Ownership of Knowledge and Graduate Education
Part 1
Susan Moss is a third-year graduate student in the
laboratory of Dr. Jocelyn Abrams, a successful and energetic
researcher in a competitive field. Abrams has three
post-doctoral fellows working in her laboratory, whom she
relies on to train and assist her four graduate students. The
laboratory holds weekly research meetings where people report
their finished data and work in progress. Abrams stresses that
the reports must be concise and focused primarily on finished
work. Two days before Moss must deliver a research report, she
tries to develop a model that describes a set of data, but she
has difficulty synthesizing the information on her own. Because
Abrams is often too busy to meet with Moss, she makes an
appointment with one of the post-doctoral fellows, Jim
Reynolds. Reynolds is very eager and helpful. Within an hour,
Moss and Reynolds have worked out a reasonable model, and Moss
presents a successful report.
Two weeks after meeting with Reynolds, Moss is asked to
review a portion of a grant proposal written by Reynolds and
Abrams. As she is reading, she realizes that several of the
proposed experiments are ones she had mentioned to Reynolds as
the next steps in completing her thesis research. Moss tells
Reynolds that the proposed experiments are directly related to
her thesis, but he maintains that the ideas were his and that
they will not interfere with Moss's project. Moss believes that
the ideas were hers and that they are vital to her project, so
she makes an appointment with Abrams. Abrams listens to Moss's
side of the story, but she says that she does not want to get
involved in personal conflicts between people in the lab and
that Moss will have to work things out with Reynolds on her
own.
Back to Top
Discussion Questions
- Does Abrams have a professional obligation to involve
herself in the conflict between Reynolds and Moss?
- Should either Reynolds or Moss have sole rights to the
ideas generated from their conversation, or do the ideas
belong to the laboratory as a whole?
- What should Moss do to gain credit for her ideas? to
determine whether she deserves credit for her ideas? to
understand the perspectives of Abrams and Reynolds? Could or
should she talk with someone else? If so, whom?
- When do research ideas become part of the experimental
process? at the conceptualization of individual experiments?
at the design of specific protocols? at the execution of
experiments?
Back to Top
Part 2
After Moss confronts Reynolds about the proposal, Reynolds
responds by saying, "Yes, I agree that you helped generate the
ideas in the proposal and we would love for you to work on some
of the experiments. If you complete them and include them in
your thesis, then you have contributed to the research goals of
the lab. It doesn't really matter who thinks of the experiments
or who does the experiments, as long as they get done." Moss
still feels that her ideas have been taken from her, and she
reports this response to Abrams. Abrams replies, "I could have
thought of those same ideas a year ago. Ideas are a dime a
dozen; it's the execution of the experiments that receives
credit, and this you can certainly do."
Discussion Questions
- How do Reynolds', Moss's and Abrams' perceptions of
"ideas in the lab" differ? How do these different attitudes
affect the dynamics of communication in the laboratory?
- What responsibilities do Moss, Reynolds and Abrams have
to each other and to themselves to resolve this issue?
- How could each person have responded differently to avoid
conflict?
Back to Top
-
Commentary: Ownership of Knowledge and Graduate Education
Vivian Weil's commentary on issues about the responsibility of advisers to graduate students and post-docs, the responsibilities of those advised or mentored, research directors' management of power, ownership of ideas and grounds for recognition in the research group, and ease and frequency of communication.
-
Participant Commentary: Ownership of Knowledge and Graduate Education
Participant's commentary on the responsibility of advisers to graduate students and post-docs, the responsibilities of those advised or mentored, research directors' management of power, ownership of ideas and grounds for recognition in the research group, and ease and frequency of communication.