- Joined
- Mar 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,122
- Reaction score
- 3,002
So I've been reflecting on some of my group interview experiences and I am coming to the realization that in every group interview I've been in, I've been feeling like I am the hard-ass so to speak.
Ex. At one particular school, 4 of us had to decide what to do about a friend and lab partner that was falsifying data, and publishing said false data.
-Great discussions took place and we examined many sides of the issue but when it came down to actually saying what actions we would take following the discovery, I was definitely not on the same page. They all agreed that they would give the individual 3 weeks to a month to think about the fact hat what they were doing is wrong and potential harm (to patients if the research was clinical, and dishonesty in general if it wasn't.) My stance was that I would have the same one-on-one conversation with the individual, and we shared the same sentiments on what the talk should involve and how to approach the person etc. etc. but I said I would give the person 24 hours to bring it to come forward and bring it to the attention of the PI and the other lab members about what they had been doing, as well as suggesting potential ways to rectify the situation in hopes that they could stay in the lab. They didn't agree and thought the person should have the month for soul-searching, I thought the ramifications, on everyone involved in the lab, was too great to take such a lenient response because it is your friend.
In the end I felt like they thought my approach was too harsh and brought up things like the person's confidence and self-esteem, and yes while those things can be discussed in fixing the situation I didn't see why that would take precedence over putting a stop to it first. This kind of situation has repeated itself in most of my group interviews over ethical dilemmas, I have always said honestly what I would do, but I have been feeling self-conscious that it hasn't been what the majority of the group would do.
Maybe it's because my background and current position in research is as a project coordinator and I deal with all the IRB and red tape and rules in design and implementation of protocol, so in my eyes, if one of my RAs is being dishonest about their work, I need to know asap so I can fix it before our grants, reputation, and/or participants' wellbeing are in jeopardy. I wonder if my opinions have stood out in the wrong way in these situations though, I mean do they want a soft touch to responses?
Thoughts?
Ex. At one particular school, 4 of us had to decide what to do about a friend and lab partner that was falsifying data, and publishing said false data.
-Great discussions took place and we examined many sides of the issue but when it came down to actually saying what actions we would take following the discovery, I was definitely not on the same page. They all agreed that they would give the individual 3 weeks to a month to think about the fact hat what they were doing is wrong and potential harm (to patients if the research was clinical, and dishonesty in general if it wasn't.) My stance was that I would have the same one-on-one conversation with the individual, and we shared the same sentiments on what the talk should involve and how to approach the person etc. etc. but I said I would give the person 24 hours to bring it to come forward and bring it to the attention of the PI and the other lab members about what they had been doing, as well as suggesting potential ways to rectify the situation in hopes that they could stay in the lab. They didn't agree and thought the person should have the month for soul-searching, I thought the ramifications, on everyone involved in the lab, was too great to take such a lenient response because it is your friend.
In the end I felt like they thought my approach was too harsh and brought up things like the person's confidence and self-esteem, and yes while those things can be discussed in fixing the situation I didn't see why that would take precedence over putting a stop to it first. This kind of situation has repeated itself in most of my group interviews over ethical dilemmas, I have always said honestly what I would do, but I have been feeling self-conscious that it hasn't been what the majority of the group would do.
Maybe it's because my background and current position in research is as a project coordinator and I deal with all the IRB and red tape and rules in design and implementation of protocol, so in my eyes, if one of my RAs is being dishonest about their work, I need to know asap so I can fix it before our grants, reputation, and/or participants' wellbeing are in jeopardy. I wonder if my opinions have stood out in the wrong way in these situations though, I mean do they want a soft touch to responses?
Thoughts?
