Principal Investigator Leadership: How Not to Suck in Academia

by Steven R. Shaw, McGill University

@Shawpsych

“It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of ’em was one kinda sombitch or another,” he says. “Ain’t about you, Jayne. It’s about what they need.” — Malcolm Reyolds

A daily occurrence is hearing about some famous or important researcher engaging in some form of misconduct. It seems that all of our academic and scientific heroes have been credibly accused of engaging in harassment, neglect, data manipulation, white supremacy, temper tantrums, plagiarism, racism, being a bad boss, exploiting students, stealing authorship, punching down, fraud, or otherwise being a severely flawed person, scientist, and principal investigator. Consequences for such behavior are fairly rare. But even more common than misconduct is run-of-the-mill lousy supervision. Lack of clear standards, unknown expectations, lack of resources, unavailability, microaggressions, discouraging students, overall poor treatment of students, spiteful behavior, public excoriation of students, and general assholiness are rampant in academia. It is possible to be a strong and productive research leader and not be a jerk. Really. 

Diversity of Lab and Supervisory Cultures

Teaching, research approaches, and service are not all that different between professors. Sure, some are better than others. But the nature of the job and approaches are similar from one academic to the next. Everyone in a specific program or department generally has similar expectations and goes about their business in a manner consistent with the field of study and local culture. But principal investigator styles, philosophies, interpersonal engagement philosophies, and lab cultures vary wildly within programs.

There are no norms for what a lab looks like and how the PI leads. There are many successful PI styles. And more unsuccessful PI styles. 

Universal Nature of Complaints about PIs

One of my least favorite roles in the position of Graduate Program Director is the management of student complaints. I would say that about 98% of student complaints are legitimate and about 60% require action. Most striking is that every single one of our faculty members who is functioning as a PI has had a student complaint made against them. And many of these people are not only fine scholars, but run outstanding labs; are kind, supportive, and conscientious; and several have won national and international awards for their mentorship and research supervision. Our graduate school has created a website, rules, and requirements for research supervision in order to create a shared set of expectations. These are helpful efforts to create a culture of quality supervision, but complaints keep coming. Most complaints are related to emails not responded to, late letters of recommendation, belittling behavior, delays in giving feedback, lack of direction, research mismanagement, and authorship concerns. Being a PI is hard, we are often not well trained for the role, we tend to revisit the way that our PI supervised, and being the boss always opens folks up for complaints. 

Comments about My Lab

I have learned a lot about being a PI based on the complaints I have fielded. I have also observed other labs and interviewed PIs to borrow ideas and structures. I have started to have a lot of undergraduate volunteers and other folks wanting to work with me as grad students. The volunteers are telling their friends. The weird thing is to hear students say, “I have never been in a research lab like this.” I am assuming this is good because they are volunteers and keep showing up.

I am a long-distance from being an outstanding PI. I know some students have complained about me as a PI. Some have left my lab for other labs. I can be a slacker. Competing priorities get in the way. Recently, it has been difficult to concentrate to the degree required because...well, you know...all of this. But I have learned a lot in the process of improving. 

Background and Personal History

I am not really an academic. I worked for 16 years as a psychologist in clinical settings. I am generally poorly socialized in academic culture. In addition, my primary purpose in an academic setting is in a professional graduate program. My students have multiple job offers upon graduation. My field is one of the few with a shortage of academics. I also have minimal ambition. I just like to do the work. Mostly, I want to be useful and have no one bother me. If what I do is not appreciated here, then I will find somewhere else where it is appreciated.

I don’t much like being a boss. I have been a lead psychologist in a hospital setting. Personnel choices and letting people go are not much fun. Although I don’t like being a boss, I strongly value being a leader. If you are a good leader, then most of the unpleasant aspects of being a boss can be avoided. 

General Framework

Here are the eight big points for being out front of big issues and being a leader of a lab rather than a boss.

Modeling

I recall a parent referring his 11-year-old child to my practice with this exact quote, ”This little f**k is the most disrespectful POS I have ever seen. This sh*t is more than I can handle.” Not a terribly difficult diagnostic issue. Behave exactly as you want the students in your lab to behave. It is shocking how students in a lab take on the personality and habits of the PI. Modeling care, detail focus, professionalism, generosity, engagement, ethics, and kindness help make a quality lab environment.

Teaching by Doing

Research supervision is teaching. But teaching by doing. A big question from a student should be met with, “Let’s set up an experiment to answer that question. But first, let’s do some reading so we develop a quality question.” This is far better than simply answering the question. 

Contributions

Valuing all lab members from visiting professors to first-year undergraduates is important. It honestly freaks undergrads out when I ask their opinions. But the second time I ask, they are ready for it. Also remember the most reinforcing response is not to say, “good comment,” but to build and extend on their ideas. We codify this with a regular group lab segment called, “Stupid idea time.” SIT is when we have data that are hard to figure out and we brainstorm the wackiest possible explanations. This is fun, encourages out-of-the-box thinking, decreases fear of being wrong or silly, and often creates the germ of an idea that is genuinely useful. 

Serve Others

Do right by your students. Help them find more money, write letters of recommendation, introduce students to other professionals, look for opportunities, and listen to them. The last one is the big one. Listening is caring. Hear what they are saying to you and what they need. You are helping them. This isn’t some charity thing. When you help them, they will be motivated to be excellent lab contributors.

Organization

Communicate the big picture of where the lab is going. I refer to it as the “evil plot.” BTW—the evil plot is not to spend grant money and produce papers like widgets. It is the big theoretical or clinical goal—and often a bit grandiose. If everyone knows what the lab is trying to achieve then there is space for folks to be innovative in their efforts to advance the evil plot. If they only know how to do data entry, then there is not much room for innovation. Everyone knows the big picture and they will apply their efforts to find creative ways to advance the evil plot and have ownership in lab success. When you know where you are going it is far easier to organize the details.

Diversity

My preference is for demographically diverse labs. Yes, this is consistent with my worldview of increasing opportunity for people with less privilege, but it isn’t really about that. Students from different cultures, languages, ethnic group status, SES differences, and differing levels of experience and age all bring a different way of looking at the same problem. A diverse lab can be a creative lab.

Authorship

I am fairly generous with authorship. Not that authorship is not earned, but all labbies have the opportunity to earn authorship. There is an order of authorship on all projects that is agreed to before the first words are written. If there is a need to change the authorship because someone’s contributions are more or less than planned, then I will suggest a change in authorship, and the authorship team reaches a consensus on the new authorship order.

I also understand that my university’s incentive structure allows and values student authorship. And this formal incentive structure allows for more student authorship. 

Addressing Problems

I am fairly simple about this. Praise in public and fix problems privately. I make sure that the expectations were understood and that the individual had the resources to meet those expectations. Another thing, if we have a face-to-face or remote meeting when I am working to remediate shortcomings, then that is no big deal. If I send you an e-mail, then that is a big deal (I am starting a paper trail to consider more severe action). 

Conclusions

There are so many valid ways to be a leader as a PI. There still will likely be some complaints because not everyone’s leadership style meets the needs of all students. But if you think like a leader rather than a boss there is a higher likelihood of increased productivity, decreased turnover, better ideas, and an overall atmosphere of enjoyable and useful scholarly activity.

More Information

Here is an old blog post that describes how to create a lab culture.

 https://www.shawconnectionslab.com/how-not-to-suck-in-grad-

 school/2017/12/25/establishing-a-lab-culture-how-not-to-suck-in-graduate-school

Information on the basics of working in my lab and detailed expectations can be found here.

 https://www.shawconnectionslab.com/publications

Communicating Research: How Not to Suck in Graduate School

Communicating Research: How Not to Suck in Graduate School

SR Shaw

Advancing knowledge in all fields through research and other forms of scholarship requires much training, guidance, and experience. The challenges of literature reviews, research design, data collection, data management, data analysis, theory testing, and theory development are daunting. This is especially true in the context of reduced funding, tenure pressures, and increased competition. Most researchers in science are well-versed in writing standard formatted scientific reports. Grant reports, government reports, formatting for scientific journals in various fields, and proposals are common mechanisms for written communication of scientific knowledge to peers. However, scientists are now under pressure to communicate findings to the public, mass media outlets, and lay audiences. This form of communication can be challenging for scientists who are trained, experience, and socialized to communicate primarily with scientific peers.

The differences between scholarly communication and communication for knowledge transfer and communicating with the public are not as great as many people believe. The goal of all communication is to move the knowledge base of the audience from point A to point B. The ease of communicating to professional audiences is that there is an assumption that all professional audiences have the same point A. That is, professionals who read journals or evaluate grants have similar pre-existing knowledge, interests, and experiences. In many cases, those pre-existing experiences are the same as the scientists attempting to communicate new findings. For public audiences, existing knowledge, interests, and experiences vary widely. Moreover, almost certainly the public has less existing knowledge than the scientist attempting to communicate new findings. Empathy is required to understand the perspective, needs, knowledge, and values of the public audience. Identifying the exact needs of the audience and having the ability to meet those needs is a baseline skill for communicating complex findings to the public. In addition to empathy and knowing the audience, a formula for communicating to nonprofessional audiences can be helpful.

I am a big fan of B movies. These are usually low-budget, cheesy, and poorly written movies that are often in the horror, action and adventure, or science fiction genre. Yet, for some reason these movies never disappoint and are often hugely entertaining. The reason for this consistency of appealing entertainment is that there is a clear and well-developed formula for an effective B-movie. The ARKOFF formula (after Samuel Z. Arkoff) has six components and the most entertaining B movies contain all six elements.

Action — exciting and visual drama

Revolution — novel or controversial themes and ideas

Killing — violence

Oratory — a memorable speech or dialogue

Fantasy — acted out fantasies that are common to the audience

Fornication — some level of sex appeal

For scientists trained and socialized in communicating with peers, who are just beginning to communicate with the public, a formula can be helpful in organizing information. Clearly, I am not going to recommend that communication of scientific information to the public use the ARKOFF formula. For most types of research, that would just be too weird. In the effort to use just the appropriate amount of weird, I am immodestly proposing the SHAW formula. The SHAW formula contains four components that strongly support effective communication to the public.

Story — Information is most effectively communicated as a narrative with a strong theme, structured just like a short story.

Harrowing — The salience of the study must be communicated so that people’s attention is captured, often by explicitly raising stress or upsetting widely held beliefs. Addressing common anxiety provoking concerns (e.g., parenting, health, finances), life on earth, support for a counterintuitive idea, improving quality of life, and enhancing marital quality are often widely popular harrowing themes.

Applied — Some immediate or long-term, but tangible, application of the results of the scientific study need to be described to engage interest fully. This does not necessarily preclude advances in theory. “Completely changing our understanding of X…” is a useful phrase in describing basic research.

Wonder — The information must elicit interest and wonder in the general topic. Hopefully, some readers will be motivated to learn more about the topic. This section is analogous to the “future research” sections at the end of scientific papers.

Science communication to the public is a novel and foreign activity for many scientists. However, it is now part of the job and is expected from nearly all researchers. Understanding your audience is a large step toward being an effective communicator. At least in the initial stages of becoming a science communicator using a formula to engage your audience effectively and explain complex scientific results may make the process easier. Most scholars want to avoid the B-movie quality that often accompanies science journalism and public communication. Try using the SHAW formula. But unlike the author of this blog, use it modestly and with full descriptions of the limitations of your research.

Establishing a Lab Culture: How Not to Suck in Graduate School

Establishing a lab culture: How not to suck in graduate school

SR Shaw

The fall term brings new graduate students, visiting scholars, post-docs, and undergraduate research volunteers into research labs. Integrating new people into the lab and re-incorporating returning students and collaborators creates new issues. It is important to establish a culture quickly, so that the work can be done efficiently, cooperatively, and even joyfully. Sometimes, as an older scholar I make the mistake of assuming that returning members of lab remember the key features of the lab culture and that new members will somehow magically absorb the values that I wish the lab to possess. My twitter account and this blog are ways for me to put the values of the lab and our work in writing, so that there is an archive of ideas and tone. But in the hustle of day-to-day work, values and culture can be forgotten or lost due to busyness. And some labs find themselves adrift and moving in a direction that the director did not intend.

There is nothing that replaces the modeling of these values by the principal investigator. They must be lived or members of the lab will not buy-in and accept these cultural touchstones. In addition, these values must be emphasized explicitly, evaluated, rewarded, and established. Building a culture is a long-term process. However, a quick overview of the established credo of the lab can be a starting place and set expectations and aspirations for all lab work. Below are the 10 components that are the most heavily valued in my lab. I will be sending these to my students over the next week so we know where to begin our work this fall.

The 10 core values of the Connections Lab at McGill University:

Strive to become a professional, but do not forget to be a human
Work every single day to become a useful professional. That is, conscientious, independent, skilled, knowledgeable, ethical, and courageous; but realize that you will fall short some days. Always focus on being better tomorrow than you were today. You will never have a problem with me if you do something every day to improve.

You will need to trust that I define my success by your success.
My job is to prepare students as professionals. I know what it takes to be a successful school psychologist and the more successful you are, the more successful I am. I welcome challenges from you. A very reasonable question that you should ask me frequently is, “how will this task help me to achieve my professional goals?”

Wellness: yours and your team's.
Consider your mental and physical well-being a central part of your graduate education and work in this lab. Feel comfortable discussing issues and concerns that you may have. Your long-term development as a person and as a professional require attention to your physical and emotional well-being. At the first sign of any issues, let me know and we will develop a plan. In addition, look after your peers. We are a team and need to take care of each other. Although it may be obvious; harassment, sabotage, creating a hostile environment, or any other behaviours detrimental to the wellness of the team, our clients, or individuals will result in removal from the lab.

Write it down or it did not happen.
Writing is an essential component of graduate school. Any thoughts, ideas, findings, notions, and other contributions are only real if they are written. This is the most effective way to communicate and to create a trail of your thinking that will have an important influence on research and clinical practice. Writing is also a mechanism of accountability, minimizing misunderstandings, and improving communication.

We all do better when we all do better.
There is inevitable competition for authorship, grants, fellowships, and time and attention of senior members. However, this lab is a team. The success of any one of us reflects on all. Share credit, be generous with authorship, listen to the ideas of others, be genuinely happy for the success of your peers, and assist the work of others. When this becomes a habit, everyone benefits.

Do more: everything takes three times longer than you expect.
Doing more than the bare minimum is an essential part of professionalism. In addition, it is nearly impossible to plan your time and work accurately. No matter how much time you devote and plan to a specific task, you need to multiply the number of hours by three. Just achieving minimum expectations will require much more time and energy than you expect.

Attention to detail.
I completely dismiss the concept that “idea people” are important and effective parts of the lab. Ideas are only important if they are paired with an intense work habit, focus on implementation, and single-minded attention to detail. The focus on detail will certainly annoy most of the lab members at some point. Attention to detail is the difference between a vague idea that is floating in the ether and high-quality research and clinical practice.

Ethical behaviour.
Too often, students and professionals gloss over ethical behaviour because they believe that they are a good person who would not ever do anything evil or wrong. Ethical violations are not usually due to bad actors. Ethical violations are usually committed by good people who are tired, emotionally overwhelmed, stressed, overloaded with work, up against timelines, or ignorant of the exact ethical standards and procedures to be followed. Ethical guidelines need to be memorized, automatized, and second nature. They will be challenged when life becomes chaotic.

Invest in preparation.
Writing activity is the tip of the iceberg. For every hour of writing there is at least two hours of planning and four hours of reading (not to mention: seemingly endless hours of data collection and analysis). Be prepared for every meeting by having questions or information to present. Investment in preparation allows you to be a better worker, have more clear thinking, reduce stress, and leads to improved overall productivity and success.

Develop productive habits.
Inspiration comes and goes, but habit remains. To be an effective worker in this research lab, your aspirational goal should be to read 100 pages per day and write 1000 words per day. This will take time, practice, and training. Whatever habits you develop, focus on being the most productive person you can be. Positive habits create professionalism.

Developing a culture is far more than 10 simple and vague ideas. This only becomes a culture when these 10 points are modeled and lived. However, starting by communicating goals and expectations is a good way to begin the term.