Scientific capacity or scientific exploitation?
When a researcher (placed in "favorable conditions") supervises many young (gifted) researchers in the framework of a PhD or otherwise and thus obtains many publications as co-author, can we consider that this is a particular capacity to train young researchers or a scientific exploitation of young researchers (especially if all the work is done by these young people)?
A supervisor (or anyone else) shouldn't put their name on a work unless they've directly contributed something substantial to it. However, we cannot ignore the mentoring role of a (PhD) supervisor. Being a gifted researcher doesn't mean one knows intuitively how to write papers and certainly not how to get them published in reputable journals.
Queen bees are everywhere! During my +42 years of experience, I have seen so many so called pseudo-scientists who, by virtue of power or position shamelessly take authorship in scientific publication of subordinates/students for personal gains. Even the Professors, again by virtue of profession, and due to some ridiculous rules in some countries, become Ph. D. supervisors and their names are compulsorily to be included in the paper. The students/subordinates are compelled to oblige and if they do not do so, they are even threatened that this will affect their careers. I myself got such threats as a research student. A change in policy is badly needed to safeguard the interests of the students and subordinates.
Well for a start I would call it training and team work. Then subsquently if recognition is not given accordingly to contributions then a party is exploiting the other. Hence every case could be different. It all lies in properly aknowledging each team members work.
Scientific capacity can easily turn into exploitation.
Am in line with Vadim S. Gorshkov
Equal footing is the benchmark, but such learning partnerships are rare as per architecture of the academic hierarchy or rule system.
Dear B. Mohammed-Azizi , each such case is unique and specific. I have not considered myself as exploited Ph.D candidate. My mentor was my co-author without obligations, it was my wish, as he was very good mentor.
When I was a mentor, I have not insisted to be co-author of articles that were outcomes of Ph.D research of my menthees. Sometimes, I was present, sometimes not.
Thre are the cases of obligatory authorship, and this may me considered as exploatation.
Hi Ljubomir,
- Plagiarism, fake data, fake results.
- Predatory journals
- Arranged or renumerated citations.
- Addition of false co-authors etc....
Ethical problems in scientific research are growing with no limit.
Dear B. Mohammed-Azizi and all readers of this thread: I'm sorry to hear that some of you made bad experiences with PhD. supervisors and even had the impression of being exploited. I assume that there are big differences between disciplines, countries, and individuals. Personally I supervised ca. 25 Ph.D. theses and I can say that none of my students felt exploited. If you take your job as professor and Ph.D. supervisor seriously, you have a number of important duties. I should mention that we are working in inorganic chemistry.
My personal duties as professor and Ph.D. supervisor included e.g.
- Conceiving the research topic for the Ph.D. thesis
- Raising funds from research funding organizations
- Providing laboratory and office space
- Providing chemicals, laboratory equipment and software
- Regularly supervising the students on a daily basis
- Extensive help during preparation of the thesis
- Writing scientific papers with results of the thesis
- Help with finding a job after graduation
When you take a look at some of our publications, you will find that the Ph.D. students are regularly listed as first authors. Something like "exploitation" is absolutely unknow in our research group.
With best wishes, Frank Edelmann
Mr. Edelmann,
Of course everything is not black but not everything is white either.
We do not live in an angelic world. A supervisor is a human being with his or her qualities and defects. Let's not idealize reality too much. If some people have had negative experiences in this field, let them give their opinion freely.
Kind regards
The conflicts or tensions between supervisors and young researchers (PhD) are inextricable because the limits of the roles of each are poorly defined. How much does the student have to work and how much to supervise the supervisor? It's an association for better or worse.
The students are not angels either, there are some who want to take a lot and give a little.
Ethics is a theoretical value widely shared by all because it is based on moral and social values.
As soon as it comes to taking concrete measures, we see that ethics is relative to each individual and becomes simply linked to the defense of personal interest.
The problem is that we have established rules of the game (by tradition in some cases) without defining their limits. People act according to these rules. A student who is not progressing in his or her work will tell you that the boss is not playing his or her supervisory role, while the boss will tell you that the student is not working hard enough. Everyone tends to " turn " the rules in their favor and this is understandable.
About rules I agree you are right to a long extent.
Though at the 1st glimpse on your question it was exploitation drew my attention.
Exploitation, can be a different dimensional would require to be challenged.
Another type of problem:
When a supervisor has several young researchers under his control, the "human relations" can change the situation and it is not always the one who works the most who will be the boss's favorite. Resentments can be created that will remain "hidden" but which are real and can have consequences on the future.
The justice you indicating on.
It's the politics in it doesn't help the situation much not to be effected hidden or open, in it fore the consequences.
Presumably I can portray more of as in Asian countries.
Regards,
Fatema Miah
That is a common practice in some research institutes, we have to teach young researchers in the good way helping them to research and showing our experience in the process, many researchers take this seriously, some other just take some advantages, we have to thing the good ones are more!!!
Dear B. Mohammed-Azizi , I have taken part in different discussion rooms about related questions to this one. Links follow:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_good_mentors_to_our_students_mentees
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_good_practices_in_the_supervision_mentoring_of_postgraduate_students
https://www.researchgate.net/post/In_what_effective_ways_can_mentors_serve_as_lasting_bridges_for_their_mentees_in_Research
there is worse: he supervises many young researchers, make them write articles and then puts himself/herself as first author.
Scientific exploitation !
In fact the publications resulting from a framework of preparation for a PhD should contain only two co-authors that of the supervisor and that of the student. It would be more equitable in this case to opt for the formula of two first co-authors without other authors allowed by certain journals.Some supervisors work with several students in order to obtain many publications.
In other cases, few students are chosen, but brilliant students for quality work.
The possibility for a supervisor to be unfair to his students cannot be ruled out because the supervisor can result from a mixture of scientific qualities and human faults. Unfortunately, it happens that in reality the shortcomings outweigh the qualities. Of course, this type of situation should not be generalized, but it should not also be excluded.
Dear Mr. Mohammed-Azizi!
I think everything depends on the official ethical policy guideline of an institution. This might differ from country to country and within academic fields:
Lindsay A. Lenton et al. 2021. Ethical considerations for committees, supervisors and student researchers conducting qualitative research with young people in the United Kingdom, Methods in Psychology, Volume 5, December 2021, Free access:
Article Ethical considerations for committees, supervisors, student ...
Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely
This idea of exploitation is popular and gets people energized. Although it certainly happens, I suspect that it is rare. Malcolm Gladwell noted in “Outliers“ that to become an expert it takes 10000 hours (~10 years) of deliberate practice. Notably, deliberate practice requires goal setting, critical feedback, and countless drills to improve skills with an eye on mastery. It is not just working hard at something for years. Before many could go to universities, apprentices learned to become carpenters, candlemakers, watchmakers, silversmiths, blacksmiths, farmers, etc., by working alongside a Master of a given skill for ~10-15 years. When an apprentice learned and could demonstrate all skills necessary for a given craft, they would be tested and judged a Master and then take on their own apprentices. This is basically the model for scientific research labs – as research requires many complex skills learned over long period of time. Training people how to become a master is often challenging task, but it quite an important and positive goal for a society.
Unfortunately without guidance by a master, research across a wide range of fields shows that no matter how many years people work at a given job, many fail to become outstandingly good at what they do or even get much better than when they started. In most fields people with lots of experience were found to be no better at the centrally important skills for their jobs than those with little experience. In science we have tried hard to do better, and this is the professor-student system that is being portrayed as exploitive, but is in fact designed to get people to have deliberate practice that is not fun but hard and benefits greatly from guidance.
The reality is that the typical relationship of professor with students in my experience most closely resembles that of master and apprentice than of exploitation. People generally do not become Professors without becoming a master of their field – they know their crafts and are genuinely striving to teach others to do high quality and high impact work at the master level. Taking on graduate students is typically a lot of work and expense for a professor. So good labs turn students away rather than take on more than they can handle. This is because it takes constant effort and attention to maintain a productive and successful research environment for members of a research group, and all of the needed effort falls almost entirely on the professor. In the Situated Learning field (Lave & Wenger, 1991), learning is considered to occur in a group context and in stages with learning the easiest and least costly skills first and with more complex skills taking longer times. In a scientific research lab, one may learn all the skills to complete a research project, but the order of learning rarely directly parallels the steps and skills needed to independently complete a research project. (This fact is one of many in conflict with a vision of the professor as grabbing credit for projects accomplished by their talented students without their contributions.) Rather a professor guides students though tasks with increasing complexity and risk that may only later be appreciated as all the various specific steps needed to solve overall research problems when the student becomes a master themselves – after years of “deliberate” practice of research. This learning of techniques and conceptual approaches – such as identifying key questions – is typically guided by the professor but a lot also occurs through communication with other group members of various skill levels. Importantly, the professor must create and maintain a productive and supportive lab environment, raise money for the research and to pay everyone’s salaries each month, step in directly when problems arise to show how to overcome them, and act as the role model and guide for the overall process. In these ways, the research professor serves as a mentor for students to complete the Master's or Doctorate program with strong parallels to the prior apprentice system. (I would argue we should at least consider similar apprentice-like training in other areas to improve the quality and impact of workers in jobs outside of science.)
Our society, food production, the worlds’ population and health depend upon science and technology - without it there could be only a small fraction of the current world population plus a shorter and harder lifespan for most. So making students into masters rather than mediocre workers with experience but low skill, is a good thing. No one forces students to work in a given laboratory, so they can and should choose one that most benefits their career goals. Science is fun because you get to work with interesting and talented people to solve important problems and make things better. Top people tend to be like the tide in the impact to those around them - when the tide comes in all ships rise together. Weak people try to raise themselves by pushing others down and by exploiting people. By talking to members of laboratories and seeing for themselves, students can usually pick a suitable group for their training. Professors with performance goals, i.e. striving to outperform others may show these maladaptive behaviors that students will want to avoid. Professors who focus on improving quality and impact by striving for mastery in their own performance and in that of their group members will try to teach and support students not only in techniques but also to build relationships along with their performance so that they can both better overcome problems and work well with others.
What do you think? Here are related sites on developing expertise -
https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/05/is-it-true-that-10000-hours-of-practice-will/
https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/10/5-steps-to-becoming-an-expert/
According to some, exploiting others in scientific research is not a big deal.
===============================================
Some "mores" of scientific research are referred to as "petty fraud."
"Ordinary petty fraud (misbehavior, or delinquent behavior), according to the survey by Brian Martinson et al, are acts that clearly deviate from research ethics, without having the severity of the above: fixing the data a bit (smoothing the curve, cooking data); mistreating the people (or animals) on whom one is doing the research; concealing one's connections to a company that will profit from the research results; exploiting one's students or collaborators; borrowing an idea from someone else and passing it off as one's own; failing to cite results that contradict one's own work; obstructing publication of work that competes with one's own; citing questionable work in support of one's own thesis; changing one's experimental design or results under the influence of a funder, etc)."
Translated from:
https://books.openedition.org/cdf/1620?lang=fr
Good morning
I wrote with professors and by myself. Maybe I am lucky because my Director and professors have etic. But I know another Ph.D. with that kind of problem.
Best regards
Ph.D. Ingrid del Valle García Carreño
Great mentoring is key for the next generation of scientists
The Nature Awards for Mentoring in Science show that it is crucial to support researchers in leading their groups well...
Other aspects of mentoring are more practical and can be encouraged: a level of availability; attention to the framing of a new project; methods by which lab members can help to maintain objectivity by checking each other’s data; a balance between giving advice and nurturing independent-mindedness; and support for trainees gaining experience in peer review and in writing grant applications, without turning such experience-gathering into exploitation of labour...
In too many university departments, the experiences of younger researchers are left to the inclination of the head of their research group. Too often, there is no departmental culture of support and good practice in research mentoring. It may be only by luck that one young researcher finds colleagues in other groups who experience shared challenges...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07840-2
A person in power such as Head of a Division or Institution quite often exploits the subordinate researchers.
Many of the supervisor should guide the young researcher in the ethical way they should not exploit their fresh mind and energy only for increasing number of the publication
Nowadays, the core of the research fails to fulfill its requirements due to the urgency of the publication towards the publicity within a short period. The endeavors of the young minds blocked or hold on by the power of the higher archy.
Abuse of authority
"I knew one PhD student before who told me that she wrote artiles completely by herself but when it was published, her supervisor became the first author and she is co- author, some of her supervisor's relatives also became co- authors. She worked so hard only to become one of the co- authors. This is a big research misconduct. She could not protest as she was dependent on her supervisor' s fund."
Jebunnesa Jeba
from:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Lets_talk_about_some_bad_practices_in_Research
To effect real transformation, research must be carried out with young people, say Susan Morgan and colleagues, who offer tips for involving young people in research in meaningful ways...
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/tips-involving-young-people-research-meaningful-ways?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial-daily&spMailingID=22660807&spUserID=MTAxNzcwNzE4MTk2NAS2&spJobID=2112526199&spReportId=MjExMjUyNjE5OQS2
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing