Supervisor-student relations: examining the spectrum of conflicts of interest in bioscience laboratories

The Use of a Formative Pedagogy Lens to Enhance and Maintain Virtual Supervisory Relationships: Appreciative Inquiry and Critical Review

BACKGROUND

Virtual supervisory relationships provide an infrastructure for flexible learning, global accessibility, and outreach, connecting individuals worldwide. The surge in web-based educational activities in recent years provides an opportunity to understand the attributes of an effective supervisor-student or mentor-student relationship.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the published literature (through a critical review) with our collective experiences (using small-scale appreciative inquiry [AI]) in an effort to structure and identify the dilemmas and opportunities for virtual supervisory and mentoring relationships, both in terms of stakeholder attributes and skills as well as providing instructional recommendations to enhance virtual learning.

METHODS

A critical review of the literature was conducted followed by an AI of reflections by the authors. The AI questions were derived from the 4D AI framework.

RESULTS

Despite the multitude of differences between face-to-face and web-based supervision and mentoring, four key dilemmas seem to influence the experiences of stakeholders involved in virtual learning: informal discourses and approachability of mentors; effective virtual communication strategies; authenticity, trust, and work ethics; and sense of self and cultural considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual mentorship or supervision can be as equally rewarding as an in-person relationship. However, its successful implementation requires active acknowledgment of learners' needs and careful consideration to develop effective and mutually beneficial student-educator relationships.

A Procedure for Managing Conflict of Interest When Forming Thesis Juries

Conflicts of interest in thesis juries, when not identified and appropriately managed, can lead to an uncritical and unfair evaluations that can then undermine trust in the process and threaten academic credibility and institutional reputation. This Commentary presents and justifies the choices made in developing a practical procedure to identify and manage conflicts of interest in the formation of Masters and PhD juries in the School of Public Health (ÉSPUM) at the University of Montreal.

[Conflict of interest in the training and practices of nutritionists: regulation is necessary]

Transnational "Big Food" companies use advertising strategies to influence nutritionists, professors and students of nutrition. There are, however, conflicts of interest in this relationship. The scope of this study is to conduct a narrative review on the influence of the food industry in training in nutrition. It was revealed that industries seek to induce the recommendation, the prescription and the consumption of products by students and nutritionists through strategies such as sponsorship of scientific meetings, travel funding and the distribution of promotional gifts. However, acceptance of these gifts can generate a moral obligation to reciprocate, thereby jeopardizing the judgment of information and decision on professional conduct. At the University, the advertising occurs mainly through sponsorship of events and research funding, donation of materials and structures and publicity in the classroom. Regulating the conduct of the private sector in the academic arena is essential and, in this perspective, the implementation of regulatory measures to limit the inclusion of the food industry in undergraduate courses in nutrition is recommended to ensure that nutritionists will be better prepared to perform their tasks in and ethical and unbiased manner.

Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community

A survey on credit issues and related "responsible conduct of research" (RCR) behaviors was conducted with academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the U.S. Six hundred faculty members responded. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to projects the results of which had been published, including when they themselves were students. Thirty percent of these individuals discussed this lack of credit with the "offending" individual, and as a consequence of those discussions, a small percentage of individuals were provided either co-authorship or an acknowledgment. The majority who did not enter into a discussion with the "offending" individual reported two primary reasons for not doing so: that they "could not imagine any good coming from such a conversation" and "I was afraid of being in a compromised situation." A discussion of relationship asymmetry in the academic setting is provided. Confronting one's colleague regarding credit is compared with whistleblowing, and the possible consequences of blacklisting are discussed. A number of recommendations for minimizing authorship disputes are provided.

Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies

While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate authorship.

Credit and authorship practices: educational and environmental influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own "policy" toward giving credit; doing what "seems to be the right thing" was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.

Influences on authorship issues: an evaluation of giving credit

A survey on authorship issues was conducted with academic chemists in Ph.D.-granting institutions in the United States. Six hundred faculty members responded. The respondents reported a wide range in their attitudes and behavior regarding giving credit in a publication. The various guidelines for authorship are independent of academic background factors such as the relationship between the senior author and the contributor-potential author. However, the survey data reveal significant context-dependency by the respondents. Many respondents would give more credit to their own student than to another professor's student for the exact same contribution to a research project. The survey data further shows that the faculty who received their Ph.D. in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s are the most likely to provide authorship, while those who received their Ph.D. in the 1990s and 2000s would most likely give either no credit or acknowledgements.

Influences on authorship issues: an evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit

A survey on credit issues was conducted of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Six-hundred faculty members responded representing 16% of the survey recipients. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to published projects. Neither the number of years after receiving their Ph.D., their fields of expertise, their total number of publications, nor their total number of single-author publications showed any significant relationship with the perception of not receiving appropriate credit. Twenty percent of the respondents had discovered that they were an author of a paper, after that paper had been submitted to a journal. Forty-nine percent reported that they had asked to have their name deleted as an author. Relationships between these perceptions and academic background factors were examined. For example, respondents who had asked to be removed from authorship were more likely to give authorship or an acknowledgement to others and were also more likely to have had an authorship problem with others, both of these factors being related to longevity as a publishing scientist.