The "Gray Zone" of Academic Ethics: Extended Results and Reactions
Caitlin Casey and Kartik Sheth
16 September 2013
(--> Back to Caitlin's Diversity & Ethics Page)
|
Here we summarize the community rankings, assessments and reactions to 25 scenarios which were posed as hypothetical to participants in the Astrobetter Ethics and Diversity Poll. Read more about the context of the poll in the follow-up post. As a refresher, we first list the scenarios themselves. Click on the scenario to jump down the page and read more about it. |
THE RELATIVE RANKING OF SCENARIOS FROM "BEST" TO "WORST"
| Here we show the relative rankings of all 25 scenarios and
sort them from most unethical, unacceptable, or undesirable to most
desired. The names of each scenario are given as shorthand. We
calculated both means with standard deviations (blue points) and
median ranks with 68.3% confidence intervals (red diamonds). One of the most interesting results is the difference in ranking spread, or relative community concensus among scenarios. Through user free-response feedback, participants told us they were most uncomfortable judging the following scenarios because they were too ambiguous: 3 (Kwan), 10 (Brian), 11 (Blair), 17 (Hugo), and 24 (Jorge). However, as shown here, those scenarios are not the scenarios with the largest dispersion; instead, the following scenarios were quantitatively found to be the most ambiguous: 5 (Nathanial), 7 (Amanda), 14 (Lucas), 20 (Morgan), and 25 (Robin). What does this mean? |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
1. Beth is attending her first AAS meeting and has a difficult time with a critical colleague reviewing her poster. Her advisor, Pam, takes her aside and reassures her about her abilities and tells her to forget about the incident and move forwards.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Pam is being supportive of Beth and teaching her techniques for coping with skeptical, or critically-minded scientists. We categorize this scenario as positive since Pam is passing on vital skills to Beth which she will undoubtedly use later in her career. | "Seems alright. (Hard) criticism in science is necessary. However, it should be honest but always profound and constructive. This is particularly important when senior talks to junior but it in generals it should be common practice in ANY scientific discussion."
"Pam does well to reassure the student, but she shouldn't tell the student to forget about the incident. There is always something to be learned from criticism, even unconstructive or hurtful criticism." "Beth's behavior seems normal. Pam's behavior seems very ethical and the critical colleague's too. It is never unfair to be critical provided the criticism is constructive." "Encouragement is valuable, but criticism shouldn't be disregarded simply because it is 'tough'." "It depends on the actual criticism. If it was valid, it should not be dismissed." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
2. Mark is hiring a new postdoc this year and is deciding between Melinda and Aaron who are both well qualified. Mark has noticed that Melinda has asked many interesting questions during conference talks and seems to be more vocal, so he is leaning towards hiring her rather than Aaron.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Mark is free to decide on qualified candidates as he sees fit, and therefore we judged this scenario as acceptable. However, would you have reacted differently if Melinda and Aaron were switched, i.e. Aaron was the more vocal candidate? Did gender play a role in your assessment of the acceptability of this scenario? If so, why? Many readers might judge the reverse gender scenario to be somehow unfair, while this scenario as presented is arguably fair. We speculate that the discrepancy is caused by the perception that women are far less vocal than men at conferences. If this is true, what is causing it? Is there a gender stereotype threat for women that makes them less vocal during conferences? Although here Mark acted appropriately, we would encourage Mark to be aware of subtle biases which might influence how vocal Aaron and Melinda are at meetings. The situation is potentially negative for diversification efforts if Mark judges his candidates solely on a characteristic which tends to follow a gender divide. |
"I hope that 'interesting questions' means profound questions and not just showing up. If her behavior matches the general rules of politeness (asking questions after a talk, not interrupting etc.) the abilities to communicate and to be scientifically interested as well as critical are required skills in modern science."
"As the scenario is presented, I definitely think that giving the job to 'the vocal' Melinda is a definite good thing! However, it is interesting for me to realize that if the names were switched and Melinda was the quiet one, I would urge Mark to consider that Aaron probably has being applauded for being vocal through his life, while Melinda might have very interesting insights -- but a bit too shy to blurt them out in conferences." "Engagement is often important, but introverts can do fantastic work too. It is rare that the degree of extroversion is the only differentiating factor." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
3. Kwan notices that the young "stars" in his field are assertive, loud and vocal during meetings - they interrupt the speakers seemingly having no respect for them. He is not comfortable interrupting speakers or arguing in front of a crowd and decides to leave the field.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This is undesired, since we would hope people decide to stay or go based on their interest in the science rather than more human limitations. While Kwan's decision is totally his own, and is acceptable, the community might want to recognize that it is loosing good people and should strive to be a more inviting, inclusive environment for multiple personality types, not just those who are naturally assertive and loud. |
"Unnecessary loudness should not be what distinguishes a good scientist from a bad one. On the other hand, leaving the field because of a feeling of too hard competition (in a situation when it's arguably not appropriate) doesn't seem to be a solution either. It's a general problem in modern society that who's loudest gets most, not only in science."
"Whether Kwan wants to leave is his decision, but it'd be a shame if he thought those yahoos were representative of the whole field." "It's good that Kwan is self aware and he should know better that to be loud and vocal does not make a good scientist." "Kwan's decision to leave the field seems perfectly ethical, and indeed we should encourage people who object to certain aspects of the way their field is practiced to not tacitly give approval by participating in it themselves (though perhaps staying in the field and actively trying to change its practices would be more useful than simply removing oneself from it.) On the other hand, the young "stars," their behavior seems bordering on unacceptable." "What is the ethical issue here? Someone reaches a judgement about how he thinks other people behave, doesn't like it, and leaves. Good for him? Bad for the field? Maybe it's good that he left." "Nothing wrong with this up until the bit about 'leaving the field', which seems like a huge overreaction when very few people are as aggressive as described." "Leaving because of a tough culture is never desirable. Tough-but-fair colleagues are normal & Kwan should have tried to talk with them about what he thought of both the technical points and the way they were presented." "Because it is the other students being rude, Kwan should bring this up with someone in the department. The fact that Kwan chooses to leave the field is a big problem." "The young stars' behavior is unacceptable if they are not showing respect for the speaker and they should be told that this type of behavior is unacceptable. However, I can relate to Kwan's feelings of isolation in such an environment." "Kwan's behavior isn't really unacceptable, it is more very unfortunate or overly passive (he needs a good mentor)." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
4. Jin thinks it is important to spend some of his time working on outreach and diversity issues but he is told by his advisor to not do so because its a waste of time.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Jin and his supervisor should have a discussion about Jin's goals in his research and outreach efforts. While his advisor might not value his interest in outreach, Jin might be engaging in those activities because he is planning on pursuing an outreach or teaching-based career post-PhD. His advisor should be aware of his intentions, but also be clear about the expectations for Jin's research and timeline for completion. If Jin and his advisor cannot reach resolution on how to balance his time, Jin and/or the advisor should seek the advise of other professors in the department (i.e. graduate chair, Jin's second advisor, etc). |
"Unfortunately, still common practice. I'm more worried about those situations in which supervisors are aware that outreach activity should be communicated in a positive manner while they themselves silently disagree. Often times they make clear to set different priorities than research by other means than openly saying that it's a waste of time."
"The advisor is entitled to his/her opinion. The rating depends on whether "told to" means "advised to" or "ordered to". My reaction would be to tell the student that being involved in outreach/diversity might cause him/her to take longer to finish the degree but leave the decision up to him/her." "context is important here, is it free time or research time? If the student procrastinating completing research the advisor hired him the advisor might have grounds to complain although certainly calling it a 'waste of time' is very inappropriate." "Outreach is important for publicly-funded work. That said, it can be easy to get distracted from other important research activities and it can be easy to mis-judge the impact of dealing with the public." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
5. Nathaniel and Lucia are in the same department. Nathaniel, a tenured professor, wants to date Lucia even though she is his colleague's graduate student. He decides it is ok because he is not her employer.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This scenario lacks some critical information on the rules and regulations at Nathaniel and Lucia's institutes and information about what Lucia desires. Some institutes have regulations forbidding romantic relationships between co-workers when there is a power differential (i.e. tenured professor to student) while others only forbid relationships along direct employer-employee lines, and others allow all variety of workplace consensual relationships. If Lucia regards Nathaniel's interest in her as unwelcome, the situation becomes more problematic and can be called sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment for Lucia. |
"The situation can only be evaluated if it is stated whether the professor was acting in accordance with university policy. Relationships complicate academia, but they are not forbidden."
"Could vary wildly based on Lucia's view of things..." "Such relationships seem ethically undesirable but if there's real attraction from both sides, no clear-cut dependence over the different hierarchy levels, it needs to be accepted." "The scenario doesn't say anything about Nathaniel making unwelcome advances or threatening Lucia's career, which would be blatantly unethical. In theory, they could just be two consenting adults. But even without further details, I think Nathaniel's choice to pursue Lucia shows spectacularly bad professional and personal judgment." "Is Lucia also interested in the potential relationship or does she feel pressured into it?" "Normally a bit creepy but there could be exceptions depending on age/power gap." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
6. An astronomy department is dominated by males (70%) but since the ratio of female to male is slightly above the average for other departments the senior male scientists conclude that the department has more than enough females and there should be no further effort to proactively diversify the department.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Achieving a 70-30 male-female ratio should not be regarded as the end goal of diversification efforts, since it does not reflect the population at large, which is 50-50. While this department is doing well to have a gender ratio slightly above the average, it needs to continue its diversification efforts until the ratio has reached parity (similarly, they should strive for a 32-68 minority-non-minority ratio which is reflective of the overall population of ethnic minorities in the United States). |
"Even scientists do not always interpret numbers in a correct way or always conclude the right things. That's why there need's to be some kind of proper gender council 'assisting' the male scientists in their judgement."
"[This scenario] shows that it is crucial to have a good gender mix in committees." "70% of male is not a problem if there is 70% of male as candidate to the positions (what we want is equality, isn't it?). The problem cannot be solved at this stage without doing discrimination between gender, but before when student choses their field during the first year at university." "The senior male scientists are complete dicks!" |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
7. Amanda plans on supervising some undergrads, Joe and Michelle, over the summer. She thinks that men and women typically have different working and learning styles so she plans on spending more time talking with Michelle than Joe. She doesn't think Michelle is any less bright than Joe, but she knows from her own experience, how much it helped her to have one-on-one discussions and she wants to make sure that Michelle stays in the field.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Assuming that Amanda hasn't yet met Joe or Michelle, it's inappropriate for Amanda to assume Joe will work one way and Michelle a different way based on their genders. This falls under enforced stereotype, and if Amanda treats Joe and Michelle differently due to gender, Joe and Michelle might both start to feel gender stereotype threat. Amanda might realize after working with them for a week or so that they have different learning styles, but those learning styles are associated with them as individuals rather then as members of their gender group. How would you have reacted to this scenario differently if Joe and Michelle were switched? |
"Amanda's preparation to put in extra time for her students is laudable, but I feel she should extend the same opportunities to Joe as she would to Michelle, and put in effort based on their performance. Maybe Joe will be the one who actually needs more attention!"
"No! We are talking about two people! Don't treat them based on statistics but adapt the supervision to the individual case!" "Individual students have different needs and she should plan to apportion her time according to their needs not their perceived needs." "It's good that the supervisor wants to support Michelle, but it shouldn't be assumed that Joe doesn't need the same attention just because he's not a woman. Better to start off by giving them both a lot of attention, then figuring out their working styles." "[Amanda] clearly has good intentions, but if she believes it's important to encourage female students why not also male students? Fairness aside, having good mentorship role models may in turn cause male scientists to be better mentors to their own female students." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
8. Mason gives a talk at a conference on some unpublished, new work. A senior scientist in the audience is skeptical of the work and tries convincing Mason it is a waste of time. Mason tries to engage this senior scientist in a dialogue about the work over email but doesn't hear back; later that month, the senior scientist posts a submitted paper on the arXiv based on Mason's idea but does not credit nor acknowledge Mason.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This is plagiarism. Mason might like to complain to the journal or the senior scientist's home institution, he/she might find it difficult if there isn't a clear body of evidence that the idea was first presented to the senior scientist during Mason's conference talk (although the talk was perhaps videotaped, the emails recorded, etc). This is less straightforward if the senior scientist had the idea prior to Mason's talk; in that case, it is not plagiarism, but it still qualifies as undesired behavior, especially since Mason made an effort to contact the senior scientist to engage in a dialogue. The senior scientist could have acted in a more positive way, by not trying to dissuade Mason from working on the topic and responding to Mason's emails. |
"Horrible. Absolutely horrible."
"It is poor form by the senior scientist regardless, but how bad it is I feel depends on how senior Mason is in the field. If Mason is a graduate student, then the senior scientist in no shape or form should steal his work; graduate students are just starting out and need their research to make a name for themselves. If Mason is a tenured professor, then it is not as bad as if he is a graduate student or post-doc, but still undesirable." "By all means bad practice of the senior scientist neglecting any rules of scientific communication." "It would depend on whether or not Mason actually inspired the senior scientist or if the senior scientist might have had the idea beforehand. Still, the senior scientist shows some pretty horrible behavior." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
9. Jack, a professor, is flirtatious with Jill, a new postdoc in the department. Jack, the chair of the local TAC appoints Jill as a TAC member. When Jill makes it clear that she does not want a relationship with Jack her proposals for telescope time are less successful than they used to be.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This falls under standard "quid pro quo" sexual harassment where Jill perceives Jack to want an "exchange" of a romantic relationship for favors at work. Jill's reluctance for a relationship might or might not have impacted the ratings of her proposals on the local TAC (since there are many considerations which go into a TAC grade) but Jill's perception that it might have -- as a result of personal decisions -- qualifies this as sexual harassment. |
"This is disgusting. I really hope this has never happened to anyone, but unfortunately I get the impression that these questions are drawn from real life example."
"If Jack is doing something that causes Jill's proposals to be less successful, then it is clearly unethical; however, this is not explicitly stated." "If she was aware that she got her TAC position because of his amorous interest it would have been an ethical no-go to accept the offer." "First there is the issue of Jack flirting -then appointing- Jill to the TAC. The subsequent issue involves Jill's proposal being rejected because she rejects Jack's advances. Both are unethical and unacceptable - no one should use their position and power within science to influence their personal relationships." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
10. Brian was shortlisted for a faculty job, but the job went to a woman instead. Brian feels that it's unfair, because he thinks he would have gotten the job if he were a woman.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Brian is free to be unhappy with this outcome. The situation is acceptable although not desired. Brian might be upset since he is feeling discriminated against for the first time; what Brian possibly hasn't thought about are the ways Brian's female (and minority) colleagues have faced discrimination like what he is feeling now. He might not also be considering the importance of diversification at the institute where the faculty job was offered or, importantly, other non-gender related reasons the female candidate got the job. One thing we would recommend for Brian is to try and educate himself on diversity and equity efforts in our field and become an active advocate. The next time Brian is shortlisted for a faculty job the department considering him might be encouraged that Brian wants to be an active advocate for equity and his chances of getting the job might substantially improve. |
"It's fine for Brian to feel disappointed but he should realize that there are many components to her application that he did not see and that it is very possible she was the better candidate."
"Gender discrimination can go in both directions. Some claim it's necessary to have gender discrimination against men in order to achieve gender balance eventually. However, I argue that gender balance is never to be regarded as something positive." "If the [job] ad clearly stated that 'women are preferred in case of equal suitability', this is perfectly ethical behaviour (addressing long-standing imbalance). However, if this was not made clear in the ad or before the shortlisting but applied a posteriori is rather callous of the hiring committee." "Brian could be a mysoginist who cannot accept the fact that a woman got the job." "I would like to think that in reality a choice between two candidates never really comes down to a coin toss / gender preference." "If he just *thinks* it, that is no problem, of course, most people will feel a bit sour at being passed up. If he were to say this to other people the story would be very different." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
11. Blair, a student, feels very uncomfortable in the astronomy department because there are problems with senior faculty bullying, taunting, and harassing other students. Blair would tell the department chair how uncomfortable and hostile the environment has become, but decides not to because Blair fears that as a result, the chair (and the faculty responsible) would no longer take Blair seriously as a researcher.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
|
Blair feels threatened by his/her environment so much so that he/she doesn't feel comfortable talking to the chair about it. This constitutes a poor and potentially hostile workplace environment, not just for the other students who are experiencing the bullying, taunting and harassing, but also for Blair. Blair could take the complaints to the department HR officer instead, and the HR officer should make it clear that students can come to him/her with complaints. It is the responsibility of the faculty and primarily, the faculty chair, that the workplace environment is healthy, and that the students feel comfortable discussing their problems openly or otherwise have clear resources for resolving problems. |
"It's kind of a prejudice to think that the seniors in the faculty may not be open to criticism. It's Blair's personal decision whether to come forward, but a department with such a poisonous atmosphere would be in real trouble."
"We cannot expect people to indulge in self-destructive behavior, but Blair should figure out if there is some sympathetic figure with power outside the department that can do something about this." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
12. Gale is telling a joke about homosexuals over coffee with colleagues. Gerry, who identifies as homosexual, overhears and is offended. Gerry privately lets Gale know that the statement was offensive, but Gale continues to joke at work about homosexuals since Gale wants to continue to have the same friendship with the other colleagues.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Gale's joke was clearly offensive to Gerry, and Gale's reluctance to stop joking about homosexuals after Gerry's request is unacceptable. Gerry can report Gale to any authority figure or Human Resources advocate in the department/institute since Gale has created a hostile work environment for Gerry. |
"Maybe I don't understand the question well but what kind of friendship is built on homosexual jokes?"
"Gerry handled the situation very well by talking to Gale privately and not causing a scene. Gale is way out of line. Totally unacceptable." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
13. Bob and Jason are teammates in a big collaboration. Jason plans to submit a proposal for telescope time and circulates it to the team 2 days before the deadline on the wiki. Bob sends an email to Jason a few hours before the deadline saying that he will use the text and figures from Jason's proposal to submit his own proposal and asks Jason to withdrawal his proposal. He argues that he is justified because he as added Jason as a co-I on his proposal.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
|
This is a standard case of plagiarism. Despite the fact that Jason and Bob are in the same collaboration, Bob has not received Jason's permission for using his text and figures. Bob's insistence that Jason withdrawal his proposal could also be categorized as bullying or intimidation (depending on Bob's wording and how much time was left before the deadline for Jason to make an informed decision). If this happened and Jason did withdrawal his proposal but later regretted it, he could bring his argument to the director of the telescope/facility to which he applied describing the situation and submitting evidence (e.g. emails, timestamped copies of the proposals). Whether or not there is an avenue of recourse for plagiarism beyond withdrawal of Bob's proposal is dependent on the situation. |
"No words. This is awful."
"Bullshit of course. There's no way that the other guy can hijack someone's proposal and any Co-I should stand up and protest." "What if the situation were changed slightly and they thought up the proposals independently, and the big collaboration could only submit one of them? Would Jason be out of line to not give Bob permission to use his text and figures? If the proposals were merged and Jason got credit for writing a substantial portion of the proposal, this might not be so bad (unless Jason felt cheated)." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
14. Lucas is a new foreign student in the department and the chair has gone out of her way to pair him with a mentor from his own country. She has also organized a special welcome for Lucas where various traditions of the country were recognized and celebrated.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
|
Some might perceive this as uncomfortable or demeaning to Lucas and his ability to adapt to a new culture, whereas others might see this as welcoming. Whether or not this is appropriate would depend on Lucas' level of comfort with the welcome celebration. |
"Seems nice but it's -- in my opinion -- actually bad. Giving support and a nice welcome to a new employee should be common practice. But wouldn't it be much more helpful to give him/her a chance to get acquainted right away with the habits of the new culture?"
"This depends entirely on how other incoming researchers/faculty/students are treated." "Making new people feel welcome is great, but singling out one's nationality while doing so seems a bit ham-handed." "Is very desirable, don't get me wrong, but seems a bit far fetched and could be construed as favoritism." "This would be great if they'd got the students permission and input first, I'd probably be up for that if I was moving country. However if someone did it without asking me, it would come across really patronising and feel like I'm being singled out." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
15. Linda is organizing a meeting and is thinking of who the invited speakers should be. She thinks that it would be good to invite more women and junior researchers but thinks the more senior male researchers will give better more provocative talks so she invites them.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
|
This is a problem often faced by conference organizers, however, we would tell Linda that she probably should make more of an effort to get to know young women/minority researchers in her area who can give good, provocative talks. Most invited conference speakers are usually senior males since conference invitations are often based on who the SOC knows personally, and senior males tend to have more contacts in the field than junior researchers. How acceptable/ unacceptable would this be if all of the speakers at Linda’s conference ended up being senior males? |
"Very, very common practice (also often used when it comes to public talk series). I would really hope that this habit changes at some point. Not even (typically moderately-sized) splinter session of annual national astronomy meetings do generally try to counteract age/gender biases."
"I'm definitely *for* inviting people who will give good talks... I'm just not convinced that the usual situation is that *no* senior women or junior people (women or men) are available to give awesome talks... we need to be willing to think harder and consider beyond the list of 'usual (senior male) suspects'!" "This is pretty silly. It's hardly ever an either/or situation, and it's certainly bizarre to think that anyone should ever bypass the chance to get the most stimulating speakers." "This depends a little on the purpose of the conference and the attendees, as well as the amount of disparity in the quality of the talks that will supposedly occur." "Linda simply assumed that these speakers would be better only due to their characterization as senior males, her behavior is fairly despicable." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
16. Jim is a postdoc. He finds out that his work is being plagiarized by a former postdoctoral fellow from the same group. When he tells his supervisor about the incident, she tells him that if people are copying his work he should view that as a sign of doing interesting research. She tells him that he should not worry about the competitors and instead focus on doing a solid job and publish the results.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
|
If we assume that Jim confirms plagiarism has taken place (which is an unacceptable behavior), we consider here the behavior of Jim's supervisor. Is the advice she gave him good? Should he have pursued a complaint against the plagiarizer? We think that Jim's supervisor's point of view is probably a common one, given the lack of success plagiarism cases have in academic review panels (at this level) and that she probably sees it as a waste Jim's time to focus on the offense rather than the research. However, Jim should make sure he is comfortable with how the situation is handled -- either through a formal complaint, informal complaint or direct correspondence with the offender, or ignoring the incident. |
"The behavior by the plagiarizer is obviously illegal and reprehensible but the behavior of the supervisor is not necessarily. The damage may already be done and illegal behavior impossible to prove. Then turning a negative into a positive is ethically neutral and perhaps desirable."
"I found this hard to judge, because the person who is plagiarizing is clearly unethical, and the professor who tells him to get over it is awful, but I wouldn't honestly call her advice unethical. Just terrible advice." "Precisely this situation happened to a former student of mine. I called up the fellow who left and harangued him into putting the student's name on the paper (although he didn't also put mine, and he should have). But if the fellow who left does not relent, then what should an advisor do? Its questionable if the student should pursue legal action since it could damage his reputation and possibly make himself a powerful enemy. It depends." "The collaborator's work is blatantly unethical but the supervisor's response is unacceptable." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
17. Hugo has a meeting with his supervisor. His supervisor tells him he's not working very hard, and she expects him to put in nights and weekends in addition to working weekdays. Hugo loves research but since he believes he is less productive when working long hours decides to leave the field.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
While it is sometimes standard for graduate students/postdocs to put in long hours, Hugo's supervisor most likely cannot dictate that he work overtime on a project (since it is probably prohibited by the University/research institute which employs Hugo). Nevertheless, many supervisors might have high expectations for their students, but instead of phrasing their expectations in terms of hours worked (nights and weekends), it might be more appropriate for the supervisor to speak in terms of research goals (i.e. finish a paper by next week, proposal deadline, etc). If the students have difficulty managing their time wisely, the supervisor might offer up tips for optimizing their time. |
"I strongly believe that there is no benefit in working way too many hours. If the supervisor is firm on this point (weekends / nights are required) then Hugo should first look for another supervisor rather than quitting the job."
"It's clear that enforcing extra-work is a no-go since typically in science it even remains unpaid. Clear power-abuse." "It's the field's loss. As his supervisor, I would judge him on his results." "He shouldn't leave the field based on only one person's opinion. Though a supervisor shouldn't require a student to work nights and weekends, it is acceptable and desirable for the supervisor to discuss the student's productivity and success so that the student receives some feedback." "The supervisor's *expectation* of working nights and weekends is not something I agree with." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
18. Jane and John are new faculty members in a male-dominated department. Jane is told that she must serve on more faculty committees than John because they need a woman.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Jane might perceive this requirement as unfair since she has more duties than John, even though they were both hired at the same level. Her complaints might well be valid, but perhaps the department does truly need more female members. One suggestion we have for Jane is to agree to serve on the extra committees, but she should request that other departmental duties of hers be relieved so she isn't spread too thin (i.e. teaching, etc). |
"Not nice for her but possibly a necessary evil as long as gender balance is not achieved. Note that I explicitly judge this evil as necessary as opposed to the one in #10. Might be regarded as a contradiction and I'm not sure myself if it is one.
I could imagine a legitimate need for diverse representation on committees, but strong-arming someone into serving on *more* committees seems unfair. If they don't then take that service into account in Jane's tenure case, I would call this blatantly unethical."
"This happens all the time. I'm uncomfortable about it all the same." "One the one hand, forcing a faculty member to do anything is unethical. On the other hand, I do personally feel strongly that it would benefit the goal of gender equality if women had greater representation on committees of power." "What's the issue? Having the woman serving on committees or being honest about why she's in demand?" "If the department had made a specific effort to hire a woman to address clear unmet needs, and if the woman was aware and supportive of their desire to improve, this might be OK. It would be better if they compensated for this burden in other ways." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
19. Cynthia, a postdoctoral fellow, receives an email from a senior scientist after her paper is posted to arXiv. The senior scientists' work is cited in Cynthia's paper. The email is a one-liner, which reads, "For someone who knows nothing about SMGs, you have a very negative opinion of my work."
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This is a rude email and could be perceived as bullying. If the senior scientist believes Cynthia is quoting his/her paper incorrectly, there are many appropriate ways of writing to Cynthia in a more polite, constructive tone. Do you think the senior scientist would have hesitated to write Cynthia this way if (a) she were a man? or (b) she were a more senior scientist herself? |
"Someone writes a paper about a given subject and still has no clue? If that's common sense then there'll never be adequate scientist that will grow into faculty jobs once the on-liner author is retired."
"Email communication should generally follow formal standard that also apply in other/traditional written correspondence in my opinion." "Perhaps the paper did show ignorance of the field. Silly question." "This person might have an issue with Cynthia's paper, but this is just rude. We shouldn't have to tolerate this type of thing." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
20. Morgan is interviewing for a faculty job at a university. During the more "casual periods" of the interview (dinner, coffee), Morgan is asked several times by different faculty members, "Do you have kids? Are you married? Are you in a relationship?"
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This is illegal in the United States. Each country is likely to have very different viewpoints on whether or not this is appropriate. While it can easily be perceived as helpful in some situations (i.e. the committee is wondering if the candidate will have to find a school for their children or a job for their spouse), it is largely regarded as inappropriate if asked prior to the job offer stage. Search committees should judge candidates on their capabilities and professional skills, not their personal situation; asking probing questions like these before an offer is made might be very threatening to the candidate if they fear the answers will impact the search committee’s decisions. The best time for a search committee member to bring this up is after an offer is made. Alternatively, the candidate is welcome to volunteer this information during an interview if it happens to come up. Would your opinions of this situation alter if you had assumed Morgan were a man / were a woman? |
"[This] is illegal, I am pretty sure, but quite common and sometimes meant well but often not."
"If a male candidate is asked the same questions and if (in both cases) there are no second-thoughts but just interest/small-talk motivating the questions there's nothing wrong here." "I think it is OK to ask people about their lives/families over dinner. Natural small talk. It is not acceptable to judge them/not offer them a position based on this information." "Tricky, tricky... some argue that only exposing early on that you have a partner it is feasible for the institute to try to find a position or some interesting opportunities for the partner. However, it tags you as a 'complicated' candidate... " "Though Morgan is a gender neutral name I assumed from the questions it referred to a female. I'm still musing about what that might mean." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
21. Janine doesn't feel comfortable wearing skirts or dresses to work because the older professors always comment on how nice she looks and they sometimes stare at her breasts and whistle at her in the hallway.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Janine has a hostile workplace environment which is aggravated by regular sexual harassment by these older professors. Janine can bring her complaints to the institute director or head of department or a Human Resources officer who will assume the responsibility of making sure this sexual harassment no longer happens. If Janine is unable to find an adequate solution with HR or the director/ department head on an appropriate timescale, Janine should consult the country and state law on sexual harassment in the workplace (in the USA, this is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) or consult a local Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) representative outside of the Institute/ University for advice. |
"This makes me angry. And very sad."
"It's a big advantage to be able to wear what you want in science. However, in practice there are advantages in certain dress codes in business perhaps. I'm not absolutely sure if we should support dress codes and try to make people appear in some kind of equal way but I do think that freedom of choice in fashion also leads to some kind of responsibility (I don't say that women should be blamed for the whistling of men but some clearly cross a line with too provocative outfits)." "I could see this being [ranked] differently depending on the country in which it was asked. For example, in conservative countries where women wear more clothing for religious/societal reasons, the jeering Janine experiences is would be a socially acceptable response; however, in more liberal countries the actions of the other faculty members would (clearly) be sexual harassment." "The professors' action is blatantly unethical no matter what the student is wearing." "The student's response is normal. But the student should be aware that one must dress appropriately in a professional setting (even if one is a student) so the dresses and skirts should not be too revealing. (It's not clear from the description if she is dressing appropriately or not.)" "My name is Janine and I don't feel comfortable wearing skirts or dresses to work." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
22. Leslie, a pre-tenure astronomer, takes a parental leave after having a baby. Leslie's colleagues think parental leave is a free ride, and Leslie should be more productive at research during this time because of the lack of teaching commitment.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Leslie's colleagues think he will spend the majority of his time writing papers while on parental leave rather than looking after his newborn. Although Leslie will be free from teaching during his parental leave, the primary objective of parental leave is to look after a newborn -- not to advance in research. Would you feel differently about this scenario if Leslie were a woman (or did you automatically think Leslie was a woman)? Would you think Leslie is more or less likely to be more productive at research during parental leave if she were a woman and not a man? |
"In some countries this way of thinking of the colleagues is actually illegal in the sense that parental leave is a standard right of any employee. Paternity leave should become common practice and we need to support it as a community as good as we can. Parental leave shouldn't be a career killer for anyone (independent of gender)!"
"Absurd! Whoever thinks that parental leave is a free ride has (1) not had a child; or (2) has had a child where a full time baby-care person has been present the whole time to do everything, including breast-feeding, bathing, playing, watching over, ..." "You should clarify what kind of leave she's taking. If it's FMLA or similar, there are legal considerations, regardless of how we feel about a certain special subset of our colleagues getting time off work to contribute to the overpopulation of the planet." "Severity depends on whether the institution has any formal 'family friendly' policies that would apply." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
23. As one of only two women in the department, Amy continuously threatens to sue the department for gender discrimination whenever something does not go her way. She is constantly throwing her colleagues under the bus and constantly saying that no one seems to appreciate her. Recently when her colleague Simon got a lucrative endowed chair offer at another university, she marched into the chair's office and screamed at him, threatening to leave if Simon was offered tenure for retention even though Simon's advancement / position and work has no impact on her tenure case or work situation.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This is bullying. In this scenario, Amy could be using her gender as an excuse to improve her status in the department or prevent against demotion or possible lack of promotion. By screaming at the department chair, Amy is engaging in irrational physical behavior which can be categorized as unwelcome workplace violence. |
"Perfect example for misguided female emancipation. Such behavior is very dangerous in the justified fight for gender balance! In fact it's equally dangerous as traditional male chauvinism."
"This was an implausible situation." "It's appropriate to negotiate for a better deal, but the question phrasing is slanted so strongly against Amy that it almost has to be undesirable." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
24. Jorge is working on a paper which he thinks is ready for submission. He sends the paper to the collaborators for comments but does not hear back for a few months even after repeated requests for comments. Eventually, he insists on submitting his paper with or without their comments and offers them the option to step off the paper if they would prefer. In response, his senior collaborators threaten to report him to the journal and threaten to tarnish his name to any future employers, claiming that he is unethical because he has submitted a paper without the approval of the co-authors.
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
This is bullying and threat of slander. Jorge's senior collaborators have been given ample time to offer comments and criticisms on Jorge's paper, and they have been given the opportunity to remove themselves from the paper, but instead they decide to respond by threatening Jorge, perhaps with the intention of delaying Jorge from submitting. Nevertheless, the threats to report him to the journal and contact future employers is slander if it has the intention of tarnishing Jorge's reputation as a scientist without recounting the truth (or entire truth) about the scenario. Some things to consider here are what agreement Jorge and his collaborators had when he started to write this paper; was there a verbal agreement? Was there a written agreement? Could they have avoided this conflict by being more clear in the beginning about both parties' expectations? |
"Senior colleagues are out of bounds. Should have taken them off the paper."
"Would be nice to know if the senior scientists had specific criticisms of the work that they wanted changed." "I am really fed up with the game playing coauthors continually try and get away with. Ignoring emails is my number one annoyance! If they have a problem with the paper, just be up front about it. It's unethical for people to bully those writing the paper with such threats!" "A clear example of bad communication practice. When giving so many chances to the co-authors to comment what is the poor guy supposed to do eventually?" "Jorge should dump anyone who has sent no feedback from the authorlist." "I think Jorge acted correctly." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
25. Robin is invited to a conference. Robin replies to the organizer, Ricardo (who he has never met), that he is happy to attend, but he is wondering if it is possible to travel with his family, including a newborn. In response, Ricardo says, "yes of course, feel free to bring your husband and children!"
| Ranking Distribution | Caitlin and Kartik's thoughts | Community Thoughts/Reactions |
 |
Ricardo has assumed Robin is a female, possibly because Robin enquired if it is possible to travel with his family. This is an undesired reaction to Robin's email, as it is a gender-based assumption that male researchers would not want (or have to) travel to conferences with their families. However, it's clearly unintentional, and overall, Ricardo's effort to be supportive of families shoes great effort. |
"It shouldn't have been assumed that Robin was a woman, but at least the conference organiser is making every effort to be completely family friendly, which is very positive."
"Seems like a sloppy typo and that we should laugh about it." "This reveals some stereotyping, but is actually a good thing in the end." "This rated high for good intentions. Clueless but helpful." "As a woman with a name that could apply to either gender, #25 hit home. I find it frustrating when it happens, but as long as they accept the correction gracefully, I think taking offense is unwarranted. I usually laugh." "Organizers make mistakes and that's just human." "This hits home, as once I mistakenly used the honorific 'Mr.' in an email to someone whose first name was ____. Trying to be respectful, I ended up being potentially offensive. Lesson learned!" |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.
General Survey Feedback
|
"For all the gendered scenarios, I tried flipping the gender of each person in the situation and rereading it. This was an insightful exercise; several of my answers changed after the gender swap."
"My view is that I can try to tolerate bad jokes, offense, etc, but I cannot stand someone screwing my work." "In most cases I am used to being presented with hypothetical scenarios that are either unethical or ethical-where the ethical action is neither undesirable behavior nor necessarily desirable behavior. This scale also made it a bit hard to consider many of the situations, though this could be because of the kinds of questions I am used to considering." "I think the survey should be clearer on whose behavior is being evaluated. Judging the community's standards from this exercise will not be possible if it is unknown what behavior is eliciting any given response." "Other studies have shown that gender-specific names trigger unconscious biases. By using names here, you might be folding those biases into the survey results." "It's possible to imagine some of these situations (18, 19, 22, 23) being a bit more nuanced if presented differently." "I would be interested to know the demographics of survey-takers, to see if there are differences between genders or different career stages, etc. For instance, if only graduate students respond to the survey, I suspect the result would be quite different than if only tenure-track faculty respond. Knowing how your audience affects your results is worth studying. Still - thank you for candidly presenting so many elephants in so many astronomy departments everywhere." "Excellent range of scenarios; good variety." "In [some] cases the outcome is unfortunate, but no-one's 'fault'." "I didn't see many references/questions to ethnic minorities. It seemed heavily weighed towards women and families. Are women and families almost the norm these days?" "The ambiguity on whose actions are considered undesirable weakens the strength of this poll. It may reveal something on where the focus of the reader lies in reading the scenario or with whom they identify..." "Many of the scenarios dealt with younger and more diverse scientists encountering problems with older scientists. The conflicts that arise out of these scenarios are often the result of older scientists being 'set in their ways' and being resistant to change. We work in a field that is constantly changing and developing. Old ideas are proven to be incorrect and replaced almost every day so why shouldn't our behaviour toward other people evolve as well?" "After finishing this survey I think the survey itself is ingeniously organized to exemplify a point, or intrinsically flawed. I can't tell which (sorry). The survey questions almost always involve the actions of one or more individuals which who act on opposite sides of the ethical spectrum. The survey does not indicate the individual whose behavior we are to judge as ethical/acceptable or unethical/unacceptable. Therefore the reader must first attempt to identify whose behavior must be judged, then assign a rank to that activity. This is ingenious because it creates an apparent conflict within the survey taker. This is flawed because it is unclear whose actions the survey taker is ranking, hence it will create an unnecessary spread in the response to the question." "These situations are all too common. Someone taking the survey may give the situation a "1" but engage in the behavior nonetheless because the academic culture we live in permits unacceptable behavior to exist and flourish. Individuals who dare call out the offenders are often run off." "Some of these are all too familiar. I would comment, but I am afraid of being identified. " "Good questions, with *a lot* (too much??) resemblance to real life situations..." "Most of these are clearly 'bad,' but a few seem to reflect innocent confusion or hastiness, and I think it's important to distinguish these from some of the others. Though the latter can be harmful, too, the tools you need to use to 'stop' them are arguably different than for the more overtly unethical behaviour sampled in some of the other questions." "I found it difficult to judge the best response to many answers because there were often positive and negative elements. I usually weighed the negative more heavily and responded accordingly. " "This survey is certainly an interesting way to begin a discussion politics and professional relationships within an academic setting." |
Click me to go back to scenarios list at top of page.