It is properly clear to the staff that I practiced very open participatory management and am open to ideas and even criticisms (not toxic ones of course). As a scientist, the possibility of being at fault is very much entertained though this should not be construed as self-admission of guilt or weakness. One employs self-criticisms to help improve oneself. Having said so, one would like to see others do the same. In this post, I would like to tell three stories of recent events that made me self-reflect. I will not mention names but only retelling them for us to learn.
Story 1: Recently one hears about Cambridge International University from a politician. Don't bother looking up this university as the website has been hacked. I have no wish to comment further on the viralled news of the politician (one can look up many news items on this). But it made me remember an incident I had with an ex-Adelaidean friend. When we corresponded then, I told my friend that I am studying Part III in University of Cambridge. The person then responded, asking 'Which Cambridge am I in?' perhaps doubting my capability to be even a Cambridge student. I did not respond back and kept quiet (for those doubting, please look at this post). To me, it is not that important that I had been a Cambridge student, but more importantly is how one acts thereafter. Sometimes one finds people boasting about their prestigious university background but does not quite live up to its prestigious names. This leads me to a recent discussion about what are the traits of our university students; their employability and what-nots. The natural discussion thereafter was the traits of our university professors. While the discussion was on a particular skill, I am actually more concerned with the technical knowledge that a professor should have - particularly when interacting with professors in other parts of the world within the same area. Failure to be seen to profess the technical knowledge may tarnish the university's professorial image. One should live up to the expectations of the title of professor, much like one has to live up the expectations of being a Cambridge student (when one claimed so). Indeed, it is a heavy responsibility to have the professor title, something I always remind myself.
Story 2: This is an independent story and not to be misconstrued with the story above. Recently I was under fire by a professor for failing to defend the institute during the restructuring plans and later to defend the unique fields of study that we offered. One day, the professor met with the institute's administrative officer (and also others but not me) and complained about the institute's restructuring that we are asked to do. The officer tried to explain that the decision was the university's wish but the professor still has the opinion that we have not really done our best to defend the institute, The professor goes on to threaten that research grants under the professor's name at the institute will be pulled out. In the first place, the grant is public money (not personal money) entrusted to the professor for carrying out research at the institute but I leave this to the wisdom of our Research Management Centre if the person decides to do so. We then had a long break for the Chinese New Year and I thought everyone has cooled down and that we can resume our usual duties without too much headache. Unfortunately, the professor came again to complain about the same thing to another officer with more stories to tell. I see this as a personal attack on me and the actions seem to be like a smear campaign. The professor threatened again to pull out the grants and now also mentioned withdrawing the students as well. For me using threats is simply unprofessional and mafia-like. My immediate feelings is that I wish not to work with such a person and it will take considerable time, if ever, for me to trust this professor again. Let me add that this is not the first incident that I had problems with this professor on made-up accusations.
Story 3: Students can sometimes have very strong opinions about the academics they see or work with. They may have high opinions of themselves and at times get hypercritical of others (which I would usually cautioned them to be more self-critical with themselves first before others). The incident here is I was asked to sign a recommendation letter by a student whom I co-supervised (I was also acting as the institute coordinator for graduate studies). Frankly I do not see the idea of supervisory committee works well for mathematical or theoretical areas but this would be a different issue. I was of the opinion that I shouldn't be signing the letter since it is inappropriate. Then word gets to me that she (the student) thought (or someone else, I do not know) that I refused signing the letter because I was not listed as co-author for her proceeding papers. To me, this is an insulting accusation. At no times, I forced anyone to put me as a coauthor on their papers. Even research work with my own students, I have at many times told students that if they feel I have not contributed to the research, they can leave my name out. If in doubt, they can always refer to the Vancouver protocols. Finally, the graduate school asked me to sign her appeal letter instead of a recommendation letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment