In addition to working 9-10 hours, sometimes more, and having a four-hour daily commute, the academic environment had become dysfunctional. In addition to experiencing discrimination, increasing (often unreasonable) demands, incompetence at all levels of administration, support and guidance was not only lacking, but often there was no accountability. Many PIs lacked people and group management skills, department heads often overlooked bad behavior and management, and too many times the university Human Resources either overlooked or refused to intervene when valid complaints were reported. This lack of accountability only enabled poor lab environments at the expense of productivity, quality research, and satisfaction by all lab members. Education also suffered collateral damage.
In the capacity of most of the strata of that hierarchy (except as department head and institutional office) over several decades, I have seen many bright and capable students, staff, and even PIs, leave academia. I (and a colleague) left one university because of discrimination, harassment and a very dysfunctional department. I finally retired from another university after ten years with similar experiences. During that time I worked with a few colleagues that had exceptional people and management skills, and who also left for other positions and institutions. With sadness, and some anger, I have also seen productive graduate students with excellent potential also leave. Most eventually found a favorable position and institution, but a few left science completely because of their bad experiences.
The culture and system is deteriorating at all nodes and needs attention. I am encouraged to see some attention to these matters in the last several months in a few reputable journals and on social media, especially blogs. However, the focus has been on graduate students, especially post-docs. But that attention and concern needs to broaden out to include PIs, department heads, and institutional management.
Yes, the fault is spread everywhere in the system. So let’s include every participant.
The group at the journal Nature recently posted a poll on their FaceBook group page, Nature News and Comment.
The following was my comment to this poll about people management training in academia:
“I chose “Additional training for PIs” because:
1. I could choose only one.
2. The established hierarchy of the academic unit is PIs at the top. A PI with good skills with people and work management, especially communication, will potentially already establish and maintain a healthy and productive lab environment. That includes training of lab assistants and students.
Additionally, students (and other lab staff) often feel powerless when department heads and even Human Resources do not provide guidance or intervention when complaints are reported. In those cases, the PIs weld complete authority.
3. After perusing the articles in Nature and other journals on this topic, most of the attention is on graduate students. Lacking is focus on improving skills for PIs and the overall members of the culture (including department heads and administration). Glaringly absent is recognition of lab assistants, especially lab managers, who often are the surrogate lab nanny and educator.
Being retired has allowed me to reflect on the past 28 years serving in the capacity of all points in that hierarchy (except department head). At each node is the ability to contribute to a healthy, productive, and satisfying academic experience and culture for all.
However, it seems that the appropriate skills have deteriorated, and awareness of that has fared even worse over the last two decades. Academia and the culture, including the institutional, have generally but not universally deteriorated, with both education and research suffering. I have seen many bright graduate students and PhDs leave (myself included). And it needs “fixing” at every node in the system.
Why place the burden solely on the students?”
