The Provost and Diversity Leadership Council will be celebrating staff, faculty, and students who work toward diversity & inclusion at all nine divisions of Hopkins. Come cheer for them, including WFF@H co-chair and biophysics phenom Karen Fleming (really! read her American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology feature interview). Plus, snacks.
(Not sure where Salon A is? Just come in the door on 33rd street near Insomnia Cookies and walk/elevate upstairs. There will be a sign.)
Hope you can come.
About the image: Theodor Svedberg, who won the Nobel Prize in 1926 and invented the analytical ultracentrifuge, which measures the size of molecules. He also, in 1955, needed new drapes, so he designed his own. They featured squares that looked like this; Dr. Fleming has this fabric in her office.
Snapshot: From the Office of Karen Fleming
In my happiest post in the history of WFF@H, I am thrilled to write that my co-chair, biophysics professor Karen Fleming, won this year’s Provost’s Prize for Faculty Excellence in Diversity!!
Please join her Wednesday (tomorrow–May 15) at 3:30 in Charles Commons Salon A to celebrate. All are welcome!
It’s hard to put into words how fabulous this is not just for Karen but also for all the people–across genders, ranks, and campuses–who are trying to create and sustain a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable Hopkins.
Fortunately, I don’t have to put it into words because I can borrow Karen’s (excerpted from her full nomination essay):
What difference can one person make? And could that be worthy of this prestigious Provost’s Prize for Diversity? One example of the impact of my work is summarized by a black female PhD student I met at Oberlin College after I conducted a workshop on Bystander Intervention there. While I was packing up, she came to the podium, thanked me and shared, “I’ve never heard an actual, real, live scientist talk about diversity and inclusion before. I am so grateful.”
This student’s comment gets to the heart of what the STEM pipeline actually is. We need to know its structure in order to fix it. And I argue that we the people – each one of us – form the so-called STEM pipeline. We are its core structural elements. Especially as faculty, we are the lives and souls of universities. What this means is that we have met the enemies to equity, and it is us. The institutional transformation we so urgently need is not the metamorphosis of a nameless, faceless entity that is someone else’s problem. Rather, our institutions are composed of people: presidents, provosts, deans, faculty, staff, and students.
Carry on, everyone–
On November 26, 2018, 25+ faculty members and administrators from KSAS, WSE, and the Provost’s office gathered for over two hours to discuss the challenges and opportunities of graduate student advising—particularly in light of the recent NAS recommendations.
Our conversation was wide-ranging and lively; the notes below don’t begin to do it justice. What they try to do, though, is represent the ideas discussed (whether or not everyone agreed on them) and to inspire further discussion of this on the Homewood campus.
For resources on this topic, please visit our file cabinet.
Mentoring: How? When?
- One challenge is the question of how to inspire faculty to take on mentorship roles
- Once inspired, we need to learn how best to mentor
- One program already in place is the Master Mentoring is for faculty who are mentoring junior faculty, and the skills learned in this program should also be applicable to mentoring grad students.
- When and where should mentorship happen for graduate students?
- Some advocate mentorship at every stage of graduate school
- Additionally, mentorship isn’t limited to one’s home institution. There are networks across schools, in disciplines, for example:
Establishing community values & cultural norms
- How can the institution best use orientation (with particular consideration for international students coming from different cultural contexts) to set a supportive, professional tone for academic life at JHU?
- After orientation, how can we as an academic community sustain and normalize conversations about professional, respectful, inclusive interactions? Some ideas:
- Small group discussion with case studies: such-and-such happened in the lab or grad student workroom, what would we do?
- Regular lab/cohort meetings with scenario of the month?
- Use the concept of the “safety moment” common to chemistry lab meetings? Call this the “inclusive moment” and have examples of inclusive behavior?
- Ask grad students take the lead in discussions and inclusive practices, as long as they have full support from their PI/advisor?
- Can the university provide resources/case studies for this effort?
Defining the faculty/grad student relationship
- Collaborative relationships are most productive
- Vocabulary matters: think and speak of students as colleagues who are not as far along in their careers as we are—rather than, for example, as our employees (casting the relationship as boss/employee creates problems in attitude on both sides)
- Some junior faculty need help adjusting their expectations, particularly of first- and second-year grad students. They may have themselves been extraordinarily independent, savvy grad students and may expect all of their students to be just as amazing. They may not realize what guidance they received and therefore not be cognizant of what guidance they need to give.
What the NAS recommendation to “diffuse the hierarchical and dependent relationship between faculty and trainees” means in practice
- Diffusing power is not the same as disavowing power. We do not help students by giving up the power that comes with our positions
- We can, however, clarify our status as mere mortals—for example, by inviting students to comment on drafts of our work; by telling them about times when we’ve run into stumbling blocks, etc.
- Ensure that grad students and postdocs develop the independence to meet their deadlines. A grad student should not depend on an authority figure to get them to meet a deadline, nor should deadlines be disregarded
- Talk to each other about systems that work and adopt/adapt those systems as appropriate.
- It seems that different departments handle graduate student advising quite differently, and we as faculty do not necessarily know what other departments are doing. For example: In biophysics & biology, there is a committee of faculty for each graduate student and yearly meetings throughout graduate school. In EPS, grad students have to meet with advisor before they can register for next semester
- Feedback is important for both the adviser and the advisee. In some places, graduate students have to write a letter to their advisor/DGS about their goals & their progress; faculty had to do the same. Then, based on this exchange, faculty advisors can adjust, give them internships, redirect according to new interests, etc.
- Some parts of JHU have individual development plans (IDPs). I believe these are required by NIH training grants. Should these be universally required?
Challenges of writing letters of recommendation
- It is important to recognize that these are inherently biased; we as faculty should pay close attention to language. We discussed various approaches for minimizing bias:
- Have students write a paragraph for the letter
- Have students make a bulleted list of talents, etc., and have their peers help them do it; train students to be more proactive about articulating and advocating for their accomplishments and strengths.
- Show examples
- Share the literature on this with faculty and grad students alike (see Gender Equity in Science bibliography)
- Ask students for CV and give them feedback on their own professional presentation.
- Ask students for the cover letter
- GRO used to have an active committee on professional development; their website may be of some help
- During department orientation, offer best practices for how to ask for a letter of recommendation
Concerns about graduate student mental health & job market
- National stats make it clear that most students will not end up in tenure-track academic jobs in almost every field.
- Concern about high rates of depression among grad students . . . pressure, especially in humanities, is sometimes unbearable. CUNY Graduate Center made astounding foray into what it would mean to appoint somebody whose single job was to organize workshops for nonacademic careers . . .
- Students in the humanities (?) have 5 years of funding, but median time to complete the PhD is longer, so what are they supposed to do?
- There is excellent movement at the Career Center, with many good things happening, but we must advertise and support the opportunities there IN the department; if we don’t talk about the career center in our academic programs, students will perceive it as second class.
- One way to think about career planning for graduate schools is to disavow the notion that only academics is the only career track for “successful students,” i.e. “There are no alternative careers. There are only careers.”
How to institutionalize changes in how we approach graduate training? What is the path toward turning some of these good ideas into requirements?
- For example, University of Michigan uses launch committees (ADVANCE) for new faculty during their first year. The convener of the committee gets $1000 in their research account.
- Institutional change will require changing how we do things—which will require changing how we encourage and reward faculty for these kinds of contributions.
- Reward teaching and service more explicitly in tenure review. This will set the tone for valuing teaching, mentorship, etc. Currently, teaching serves as a “hygiene factor” in tenure decisions—above a certain level, it makes no difference. Carl Wieman (Nobel laureate in physics who now focuses on science education) would not get tenure today.
- Valuing teaching, advising, and mentorship is good for all students. This is particularly important for diversity and inclusion, and it is critical in courses at the introductory level because those students are new to college and coming from very different levels of high school preparation.
Potential stumbling blocks
- Putting something out as best practices helps good faculty become great faculty. But the challenge always is: what happens when faculty either get busy & forget the best practices? Or what about faculty that simply abuse their power?
- Departments don’t always carry out guidelines they are given. There will be different levels of advocacy, implementation, etc. A lack of consistency fractures the larger community, and the best practices cease to become a policy, which undermines the community.
- Faculty fatigue.
Just a reminder! Women Faculty Forum invites faculty of all ranks & genders to discuss graduate student advising tomorrow (Wednesday) at the Hopkins Club. Stop by any time between 8:30-10:30 to enjoy coffee and colleagues–and to chart a course for the kind of graduate advising we want our students to have. Want to browse around this topic? Here you go:
- lots of readings here, including a new (11-26-18), data-focused article from Nature Ecology & Evolution
- what the NAS has to say about all this here (see #11)
- goals JHU set for itself for 2020 (that’s 13 months away) here (see #4 and #5).
Remember, children are welcome to come along.
Thanks again to the KSAS deans’ office for the coffee, breakfast treats, venue, and support.
Faculty of all ranks & all genders – please join WFF for coffee and treats anytime between 8:30-10:30am this Wednesday, Nov 28, at the Hopkins Club, courtesy of Dean Wendland’s office. Stop by for 10 minutes or stay for a while. Hope to see you!
Graduate Student Advising is the discussion topic for our coffee hour. Here’s an UPDATED working list of related articles:
- Suggestions for how to “diffuse the hierarchical and dependent relationship between trainees and faculty” at JHU (October 2018)
- Mentoring Grad Students: Advising Statements (Chronicle)
- Drew Daniel on vulnerability and responsibility for advisors, particularly in the humanities job market (bullyblogger)
- K.A. Amienne, “Abusers and Enablers in Faculty Culture” (Chronicle)
- Leah H. Somerville, “What Can We Learn from Dartmouth?” (Science)
- Kathleen E. Grogan, “How the entire scientific community can confront gender bias in the workplace” (Nature Ecology & Evolution)
- Dana Bolger, “Betsy DeVos’s New Harassment Protect Schools, Not Students” (NYTimes) [quick stat: 34% of sexual assault victims drop of out of college]
- Rape, Assault, Harassment, and Discrimination: Entitlement at Dartmouth
- JHU Ten by Twenty (see goals #4 and #5)
- What It’s Like to Be a Woman in the Academy (Chronicle)
- “How a Department Took on the Next Frontier in the #MeToo Movement” (Chronicle)
- National Women’s Law Center, “Three Reasons Why Betsy DeVos’s Draft Title IX Rules Would Hurt Survivors”
- Lucy Taylor, “Twenty Things I Wish I’d Known When I Started my PhD” (Nature)