programs that women can apply for when returning from parental leave. That is a great opportunity. I know it is not easy, but I believe that a lot is being done to make the return easier for women—both in terms of research projects and in creating an environment where, for example, no one is surprised if a woman brings her child to work in an emergency.
I cannot say exactly where the boundary should be, but having the feeling that you are not cut off because of your child is important. And knowing that people still count on you really matters.
Author of the interview and photos: Adéla Lerchová