The Rat Race
Cindy, a new graduate student, entered an established and
highly productive experimental psychology laboratory at Very
Big State University (VBSU). From the beginning, Cindy
exhibited high motivation and competence in psychology with a
desire to publish early on in her graduate career in research
journals within her area of specialization. She joined six
other graduate students in the lab of her adviser, Tom. Other
incoming first year graduate students in the area but outside
her laboratory competed in a friendly manner; they competed in
the class room and made wagers as to who would finish their
master's first and who would publish first. Cindy excelled in
and out of the laboratory, and subsequently developed a very
good reputation with most of the faculty in her area. Further,
she developed a very close relationship with Tom in the first
few months after she arrived at VBSU.
However, a series of events unfolded in the laboratory soon
after Cindy's arrival at VBSU. Tom asked another graduate
student, Beth, to complete a research proposal for a grant.
Beth knew the deadline was fast approaching; the unfinished
manuscript needed to be mailed out the following day, requiring
work late that night. Tom asked Cindy to help Beth finish the
manuscript since she had experience on the topic. Tom failed to
mention this arrangement to Beth, who had expected to work on
the project alone. That evening Beth walked in on Cindy, who
was working on the manuscript; Beth immediately turned around
and left. Beth ignored Cindy for some time after this meeting.
The two eventually reached an understanding that Cindy did not
intend to cut into Beth's territory. Rather, the
misunderstanding had been a result of poor communication.
About two months later, another situation arose. Cindy
required the use of a joystick for an experiment for a
particular day and signed the laboratory time sheet requesting
the use of the only working joystick. Beth had requested the
use of the joystick for the evening prior to Cindy's request.
The day Cindy started the study she noticed after running the
first few subjects that the data made no sense whatsoever.
After examining the equipment, she discovered that her subjects
were using one of the defective joysticks, although it bore the
instructions for the experiment she had put on the working
joystick. Cindy believed that Beth had replaced the good
joystick with a broken one and moved the stickers with
instructions from the good joystick to the bad one. Cindy
confronted Beth and more or less accused Beth of sabotaging her
experiment. Beth denied this accusation and stated she had
merely forgotten to replace the joysticks when she had
finished. Furthermore, Beth claimed she needed to take off the
instructions because they were not pertinent to her experiment
that she ran the evening before. Cindy brought up the matter
with Tom, who took a hands off approach. The two graduate
students have not talked since that time, and the laboratory,
which had always been congenial, according to Beth, had become
a source of friction for all.
Other events have transpired over the course of two years,
and Beth and Cindy have complained to Tom about various
situations. His response to the situation can be described as
laissez faire.
Beth completed her work for the Ph.D at the end of the two
years, and she will be leaving for a very good post-doc
position. Cindy composed a website for the laboratory with the
names and research of the graduate students at about this time.
By the end of the second year Cindy managed to publish ten
articles, which she listed on the website. However, she did not
include any information about Beth.
Discussion Questions
- What are some of the ethical considerations in the way
Cindy and Beth related to each other? Could the problem have
been handled better?
- Should Tom have taken a more proactive position,
especially with allegations of sabotage?
- What practical policies could be developed for airing
disagreements in this laboratory?
- Should the more senior graduate students in the lab taken
a more proactive approach in addressing the situation? With
the two students? With Tom? Was it their responsibility to
raise the issue in a lab meeting?
-
Commentary: The Rat Race
Commentary on the issue of two PhD students that had conflicts during the research process leading to issues of communication and the responsibilities of instructor in an environment of internal competition.
-
Additional Commentary: The Rat Race
Additional commentary on the issue of two PhD students that had conflicts during the research process leading to issues of communication and the responsibilities of instructor in an environment of internal competition.