Comments
Questions
Dual Science Couples and Being a New Faculty Member
Angela J. Grippo
Northern Illinois University
Angela Grippo’s research is focused on interactions among stress, emotion, and the cardiovascular system. She uses animal models and integrative research methods to investigate mechanisms underlying the bidirectional link between mood disorders and cardiovascular disease. She teaches courses in biological psychology as well as psychopharmacology.
Grippo received a B.S. in psychology from Drake University, and a M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology (behavioral neuroscience) from the University of Iowa. She then completed two postdoctoral fellowships, at Loyola University Medical Center and at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Currently she is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Northern Illinois University, where she supervises both graduate and undergraduate students and has funding from the National Institute of Mental Health.
I am employed at a large university whose mission includes a strong value on research, as well as teaching of graduate and undergraduate students. I am part of a dual-career couple. My husband and I met during graduate school, and we have been together for 11 years (married for 6½ years). We do not yet have children. Currently, my husband and I work in the same department; he began his position 3 years before I was hired into my current position. As a dual-career couple, we have encountered challenges and have learned several important lessons. Below are some lessons I have learned throughout the process of looking for jobs in academia and working at a research- and teaching-focused institution.
Lesson 1 – Decisions are best made together
This lesson might sound obvious, as all relationships involve compromises and sacrifices. However, being a dual-career couple comes with inherent challenges, especially when one person is considering a particular opportunity to advance his or her career. I have found that the best way to approach these opportunities is to discuss all of the pros and cons together and consider how the decision will affect not only both of your careers, but also your relationship in general.
Lesson 2 – The academic world is a small world
A difficult challenge for dual-career couples looking for jobs is determining when to discuss with potential employers the fact that they have a spouse in academia. I don’t think there is an easy solution to this challenge, and each situation may need to be assessed on an individual basis. However, a consistent theme I learned through applying for jobs is that there are very few degrees of separation among academics. Oftentimes someone who I thought was a stranger actually knew someone who knew one of us, or someone who had trained one of us, and so forth. The good news is that one can use this information to his/her advantage while searching for jobs. As an example, when my husband or I applied for a job in a particular city, we (or sometimes one of our mentors) contacted individuals who were located nearby or otherwise had an association with the institution, explained our situation, included our CVs, and asked if they knew of any potential opportunities that might be relevant to our situation. Although this approach might not feel appropriate for everyone, we found this to be a more effective way to learn about potential job opportunities than waiting for “the right time” to announce that one of us had a spouse during the job negotiation process.
Lesson 3 – Having one’s own identity is an asset
Given that my husband and I work in the same department, there are several opportunities for us to interact on a daily basis. When I accepted my current position, we decided together that we would function independently at work – and we would make a concerted effort to each keep our own identities. For example, we do not regularly sit next to each other at meetings, eat lunch together, or socialize in each other’s offices. Additionally, although we have published one article together prior to working at the same institution, we decided that it would be most appropriate if we did not collaborate on projects together while each of us is working toward achieving tenure. Given that a conflict of interest can involve not only an actual conflict but also a perceived conflict, we find that keeping clear individual identities conveys a level of appropriate professionalism to our students, colleagues, and administrators.
Lesson 4 – A teamwork-focused lab is a happy lab
My husband and I are a team at home, and my laboratory is a team at work. I have learned in my first few years as an Assistant Professor that the members of my laboratory are productive and focused because we work together as a team. I strive for a laboratory culture that includes clear goals for conducting research, transparency about the responsibilities of the lab members, and a team-oriented approach where more advanced lab members can serve as unofficial mentors to junior lab members. Individual lab members may have specific priorities in terms of the research projects that are being carried out (e.g., a graduate student working on a Master’s project, a postdoc working on an independently designed series of studies); however, these projects often include additional researchers participating at various levels. I see several benefits to this approach, the first and foremost being that the members of my lab know they have a social support network in place for when someone has a question or needs assistance. Another benefit is that the members of my lab know that they do not have to “compete” for time, resources, or my attention and instead can focus their efforts on getting things done. Of course, inherent in this approach is ensuring that all members of a project know what is required to earn credit (e.g., authorship on an article or abstract) and keeping track of individual effort so that appropriate credit can be given to all members who have earned it.
Lesson 5 – Individual lab members need individual mentoring styles
While I attempt to keep consistency in my lab in certain contexts (such as a teamwork-oriented culture and a systematic approach to giving authorship), I also strive to consider the individual needs of my lab members. For instance, currently in my laboratory there is one postdoctoral fellow, two graduate students (one advanced student and one who is new this year), and several undergraduate volunteers with various goals of applying to graduate school or entering the job market. I ask many of my students to complete a SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) within the first month of entering my lab, which encourages the individual to self-reflect on his/her abilities and goals. (Incidentally, I first learned about the concept of a SWOT Analysis from the APS, which uses them regularly for long-term strategic planning and periodic evaluation of committees). I have adapted APS’s SWOT Analysis to determine an individualized mentoring plan for each member of my laboratory. In addition, I ask each person to evaluate him/herself at the end of each academic term in the context of research productivity and career progress (reflecting back on the initial SWOT Analysis and the previous term). I have found that this strategy is working thus far to help me tailor my mentoring style to each individual’s strengths, weaknesses, motivations, and goals.
Most important lesson
I think the most important lesson I have learned by being part of a dual-career couple is that although it has its challenges, it is also fun! Flexibility and an open mind are qualities that I have tried to capitalize on throughout my career. Finally, I feel that keeping everything in perspective – including work, life, and relationships – is a good strategy when it comes to making tough decisions.
Comments
Thanks for this interesting article, with many excellent points made. In addition, I think that any “dual-career” couple (science or otherwise) must discuss boundaries of work versus home life – this becomes particularly important once kids are involved. There will always be deadlines, and more work that can be done, but the extent that this impacts family life has to be considered. With small children this often means making compromises and adjusting the typical working hours (e.g., working at home early in the morning or after the kids are in bed). One of the advantages to a career in science is the flexibility and we should take advantage of this (plus find really good reliable child-care).
With regard to being a new faculty member, do not assume that all your lab members know what you are thinking. Clearly state your expectations up-front so that there are no misunderstandings with regard to work needing to be done, whose responsibility it is, and the due date. I have learned over time that the normal response to a request to give me something “as soon as you can” doesn’t usually satisfy my actual expectation (which tends to be immediately!). I would also like to know if Dr. Grippo has any recommendations for ensuring smooth relationships between technical staff and students, whose goals and expectations may often be quite different?
Caroline B. Appleyard, Ph.D.
Ponce School of Medicine
Response:
When I think about encouraging smooth interactions among lab members with different goals and motivations, I often find myself borrowing strategies from the business sector (I think this is likely based on observing some of my family members run small businesses in the past). In my experience, a few strategies for encouraging smooth personnel interactions include: (a) being accessible and open-minded as the "boss,"
(b) encouraging feedback from those who are working for or with me, and
(c) letting people know that their contributions are valued, even though everyone's contributions may be different.
Angela Grippo
While I have never been part of a pair searching for dual career hires, I have served as a member or Chair of several search committees. I am therefore fairly sensitive to the timing of acknowledging the presence and needs of the partner. It seems to me that mentioning this issue too early means you run the risk of having "an issue" associated with your application from the early stages. In my experience, however, it is even more challenging if the second partner is not brought into the conversation prior to offers and negotiations. If the hiring Department doesn't know a second person is a factor until the 11th hour, it limits their ability to work to make the dual hire happen.
I completely agree with Dr. Grippo's comments that each lab member needs individualized mentoring. This is a constant challenge for me, as some students need substantial prodding while others feel dejected and attacked as a result of my prodding. For me, spending equal time with each student and demonstrating that the science is key but that I also care about their personal and professional development opens the door for some of the constructive criticism or redirection that is often part of the program. My students seems to feel validated by having ownership of their research; they also learn that, with ownership, comes responsibility - to science, to themselves, to me and to the other members of our team. I plan to implement a similar type of SWOT analysis that Dr. Grippo discusses, in order to more effectively mentor my personnel.
Kristin Gosselink
University of Texas at El Paso
Questions
This is a great article and includes many great ideas that I would like to try, even though I’m not part of a dual-career couple. I’m particularly intrigued with your team-oriented approach and wonder if this always works or if some trainees do not do well in this type of environment. I especially liked your “transparency about the responsibilities of the lab members”; I feel that many labs do not take the time to state the obvious (i.e. who washes the dishes, deals with trash, responsibilities of students vs. techs, etc) and these small things can lead to huge arguments. Finally, I am wondering if you could give more info on completing a SWOT analysis for those of us who would like to use this in our own labs.
Sarah Hoffmann Lindsey, Ph.D.
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Response:
Thanks for your questions. Regarding a team-oriented approach, the short answer to you question is that I would like the members of my laboratory to feel that they have "ownership" over particular tasks and projects; but also to keep in mind that we are working together to (hopefully) answer some important scientific questions. Hence, I strive to balance my laboratory so that students feel each individual's input on tasks (or ideas) is valued, but ultimately that they are part of a team working toward common goals. Thus far I believe this approach has been successful for me, partly because I remind people of our common goals as well as individual responsibilities, and I try to be as clear as possible about the potential rewards. Therefore, more advanced lab members (e.g., postdoc, graduate student) may take the lead on particular projects, but others in the lab (e.g., undergraduate students) can feel like part of the team as well.
Regarding the SWOT Analysis, I ask graduate students and postdocs to complete this after they are settled into the new position. I give the person a form (which I have borrowed from APS) that asks 4 questions: (1) What do you see as your major strengths? (2) What do you see as your major weaknesses? (3) What do you see as the major opportunities that you may encounter over the next 1-5 years? (4) What do you see as the major threats that may hinder your progress over the next 1-5 years? We talk briefly about what the student has written. At the end of each term, I give the student his/her copy of the completed SWOT Analysis and ask him/her to do some additional self-reflection exercises (for instance, questions about what kind of progress the person made, what were the shortfalls, what might be changed going forward...). I feel that these exercises are a win-win situation, because they help me determine what kind of mentoring approach might work best for each person, and they can encourage the student to take an active role in his/her career development.
Angela Grippo