On 20 Jul 1998, Bharathi Jagadeesh wrote:
> In our discussions about criticism it struck me that one of my concerns
> is how to give adequate and useful criticism, but make clear that work
> is inadequate if it is.
>> The fact is, sometimes, a student or colleague does work that is
> unsatisfactory. Since I am a post-doc (which means that I don't really
> supervise people, and mostly do my work myself) my solution, so far, to
> this problem, is to re-do the work myself. This has a three-fold
> negative effects: first, it means that the person producing the
> unsatisfactory work doesn't improve, second, it means extra work for
> me, third it means that only I control the final product.
>> I'm like to propose a couple of scenarios and get feedback on how one
> should tell someone their work is unsatisfactory, and then how you try
> to help them produce more satisfactory work. And, finally how to deal
> with work that remains unsatisfactory after you've tried to help improve
> it (because this will undoubtedly happen sometimes).
>> A) A student of yours is writing a report/summary of work that will be
> turned into a committee (i.e. qualifying exam, etc.), and gives you
> something that you consider unreadable. You don't believe that it can be
> turned into the committee as is. Also, it would be unacceptable for you
> to re-write it yourself. On the other hand, you cannot give a writing
> course to the student. (Let's assume here that the student is a native
> english speaker, so we're not addressing the special circumstances of
> foreign students who do not yet speak english well). What do you do?
The way my boss handles this is to "edit" the manuscript- hand it back
covered with red ink. Yup, it is hard to handle at first. I remember how
my first paper manuscript, after he praised me for my good writing, was
returned to me in a sea of red, I was really upset, took it *way*
personally. Then I realized that even *good* writing can always be
improved -- and that his goal was the clearest, best paper we could
produce. So I did the approximately 10 rewrites before we were both happy.
And the only thing we had to fix after the reviews were the fact that I
had included too many literature references and been a little too detailed
in my introduction. It did take me awhile to realize that we were indeed
on the same team in this. I wish I had learned that in grad school!
>> B) Data analysis needs to be done that requires mathematical and
> programming skills. Up until that point, the experiment required
> different skills, for example, running experiments that had already been
> pre-designed. Originally, the data analysis was going to follow
> previously designed lines as well, but as the project progresses, you
> realize that high level mathematical analysis will be required, as well
> as the ability to implement those analyses in computer programs. You
> discover that your student simply doesn't have the mathematical
> background to do the analysis (for example, he's never studied matrix
> algebra or partial differential equations). What do you do?
We also encounter things like this frequently. Usually there is someone
else in the lab with the proper skills who can do the analysis and be
included as an author on the paper. This happened to me with some surface
analysis stuff that I had never done. The guy who is the expert was really
nice about doing the analysis, but then *explaining* to me at least the
principles behind it -- and giving some suggestions on what to read to get
up to speed on it -- and then let me take a stab at interpretting the
next analysis. Granted I am not a student, but I do want to know as much
about my data and how it was analyzed as possible. Especially since I will
be writing the paper.
I do not think it is unreasonable in situations like this to go ahead and
invite someone else into the process, while giving the student a chance to
catch up and learn from the experience. If this is the sort of thing that
will be an ongoing concern, send him/her to the library to get a book or
two to *learn* the math. I have found out in the "real world" the ability
and willingness to learn something new comes in handy. You never know what
you are going to face in order to complete your research, and realizing
from the time you start, even in grad school, that knowing everything for
example about microbiology does not mean that you are set for life, that
this science gig requires continued learning and willingness to learn
something you never thought you would use is an asset. For example if when
I started this job over 3 years ago anyone had told me I would end up
mucking around on a weekly basis in the organic part of the lab and have
to be well-versed in the use of a Schlenk line, I would have said that
person was nuts. But here I am doing just that -- in addition to all the
micro stuff I was "hired" to do. The project just expanded in a direction
where I now have to do some synthesis to make samples-- and it is not
really all that big of a deal any more -- and I find I know a little bit
more about what the organic chemist in the group is saying at group
meetings :-).
Thanks!
Linnea
