Timeline for How to respond to senior academics after a public 'punching down' session
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2021 at 0:31 | comment | added | cag51♦ | I appreciate that, and of course I am not suggesting that no one should ever take a position unless they agree 100% with everything always. But if one (a) fundamentally disagrees with the direction, and worse (b) is forced to implement plans exactly as ordered without proposing new ideas or raising objections, then I would suggest that this position is not a credible option either. I doubt OP is really being forced in this way. I suppose it's possible that OP has no other options and would be homeless if they didn't take this position, but I didn't consider that scenario in my answer. | |
| Aug 19, 2021 at 19:29 | comment | added | user128581 | 'If your advisor is truly forcing you to run irrelevant and risky experiments, then you should not have accepted this position.' Turning down a firm offer of a salaried postdoc job is not a credible option for everyone. | |
| Aug 18, 2021 at 10:41 | comment | added | benxyzzy | second set of bullets is victim-blaming apology for machismo that will surely go the way of the dinosaurs, as it already has for more progressive and ethical industries | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 19:22 | comment | added | cag51♦ | @AnonymousM - quiet and professionally-worded notes rarely get one in trouble, so I agree that should be fine. But, I would focus it on how OP can adjust to the culture, not on how the culture can adjust to OP (barring actual abuse, which is never acceptable). Working in this kind of hard-hitting, sharky culture is really difficult for some people, but it's not inherently bad, it has its pros and cons like other management styles. | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 11:20 | comment | added | gnometorule | @Tom: “I wonder…” That’s hard to say when we weren’t there. However, in general it can be a bad idea to dig into points that you thought through carefully, and which are probably only obvious after very careful thought - along the lines of telling your scuba students before their first dive “the one time one of my old students almost died, we had not yet implemented (rule A). So don’t worry, we have (A).” The result will be the opposite of what the instructor meant to achieve. It’s good to have more in stock than you initially share in a talk, and be ready to address questions as they come up. | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 4:38 | comment | added | cag51♦ | @tom - I suspect (or at least, hope) that you have more latitude than you think you do in terms of improving or pivoting the experimental plan. And I would highlight the penultimate bullet (maybe I should have placed it more prominently); building relationships and cementing buy-in requires lots of individual chats prior to the formal, public meeting. Without having done this, even a skilled presenter may have trouble keeping the train on the tracks once the punching starts. | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 3:27 | comment | added | user137975 | This all seems right to me, except maybe a bit hasty to drop entirely a quiet and professionally worded investigation (e.g. with the PI) into the question of tone. Validity doesn't obviate a need for decency. | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 3:24 | comment | added | Tom | Thanks. Some hard but potentially useful advice. I do wonder if openly discussing the risk (and how to manage it) of the project during the talk drew further attention to it rather them being relieved I was thinking about it. I agree with your 4 lower bullet points, especially the first. "...then you should not have accepted this position" is a bitter pill to swallow but potentially the only real thing I feel I could have changed other than presentation style. Tricky though during funding-cut COVID environment in Australia. | |
| Aug 16, 2021 at 2:14 | history | edited | cag51♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 91 characters in body
|
| Aug 16, 2021 at 2:03 | history | answered | cag51♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |