Vivian Weil

Major tasks in managing research groups are building collegiality and fostering cooperation. Success in this effort requires ongoing attention and self-scrutiny, for research environments are affected at many points by competitive pressures that can become divisive. This case is valuable for presenting a form of competition that is frequently reported but seldom discussed. It describes a situation at a major research university in which two graduate students, progressing through the program at about the same time and pace, become competitors for the favor of the professor who heads their research group. At the juncture highlighted in the case, near the end of their training, their contrasting styles and rivalry have led to an open conflict.

Striving to emulate Dr. Imhof, the head of the research group, one of the students, Tom Jones, has developed an aggressive manner and ambitions for the kind of position held by Imhof. In contrast, the other student, Dan Michaels, is quiet, reserved and aims for a career teaching in a small liberal arts college. At a weekly meeting of the research group when students summarize their future plans, Michaels describes "a fairly major departure from what he has been doing but hopes to get to soon."

At such a moment, an attentive group head might notice that this usually reserved student has proposed a relatively bold idea. The group head has a duty to consider how to help this particular student move forward with an "interesting" idea that might (or might not) work. In an interview about one of his notably successful students, one senior scientist "describes his pedagogical approach as 'watching discreetly and carefully.'" (University of Chicago 1997, p. 19) It is part of Imhof's responsibilities to draw out his students' best work. A group leader's timely, encouraging response can make a difference to a graduate student's progress. From the casual remark that Imhof drops, it is evident that he is not mindful of this opportunity to offer thoughtful encouragement. That kind of thoughtlessness could allow (or even help) a damaging rivalry to grow over a period of years.

Apparently, neither Imhof nor Michaels brings up the proposal at subsequent weekly meetings. By returning to Michaels's idea, Imhof might have prompted Michaels to pursue it. In showing continuing interest, Imhof might have been more effective than on the earlier occasion.

In his aggressive way, Jones takes advantage of Michaels's failure to follow up on Imhof's casual positive response. Apparently without a word to either Imhof or Michaels, Jones encourages an incoming graduate student, Dave Perry, to pursue Michaels's idea and helps him succeed with it. While Jones shows initiative that is valuable in science, his proceeding without clearance from Michaels and Imhof is not ethically defensible. Michaels has some claim to a proposal he made public, and Jones and Perry should not have gone ahead without acknowledging his claim.

Imhof focuses only on the successful outcome of the experiments and the prospect of a publication. He fails to consider appropriate procedures and seems to have forgotten that Michaels had originally proposed the research. It is his responsibility to see that operative procedures are in place to cover exchange of ideas so that students behave with respect toward one another. Admittedly, Michaels failed to do what he said he planned to do, but that does not justify Jones's taking over his proposal without a word to Michaels or Imhof. By failing to notice how it came about that Perry and Jones pursued Michaels's proposal, Imhof encourages divisive competition within the research group. There is evidence to show that in research groups that strongly emphasize competition within the group, trust is undermined and suspicions of misconduct arise. (Anderson, Louis and Earle 1994) Such carelessness obviously interferes with building cooperation and collegiality.

For Michaels, Imhof's satisfaction with Jones is an intolerable instance of Imhof's favoritism. He goes to Imhof's office, asserts that he alone should get credit for the research and demands disciplinary action against Jones. Imhof's insensitive and rude reply reflects his bias toward aggressive pursuit of research, his lack of appropriate concern about procedures in the research group and his disdain for careers in science that emphasize teaching. It is difficult to imagine a positive outcome from this blow-up.

Although Michaels's distress is understandable, the responses he looks for are unrealistic and unjustifiable. Since he did not carry out the research he proposed, he cannot claim sole credit for synthesizing and determining the structure of the chemical compound. However, for originally putting the idea forward he is entitled to credit, at least an acknowledgment in the published paper. It is not clear that Jones violated any rule or policy of the research group so there seems to be no basis for punishment. However, Jones's acting behind Michaels's back is ethically objectionable, and ground rules should have been in place that prohibited that action. Imhof should not have viewed Jones's action as an acceptable approach to investigation.

In his distress, Michaels errs in thinking that punishment is an appropriate response to Jones's action and a suitable approach to establishing standards in a research group. It would be justifiable to expect that Jones and Perry should be required to acknowledge that the idea for the research came from Michaels. A responsibly managed research group will have clearly explained policies about exchange of ideas and should monitor compliance. Unfortunately, Imhof seems so accepting of unrestrained competition that there is not much reason for optimism about responsible management of this research group.

Imhof's personal bias (apparently) favoring Jones and his bias against teaching and alternate careers in science are ethically objectionable. He is, of course, entitled to his preferences among students and may not be able to control the "chemistry" of his relationships with students. But he should be alert to the dangers of playing favorites and the obligation to treat students fairly according to explicit, accepted policies.

At a time when academic positions such as Imhof's are exceedingly scarce, he has an even greater obligation not to denigrate alternative careers in science that make a positive contribution to society. He is apparently unaware of the fact that liberal arts colleges produce a disproportionately large share of science graduate students. Presumably, that is because these colleges provide students the kind of close association with a watchful scientist unavailable to undergraduates in large research universities. In Imhof's research group, such an association is unavailable to graduate students as well.

Finally, this case raises the question of what options there are for graduate students in such situations. At a much earlier point, Michaels might have considered whether Imhof's group was a good fit for him. In a large university, there may be alternatives. Having opted to remain, he should have searched out other, more compatible senior people for research and career advice, taking initiative and not remaining passive. At this point, Michaels might turn for advice to such a person in his department or in an appropriate administrative office. In a large research university, there should be an administrator who is available for help with problematic situations of this kind.

In the end, perhaps, among the clearest lesson from this case is the need for research heads to give explicit attention to formulating and justifying ground rules for their groups and to keep a watchful eye on students' progress within those frameworks.

References

• Anderson, M.; Louis, K. S.; and Earle, J. "Disciplinary and Departmental Effects on Observations of Faculty and Graduate Student Misconduct." Chronicle of Higher Education 65 (No. 3, 1994): 338.
• "John Grunsfeld: Developing Independence." A Vision of Excellence: The University of Chicago Annual Report 1996-97, p. 19.

Roger Boisjoly, who is well known as the whistleblower on the Challenger disaster, often mentions Albert Hirschman's book, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. He looks back on his own experience from the perspective of those choices. In light of the way Jan's case history is written, it may be useful to frame the analysis in terms of those broad options. At choice points in the story, the leading question would be, "Given her perceptions of her situation in the research facility, should Jan leave, should she exercise voice, or should she remain?" If the answer is "Remain," then the further question is, "Whom should she consult about her concerns?"

Some revision in the telling of the story is still needed to create some distance between the author of the case study and Jan. These are Jan's perceptions of the situation as it evolved; they cannot be the author's. So, for example, the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Situation" might read, "As she understood it, the basic premise of the therapy was that psychiatric illness. . . ."

The first choice point should come when Jan begins to suspect that patients are being mistreated. The first question might then be, "What options does Jan have for dealing with her concerns about the treatment of patients?" The list of options should include as A. Discuss her perceptions with other nurses and the nurses association, and as F. Quit her job. A. would be a good response if she does not choose to exit from working in a situation in which she thinks she observes the systematic mistreatment of patients. Discussing the situation with other nurses might give her an opportunity to check her perceptions, to determine whether others are reacting similarly, and to note whether there is any possibility of joint action. Talking to people in the nurses association might give her an overview of her work situation, with information about the employer's almost unlimited right to fire. She might learn how to proceed responsibly with least damage to herself in this situation of perceived mistreatment of patients. As the situation evolves, Jan seems dangerously isolated, without peers to give her a "reality check" or any form of support.

Segment 2 of the case history is puzzling. It is hard to understand how a professional who had heard such a response from the orthomolecular physician and witnessed the incidents described could remain on the job for another six months. In light of her perceptions of the experimental program, she had reason to consult the hospital administrator at a much earlier point. Once she had consulted the administrator and gathered more evidence of what seemed to her to be failure to comply with federal regulations, she was at a choice point, facing the options of exit, voice or loyalty. (Unfortunately, the narrative includes no discussion of how she assessed her options at this or any other choice point.)

If Jan's description of the situation is accurate, at this juncture, the situation is not rectifiable internally. Jan has all the evidence she needs to conclude that she is in a thoroughly corrupt operation. Remaining in the situation as she perceived it would mean not only acting unprofessionally but might even mean becoming implicated in the mistreatment of patients. The most likely outcome of exercising voice in some way before resigning (perhaps even whistleblowing) would would be that she would be forced to resign. Unless she has some reason not hinted at in the case for preferring that choice, her best option is to exit. She cannot make a difference or get satisfaction from her work. Given her perceptions and account of the operation of the program, she has no reason to trust the administrator's offer of a better job in a new facility.

Assuming that Jan decides to exit, we should ask whether she has a duty to do anything more about the mistreatment of the patients. Response A. in Part 3 would be responsible professional conduct. Her own circumstances might make it too costly for her to report the situation promptly since she needs to find a job to support her family. But she should eventually transmit a report to any agency with oversight responsibility for this facility and to her local nursing professional association.

According to the narrative, Jan remained in the situation for a considerable time and eventually came into conflict with her employer. By that time, her employment situation had deteriorated beyond the point when the intervention of the state nurses association could help. From a practical point of view, Jan should have contacted the nurses association at a much earlier point (see above). We reasonably expect professional associations to supply the information practitioners need to make decisions that do not expose them to undue risk when they find themselves in what appear to be corrupt organizations.

I suggest that after the meeting with the hospital administrator, the narrative should not be interrupted with questions about what Jan should do. It is the story of Jan's perception of the deterioration of her work situation and ends with the observation that Jan received no damage award. The story does post questions about where professionals can turn for good information about how to deal with work situations that seem to be corrupt and what information professional associations should be expected to make available to professionals for their self-protection in dealing with employers.