6

Innovative Approaches Being Developed or Implemented

The final session of the first day of the workshop brought in three case studies of professional development for research leaders.¹ In introducing the session, planning committee member Umut Gurkan, Case Western Reserve University, commented on his own experience as a leader of a diverse, interdisciplinary lab who is constantly seeking to be a more effective and ethical leader. Issues he struggles with, he shared, include the generational chasm in terms of different values and priorities as he recruits students; how to manage differences when engaged in international collaborations and team science; how to bring discoveries from the lab to society, which brings up issues of intellectual property (IP), conflicts of interest, and ethics; and how to make moral-based and inclusive leadership more common.

The case studies shared were the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program, presented by James DuBois, Washington University in St. Louis; Labs That Work for Everyone (LTW), presented by C. K. Gunsalus, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; and Strengthening Lab Leadership and Culture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), presented by Lloyd Munjanja, MIT.

After a discussion revolving around the three case studies, the day ended with brief summaries from each session moderator.

___________________

¹ This is not a comprehensive set of case studies outlining professional development for research leaders; for more information, see https://graduate.ucr.edu/research-ethics.

LESSONS FROM THE PROFESSIONALISM AND INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH PROGRAM

DuBois described the Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program, which began with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other external funding but is now tuition-driven. It was designed for researchers who have had a compliance or integrity violation in their lab and whom their institutions choose to retain (DuBois et al., 2016). They might have committed the violation, or it may have been committed by someone in their lab for whom they did not perform adequate oversight. About 150 researchers have gone through the program, in person from 2013 to 2020 and then online because of COVID-19. The online format was found to address privacy concerns and reduce travel costs. He noted the coaches meet monthly as a group, so they gain peer feedback.

The program’s basic premise, DuBois elaborated, is that even good researchers can find themselves in trouble with compliance and can learn to avoid these problems in the future. It is both a reactive and proactive behavioral intervention with a focus on translation to action. It begins with pre-assessments and interviews to learn participants’ attitudes about compliance, decision-making styles, and work habits. The CliftonStrengths assessment (formerly the StrengthsFinder assessment), widely used in Fortune 500 companies, is administered.² Participants complete weekly reading and worksheet assignments. The heart of the program is at least six one-on-one coaching calls and creation of a Professional Development Plan to avoid the problem behaviors in the future.

The program initially received a $500,000 grant to develop an evidence base for the intervention. He, along with colleagues Tristan McIntosh (see Chapter 4) and Alison Antes, conducted systematic reviews, studied 140 cases of wrongdoing, drew on an exemplar study of more than 50 researchers, reviewed experiences of the program clients, and conducted a survey of more than 1,500 researchers on their attitudes and values, decision-making, impact of leadership practices, and culture.

DuBois posed the following question: How do good researchers experience problems related to the responsible conduct of research (RCR)? He pointed to four areas: social expectations and the environment, thought patterns and priorities, decision-making problems, and work habits and relationships. Related to expectations and environment, he commented,

___________________

² For more information, see https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths/en/254033/strengthsfinder.aspx.

“We want researchers to have all the creativity of an artist but all the detail and discipline of an accountant.” They need to be invested in discovery and translation like an entrepreneur, yet also acknowledge that, in most cases, their institution owns all the data and IP they produce. They are expected to be productive but not overly extended. And they are expected to delegate and be egalitarian in the lab but also, as principal investigators (PIs), be responsible for all science, budget, and reporting, regardless of the source.

A root cause analysis of the cases referred to the program showed that the principal issue was a lack of attention. The PIs were overextended, distracted, or perhaps not detail-oriented by nature. They did provide enough oversight. Other causes were uncertainty about rules or not prioritizing compliance. Relationship problems also play a role, not only in the violations themselves but also in how the violations are reported and how they may or may not escalate.

There are many things that a researcher cannot control or can only control in a limited way, DuBois said, such as social expectations, funding, the effectiveness and collegiality of compliance programs, and staff or trainee turnover and behavior. The PI Program recognizes these issues but focuses on what the researcher can control: solving problems when they can, using evidence-based coping strategies to deal with things they cannot change, and identifying and leveraging assets. The program fosters an attitude change to accept compliance responsibilities, decision-making strategies, good leadership and management habits, and good communication and people skills. It has demonstrated significant increases in professional decision-making scores, positive attitudes toward compliance, and use of good leadership and management practices (DuBois et al., 2018).

DuBois stressed the recognition that front-end work, such as development of a lab manual or training, will save time in the long run. It is also important to have a mindset of being effective, rather than trying to win every argument, and being empowered and committed to growth. He noted researchers face decision-making challenges resulting from uncertainty about rules, self-serving biases, and relationship pressures, as well as what is known as HALT (being hungry, angry, lonely, tired). Building on the work of the Michael Mumford lab on ethical decision-making, decision-making strategies are “SMART”: Seek help, Manage emotions, Anticipate consequences, Recognize rules and policies, and Test assumptions.

DuBois noted that leadership and management are the social mechanisms and organizational processes by which people achieve success through collective effort. He differentiated between leadership as influencing peo-

ple and management as overseeing and coordinating work. Key obstacles are inadequate communication, training, and supervision and oversight (Figure 6-1).

To overcome these obstacles, he offered five essential leadership and management practices: (1) hold effective meetings, (2) use standard operating procedures or checklists, (3) ensure effective onboarding and training, (4) provide ongoing guidance and feedback, and (5) create shared accountability for rigorous science and compliance. It is stressful to keep up with funding and multiple priorities, he acknowledged, and it is important for research leaders to intentionally manage their time, energy, well-being, and professional effectiveness. Stress management, self-reflection, collaboration, and communication all can help. Referring to the professional development plan that is required in the program, components often include writing a lab manual, finding a mentor or coach, creating new data storage protocols, and right-sizing the lab or workloads. He said these elements are designed to address the root cause of the problem and add value to a research program.

He concluded with several thoughts about healing. First is to recognize that being investigated is traumatizing, even if a researcher is cleared of intentional wrongdoing or the problem was caused by someone else in their lab. Their integrity or competence has been questioned, and they may face or be threatened with serious consequences. Time is lost in dealing with the violation. He also noted the burden of secretiveness, whether imposed by the institution or self-imposed. The PI Program helps with healing by

providing a safe space, focusing on behavior change and not character, listening, and looking back only to understand and move forward positively.

He also commented on the challenge of large-scale preventive education. Without a specific violation, he asked whether participants would have been motivated to heed the training, likening the experience to lecturing teenagers who do not feel they need the “wisdom” told to them. He also noted the value of relationships that grow from personalized programs rather than more general group programs. Participants’ individual thought patterns are challenged, they receive tailored recommendations, and they propose their specific solutions. While prevention is difficult, he noted an “on-the-road” program and Compass (see Chapter 3) as two offshoots that are providing useful professional development.

BETTER SCIENCE THROUGH LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Gunsalus divided her presentation into three parts: foundations and ideas, an overview of the LTW program, and the importance of assessing cultures and climate, based on her work as director of the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics (NCPRE) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The center has created tools, resources, and programs to advance institutional integrity in research and academic environments.³

The center’s foundational premise is that excellence is more than what work is done; it also encompasses how the work is done, with cornerstones of rigor, reproducibility, and meaningful inclusion and integrity. Today’s complex problems require effective collaboration, as discussed throughout the workshop, she noted. In addition, diversity leads to greater creativity and productivity, especially for new, complicated, or difficult problems. Working intentionally to conduct research ethically and effectively in team science requires attention to everyday behaviors and interactions and to learning about RCR, especially when team members do not know each other or are from a range of backgrounds. Skills needed include the ability to apply different approaches to disagreements and the willingness to have difficult conversations.

A fundamental principle for effective professional development, Gunsalus said, is to meet people where they are. Through interviews, focus groups, and literature reviews, programs are tailored to each audience,

___________________

³ For more information, see https://ncpre.csl.illinois.edu.

from early-career to institutional leaders. The foundation of principled academic leadership at each level is the articulation of values and goals, self-management, creation of and adherence to norms and expectations, leadership and legitimacy, and data and transparency. Participants learn about communication, influence, and persuasion in an academic environment; giving and receiving feedback; dealing with task-oriented and interpersonal conflict; and mentoring and power relationships and responsibilities. Problem-solving groups, using a concept developed by the Annenberg Institute called Critical Friends, have been well received.

She called out two considerations in achieving better science through leadership development. First, research teams reproduce themselves. By the time faculty members have their own lab, they have only experienced a few lab cultures, and thinking of how to intentionally build a culture is a new concept that LTW tries to instill. Participants are also urged to think about the many responsibilities of a lab leader that encompass professional development of students, trainees, and staff; scholarship; and management.

LTW is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), and Gunsalus credited HHMI with recognizing that better science could be accomplished through leadership development. Practical tools are rooted in personal values to build trusting relationships, make effective and ethical decisions, have difficult conversations to solve problems, and grow from mistakes or missteps. LTW programs have two audiences—lab members and lab leaders—as well as a segment that labs undertake together as a unit. It is designed as an intentional long-form program and, to reach a younger generation, is media-based. A 100-minute film, divided into three acts, is presented in 27 episodes and three integration segments that draw on adult learning principles. The scenes are set in lab environments showing nuanced situations.⁴ After sharing a video clip of “A Tale of Two Labs” in which participants are facing conflicts related to lab results, she noted the real-world connection: a 2020 Wellcome Trust survey found that 61 percent of researchers felt pressured by their supervisors to produce a particular result, and 13 percent said they would not feel comfortable approaching their supervisors if they could not reproduce lab results.

Workshop planning committee member Robin Broughton, from HHMI, underscored that this deep interrogation of excellence aligns with HHMI perspectives to understand how people experience science.

___________________

⁴ For more information, see https://labsthatwork.web.illinois.edu/tale-of-two-labs-filmpremiere-gallery/.

She said the stories can elevate common experiences and be used to engage in collective conversations to develop healthier lab work spaces. Gunsalus shared some comments received from the pilot. Among positive comments, a lab member said, “I felt seen,” while a lab leader commented, “I was viewing this as an opportunity for me to become a better PI.” She also acknowledged some conflicting messages in the feedback. For example, one respondent said it was too one-size-fits-all, while another said it offered too many choices. One wanted detailed information, while another requested a “one-pager that tells me what to do.” Some of this is about priorities, she pointed out. People find the time when they think an issue is important to them.

Challenges for LTW include getting buy-in for an intentionally lengthy and in-depth course, consistent investment from leaders, and commitment to constant assessment. Gunsalus shared lessons learned including that skills are needed for what is essentially a human endeavor, time is always an issue, assessment has to matter, and generational issues are real with different worldviews and priorities that play out in labs and departments. Practical tools and approaches are also needed. The training has normalized topics for discussion and improved relationships.

She stressed the importance of assessment to shape actions and policies. In collaboration with Brian Martinson, NCPRE offers surveys of organizational climate, including observable aspects of organizational life, such as polices, practices, procedures, and norms, which reflect organizational culture. This organizational culture reflects the deeper foundation of beliefs and values that are more subterranean and less observable (Wells et al., 2014). Two validated surveys of institutions in the center’s database have been developed to measure perspectives and perceptions about different dimensions of the organization’s environments.⁵ Benchmarking data have been collected for faculty researchers and scientists, graduate students, postdocs, staff researchers, and undergraduate or non-research graduate students. The Behavioral, Emotional, and Social Skills Inventory (BESSI), developed by Brent Roberts and colleagues, is also being used to assess individual skills of leaders. Intervention points can be identified, for example, in situations in which a lab is generally doing well but the leader has specific skills to improve, such as anger management. They are also working on an experimental adjective study, in which participants select five adjectives,

___________________

⁵ For information about the two instruments, see https://ncpre.csl.illinois.edu/institutional-integrity/assessing-research-climates.

both positive and negative. If validated, this tool might be a quick way to give a snapshot of a lab working environment, she suggested. People and structures must work in concert using mission- and values-driven, data-informed actions to foster cultures of excellence, she stressed.

ADVANCING RESEARCH FRONTIERS WITH INCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC LEADERSHIP

Lloyd Munjanja worked with Gunsalus at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and moved to MIT about four months before the workshop. Earlier in his career at a National Science Foundation (NSF)funded center as director of diversity, education, and outreach, he related that he initially concentrated more on recruitment and less on retention. He was often brought in to work one-on-one with faculty or others on such issues as harassment and microaggressions. He started to realize that these transactional engagements are not the best way to change research cultures. If excellent diverse talent is recruited but the culture does not change and the status quo remains, they will soon leave.

Munjanja said he is now focused on how to build capacity for inclusive scientific leadership, which he defined as valuing and integrating diverse scientific team member perspectives and as ensuring fairness in research spaces so that each team member produces to the best of their ability. The claim by some scientists that they only can focus on doing the science does not work because science does not take place in a vacuum. Instead, he pointed to two guiding principles: (1) Science is done by people for people; and (2) taxpayers pay for the conduct of science, hence a need for scientific responsibility and accountability to the funders of research.

In terms of leadership, he quoted Thomas Cech, past president of HHMI, who said, “Although you’ve been hired for your scientific skills and research potential, your eventual success will depend heavily on your ability to guide, lead, and empower others to do to their best work.” Putting numbers to this issue, he cited a survey of 3,200 scientists that found that PIs’ poor lab and personnel management is one of the strongest contributors to an unhealthy lab culture (Van Noorden, 2018). He has observed this trend when conducting exit interviews with talent who leave because of a lab’s culture. He also noted the survey found that nearly half of PIs want training in how to manage people or run a lab but have not received it. He urged funding agencies to think about leadership as they fund research. Munjanja stressed, “It is an institutional responsibility to cultivate culturally

responsible scientific leaders.” In many situations, technical experts are hired, and millions invested in their start-up packages, yet they have little to no formal leadership skills and receive no additional training. In addition, a critical mass of inclusive scientific leaders is needed to engage with the interconnected world, increase public confidence in higher education, decrease inequities, bridge the generational schism, and reduce social and political polarization.

Munjanja presented a case study from his work at University of Illinois to engage in culturally responsive scientific leadership and management, from early-career researchers to institutional leaders. Assessment of needs through regular climate studies; focus groups, exit interviews, and onboarding interviews; and assessment of levels of readiness were all useful. He began with the Department of Chemistry. When students entered the program, he learned what skills they had and how could they be trained to develop the skills they did not have. An initial finding was that the graduate students felt they had no power to change the system (to which Munjanja responded that no one at any level in academia thinks they have power). He helped students develop, recognize, and act on the power they did have. A program was developed for first-year graduate students, followed by a program for third-year students who are further along in their path. The climate studies also showed a need for culturally inclusive mentoring skills for postdocs, including international postdocs/students, and for developing the critical leadership and management skills for junior faculty. Every initiative was tailored to its level, as he showed with an example for the more senior graduate students that covered such topics as understanding their transferable skills, dealing with conflict, leading up and down, and building mental health and resilience. The climate studies were also used to tailor a curriculum for deans, directors, and department chairs with no previous leadership or management expertise.

Now at MIT, his work involves many interdisciplinary and crossdisciplinary labs, centers, and initiatives to build diversity in the research focus and workforce. He is working with lab directors, staff and administrators, and postdocs and research scientists. To measure culture and climate, he collaborates with organizational and social scientists. Tools include the MIT Pulse Survey, MIT Quality of Life Survey, and Realtalk@MIT, a community-based space that helps people with different views communicate.

Developing culturally responsive scientific leaders can create healthy climates that enable the recruiting and retaining of diverse talent that performs at their best and gives a competitive edge in research and fund-

ing, which he noted the research of Maritza Salazar Campo, University of California, Irvine (see Chapter 5), has helped show.

DISCUSSION

Panel Discussion

When asked about measurement of the PI Program, DuBois said it was difficult to follow up with individuals because institutions do not share data about what they consider a human resources matter. He did note improved decision-making strategies, attitudes toward compliance, and self-reporting about work habits. The size of the participants’ labs vary, from two to 70 direct reports. He also noted several cases have involved conflicts of interest and foreign influence.

Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida, asked about the feasibility of including leadership skills in lifetime achievement and other major awards. Munjanja agreed with the need to reconsider what is important to recognize—scientific output along with the culture in which the science was produced. He described a pilot awards program in which nominations needed to be accompanied by letters from past mentees (anonymized). At MIT, mentoring is becoming part of the tenure process, and at the University of Illinois, diversity and inclusion are part of the promotion and tenure process, he said. Awards and incentives can change the narrative, he agreed, adding that funding agencies also have the power to change priorities.

Susan Wolf, University of Minnesota, raised the challenges of bringing in international postdocs and faculty. There must be a balance between how institutions and lab leaders balance respect for differences with the reality that the university has non-negotiable obligations related to the ethical conduct of research, she commented. Lab leaders must build cohesive programs and cultures across people with many disparate experiences. Perhaps a “laboratory culture” is in fact many cultures, she posed. Gunsalus responded that labs have a distinct culture as a unit with an overall tone but also have sub-cultures within them that can be based on age, research project, or affinity. To involve international researchers, Munjanja suggested that fellowships and leadership cohorts can help. As an example, a program at Illinois on inclusive pedagogy that involved U.S. and international participants had incredible dialogue and brought the participants to a common understanding.

Gurkan asked about whether to recruit people who hold the same values to a lab. Munjanja said, in his view, this is terrible for research. Research questions are enhanced when you have people from diverse backgrounds who have different values, ways of thinking, and motivation factors for why they are doing research. The challenge for the lab leader is channeling all of the energy into research, hence the need for leadership and management training for lab leaders. Gunsalus added that with respect to a core value of rigorous work with integrity, the concept that all must fit a certain mold can be damaging. A participant emphasized that as a PI, she sets the culture for her lab. When people join, she makes it clear that people must get along, be proactive in supporting each other, and have a plan for their next steps. Broughton underscored the importance of recognizing and respecting the different disciplines and backgrounds of individuals entering the lab. Michael O’Rourke, Michigan State University, commented that each person is part of many cultures at one time. Individuals are usually committed to doing the right thing, but their actions occur in the context of many other pressures. Gunsalus commented that at the end of the day, any action can be rationalized. When the LTW program was piloted with first-year graduate students, one comment was about the need to change the negative behaviors of professors. This may be so, she said, and students still need tools while also working toward systemic changes. Geeta Swamy, Duke University, commented that terms such as values, priorities, and culture are used interchangeably, but there are differences. As a clinical researcher, she said a lot of requirements simply must be established even if they are not part of “changing hearts and minds.”

Day 1 Concluding Discussion

To close the day, Masucci asked the four session moderators to share their takeaways from their sessions. Reflecting on the first session (Chapter 2), Wolf noted the group heard from top scientific leaders. They recounted learning to be leaders “by doing,” but Michael Witherell, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, commented on the subsequent changes he has incorporated in his leadership approach over time. Wolf also commented on overlapping challenges between team effectiveness and the team’s ethics and RCR. The question is the next step the National Academies should take to support the development of scientific leaders who prioritize ethics and RCR in the work of their teams. Wolf underscored that it was heartening to hear the panelists’ resounding support for the National Academies to address these issues.

Robin Broughton, HHMI, noted the discussants in the session about gaps and approaches (Chapter 3) also saw the value of the National Academies in filling the gaps. She pointed out that Michael O’Rourke’s presentation on “what is not being said” related to collaborative, crossdisciplinary research and the need for communications and tools. She also highlighted Tristan McIntosh’s message about the value of identifying best practices and leading others. Finally, Catherine Lyall, University of Edinburgh, shared many interesting resources but also recognized the paradox in which interdisciplinary research is stated as a valued goal but not rewarded and recognized, especially for early-career researchers.

Summarizing the session on federal funders (Chapter 4), Lyric Jorgenson, NIH, acknowledged that funding agencies have powerful roles to provide both carrots and sticks, but there is a wider ecosystem responsible for sustainable culture change. She also noted the point raised about differences across generations in this and other sessions. What was successful in the past may not work now and in the future, and it is important to change organizational culture, she commented. Funders like NIH and NSF can help but cannot not do it all. The National Academies can play a role in bringing people to the table to foster culture change, she suggested.

Fiore reflected on the literature about teams, for example, Brian Uzzi’s discussion of mixed-gender teams and the interventions described by Maritza Salazar Campo (Chapter 5). He said there is much more to learn from the study of leadership as it relates to scientific teams, and he called for more attention to findings from the social and organizational sciences. He cautioned about conflating leadership and management. He also noted that measurement was not addressed and urged more attention to it. To be effective, it is important to identify the concepts of interest to measure and then to develop metrics.

Gurkan reflected on a comment from a participant about the many acronyms and terms that are unfamiliar to some, both for reporting on the workshop but also in efforts going forward. From the case studies, he highlighted what he saw as key messages (see above). First, he said, is to intentionally recognize the culture of a lab as set by the PI. Core values expressed in vision and mission statements must be clearly communicated to existing and future team members. He also noted the presentations showed that better science is possible through leadership development, caring about effectiveness, and ethics. Drawing from the presentations, he said the culture of excellence, including inclusion and integrity, must be clearly defined in the context of scientific leadership.

The day’s discussions covered important observations regarding incentives, blind spots, and rationalizations that contribute to unethical behavior. Training programs, policies, and regulations are often prescribed as the appropriate treatment for these root problems. As several speakers pointed out, however, it is not clear how training alone can address these challenges. The potential efficacy of such measures prompts a reevaluation of current practices to address systemic incentives for ethical conduct.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.