» Research Advisor’s Checklist

The relationship between the research advisor and advisee has many facets and expectations. While some of the expectations are explicit, many are implicit. We are fortunate that the APS has outstanding resources available for mentoring and being mentored, which make these expectations more transparent (e.g., see below for additional resources). While I was a member of the Career Opportunities in Physiology Committee it became apparent that a concise checklist – an abbreviated “how to” list – would also be helpful. That concept prompted this Advisor’s Checklist shown in Table 1.

Although I have created the checklist somewhat more through the eyes of the laboratory research advisor, the advisee should also find it very useful to gain an understanding of expectations that many mentors have and to facilitate their own training to become an advisor, whether in academia or the private sector.

The overall organization of the checklist is based on ACTION items and whether these actions were completed, i.e., whether the goals were ACHIEVED. Although the process seems a binary Yes or No, cut-and-dried decision, the process is, in many cases, continuous. See the “Ongoing” status in the right column of the checklist labeled “ACHIEVED?”. In many cases, however, one can and should establish a DEADLINE for achieving the actions.

The checklist is also organized by the phase of the advisee’s training. The phase “Before the advisee is in the class or laboratory, general principles” in many ways is a philosophy of behavior and will involve some soul-searching and up-front decisions about whether this is what the advisor sees as important. In essence, the advisor should reflect on what kind of advisor / mentor one wants to be (1). These ACTIONS more specifically define the character of the advisor. ACTIONS for the advisor then go through early (and/or short-term) projects, mid through later projects, the thesis, postdoctoral fellowship, and after the training. Some of the items are obvious, so I will not go into detail about each. Instead, I will highlight some critical items (in bold italics) to stay within the scope of this brief article. 

Table 1. Research Advisor's Checklist

References

1. Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Making The Right Moves: A Practical Guide to Scientific Management for Postdocs and New Faculty. Research Triangle Park: Burroughs Wellcome Fund and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 2006. Focus specifically on chapter 5. 
2. Frank M. We must do better! Physiologist 54: 43-45, 2011. 
3. Hendricks G and Ludeman K. The Corporate Mystic. New York: Bantam Books, 1996. 
4. Kotter JP. Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.

Comments:

The "Research Advisor's Checklist" offered by Dr. Sturek is an excellent resource for anyone who manages or is part of a laboratory group. I wish I had seen it earlier, as I often find myself dealing with situations as they are happening and sometimes when it is too late (or almost so) to fix the problem. Having the benefit of foresight and clear approaches and expectations will lead to more laboratory and personal productivity and happiness.

I like that this checklist is action- and behavior-based, and includes expectations the advisor has for themself regarding advisee success and role. I also like that there are spaces for deadline-based activities as well as things that should or could be ongoing. Importantly, different sections are devoted to different timeframes within an advisee's career and different project lengths. Summer undergraduate research projects have more deadlines and less time for relationship-building than thesis or dissertation projects, but are also less likely to go off track. Thus better outcomes are likely to be achieved if the expectations of both advisor and advisee reflect the ultimate goal and are communicated early and often.

One suggestion I would make is that the concept of "serving as a role model" for the advisor should also be ongoing. The longer a trainee is with me, the more they begin to understand the various aspects of my job and the more they witness how I deal (sometimes not very well) with different situations. They also begin to see, over time, how I engage new and established resources, troubleshoot, ponder and wonder, organize my thoughts and projects, etc. I have no illusion that I'm a perfect role model, but with the added honesty and mutual respect criteria suggested by Dr. Sturek, I strive to be a useful one.
Kristin Gosselink
University of Texas, El Paso

Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestion. I agree entirely that “serving as a role model” is ongoing and subject to continuous improvement. If we mentors wake up every day and ask ourselves what are we doing today to be a role model, then we’ll be on the right track.
Mike Sturek

I found this to be a very timely and helpful article as we approach the start of a new semester, with new incoming students. I really like the advice to ask the potential trainee about what project they would like to do a great idea as it forces the trainee to think about why they are expressing an interest in the lab, and to better focus their attention even at an early stage during rotations. I have also learned from experience that the trainees cannot read your mind and you have to be clear about what you expect – my staff/senior students inform any newcomers to my lab that when I say “…when you get a chance/have time” I basically really mean I need it immediately!

I personally find that setting deadlines is the way to go. In fact, my more senior graduate students often ask me to set them deadlines so as to keep them on track. However, in speaking with other faculty members, I have often been questioned about what to do when the student doesn’t meet the deadlines. Some faculty believe that it is not their job to ‘enforce’ the deadlines since part of the student training is them making a commitment and sticking to it. What is the author’s advice for these kind of situations?
Caroline B. Appleyard 
Ponce School of Medicine

Response

To Comment: I’m glad that your students have been able to translate your “…when you get a chance/have time” deadline. I don’t even try the deadline “as soon as possible” anymore, because that means the request is likely to end up farther down in their pile of “to do” items. Some appreciate my humor when I say I need something by “11:59 p.m. on Monday 6/13/2011”, as we need to be specific to be fair.

Question: How do we “enforce” deadlines?
Answer: This is the tough part and is a theme of these initial comments on the article. (See Dr. Grippo’s question, also.) A couple of “enforcers” are helpful. First, if the student is taking research for academic credit, then the grade for completion of a project (e.g. data collection, data analysis, report, etc.) can be dependent on successful completion of the project at the mutually agreed deadline. We expect that students will take exams on time, so it is reasonable to expect that they complete a defined project on time. It is very important, however, that the project is defined, not open-ended. I have a terrible habit of underestimating the time for completion of almost any project, so I keep that in mind when establishing these deadlines and consideration of consequences of not meeting deadlines. A second “enforcer” is the reminder to the trainee that “excellent” trainees accomplish projects within mutually agreed upon deadlines (or provide very compelling reasons for being late for a deadline), while “below average” trainees fail to meet deadlines. Tell the trainee explicitly that these performance metrics will be part of their permanent record.
Mike Sturek

Questions:

Thank you for this excellent resource! This is a very helpful article, especially for new faculty who are attempting to manage several new tasks including establishing one's own research program while also training students and postdocs. Can you comment on your strategy for setting deadlines for students, such as for data collection and writing drafts of documents, in addition to formal deadline set by the department or institution? Have you found it useful to provide the student with what you believe is a realistic deadline, or alternatively tell the student to determine his/her own deadlines for particular tasks? Additionally, what strategies have you used for enforcing the deadlines (or perhaps altering them if needed)?
Angela J. Grippo
Northern Illinois University

Response

Thanks very much for your comments and questions. I will break them down individually.

Question 1: Can you comment on your strategy for setting deadlines for students, such as for data collection and writing drafts of documents, in addition to formal deadline set by the department or institution?

Answer 1: Beyond department and institution deadlines for thesis documents the deadlines for particular tasks are dependent on the complexity of the task. Deadlines for manuscripts are a great example. If the manuscript is first being submitted as an abstract at a scientific meeting, then the submission deadline is imposed on the advisor and student. After the abstract, I find it very helpful to set interim deadlines for sections of the manuscript. First, it’s good to work together to compose a very rough outline of the manuscript, which should only require about 30 minutes of concerted effort. Second, the student can then expand on the outline by providing a very brief (several sentences) background and hypotheses / aims, title and authors, and the results with rough figures and tables and very brief captions. This should require only a few hours of work, but given other commitments for ongoing class and laboratory work, one might project a 1-2 week completion time. The rough summary and outline form provides the framework of the message of the manuscript without getting bogged down in proper sentence structure and other details. (I will stay away from more detailed description of writing manuscripts, which is covered very well in APS workshops and is on the website.) The separate, detailed sections of the manuscript can then be accomplished in separate deadlines.

Question 2: Have you found it useful to provide the student with what you believe is a realistic deadline, or alternatively tell the student to determine his/her own deadlines for particular tasks?

Answer 2: The best deadlines are those set by the student with some advice from the mentor. S/he buys into the deadline. Similar to the Research Advisor’s Checklist, one can set up a checklist with the “Action, Deadline, Achieved” columns.

Question 3: Additionally, what strategies have you used for enforcing the deadlines (or perhaps altering them if needed)?

Answer 3: This is the tough part. If the student is taking research for academic credit, then the grade for completion of the manuscript can be dependent on successful completion of the manuscript (other research activity) at the mutually agreed deadline. I like to show the commitment of the advisor by establishing deadlines by which I will return revisions of the manuscript. We often put advisor and mentee deadlines in the same document. Altering deadlines is necessary sometimes, so statement of the reasons for the altered deadlines clearly in the checklist is very helpful. If deadlines are altered several times, then there is cause for concern and re-evaluation.
Mike Sturek

In speaking about publications, you did not mention the advisor’s responsibilities. A low number of publications can be the single most important thing for a trainee when trying to obtain a grant or faculty position. Does the advisor have a responsibility to make sure the trainee gets a certain number of publications during their time? Should they find ways for the trainee to be involved in collaborations/review articles to increase a deficit in manuscript number? Does the advisor have a responsibility to make sure that authorship for the trainee is protected even when they have left the institution?
Sarah Lindsey
Wake Forest Baptist Health

Response

Question 1: Does the advisor have a responsibility to make sure the trainee gets a certain number of publications during their time?

Answer 1: Yes, I agree that the advisor has a large responsibility for facilitating the trainee’s publication output. It is difficult to set an exact number of publications required because that will depend on the nature of the work (e.g. in vitro, acute experiments vs. in vivo, chronic animal or human studies) and the journal quality and format. I’ve found that excellent to outstanding graduate students should be a coauthor on 1 or 2 manuscripts per year overall. Quality postdoctoral fellows will publish several per year. An overall plan of the content of a manuscript and a timeline will facilitate, but not guarantee, expedient publication. The timeline should include intermediate deadlines, such as for a rough outline of the manuscript, then introduction, etc. (See my responses to Dr. Grippo’s question on manuscripts.) A huge responsibility of the mentor is quick turnaround of manuscript revisions. (I have both failed miserably and succeeded marvelously in this!) Timely review shows the commitment of the advisor by establishing deadlines by which the advisor will return revisions of the manuscript.

Question 2: Should they find ways for the trainee to be involved in collaborations/review articles to increase a deficit in manuscript number?

Answer 2: Yes. The collaborations are essential because science today is increasingly “team science”. The numbers of publications I cited above include coauthored, not just first authored, publications. Review articles are certainly a good idea, but original articles take priority.

Question 3: Does the advisor have a responsibility to make sure that authorship for the trainee is protected even when they have left the institution?

Answer 3: Yes, authorship should be protected, but to a limited extent, in my opinion. Numerous mentors have the experience of a trainee leaving the laboratory with the best intentions of writing that manuscript. The priority of their new position, however, almost always either grossly delays or completely blocks completion of the manuscript. This is not good for the trainee or the advisor. I have been fortunate to have trainees who have recognized the importance of publication and we have included the following requirement in our criteria for authorship:
The coworker must maintain regular contact with the primary author and principal investigator, continuing work from submission of the manuscript through final publication; primary (first) authorship of any manuscript will be guaranteed only if the manuscript is submitted to a journal before the coworker departs from the lab.

Clearly, there is protection for conscientious coworkers who continue work on the manuscript. If a coauthor fails to meet reasonable deadlines for review of the manuscript, etc., then they can be excluded from authorship. We state these requirements up front and almost everyone is on the same page and this approach works well.
Mike Sturek

This article is a very well thought out and helpful example of how to form successful mentor-mentee relationships during all levels of the process and is a great addition to the already established mentoring resources provided by the APS. One question I have is whether you encourage your trainees to gain experience in basic laboratory management processes (i.e. writing protocols, preparing and managing budgets) or do you feel that this is better to "learn as you go" once the trainee begins to become an independent investigator?
Amy C. Arnold
Vanderbilt University

Response 

Yes, it is very important that the trainee gets some experience in basic laboratory management. I will reinforce from my article that writing protocols (experimental methods) is crucial to the overall understanding of running uniform, repeatable methods in the lab and protecting against “procedural drift”. The trainee must also have an appreciation for the budget, so I’ve on occasion posted a monthly total of the funds available for supplies and then required everyone to use this like a “checkbook” and subtract expenditures. They are amazed at how quickly the funds vanish.
Mike Sturek