Turns out, it's not so different from what people want in any other relationship.
A top 10 list based on some recent discussions (and not-so-occasional missteps on my part):
1. Time
Time is everyone's most valuable resource - there's nothing that conveys support to a trainee more than meeting regularly, face-to-face.
Arguably the most important thing a mentor can do to support a trainee is maintain a weekly check-in, even if only for 30 minutes.
2. Attention
Trainees want a mentor who will engage with them, not one who is so "important" to have many other engagements.
Spend face-to-face meetings talking with your trainees, not checking email, responding to texts, etc. (Admittedly not my strength in the zoom era...)
3. Openness
The most effective training is often by example. Your trainees already think highly of you - you don't need to protect your ego by hiding wording of emails, salary figures, etc.
Open your books and your full process to your trainees. Walk them through each step.
4. Advocacy
Your trainees rely on you to be their voice to people in power (chairs, senior colleagues, etc). One of the most damning reviews of a mentor is, "they don't advocate for their trainees."
Seek out opportunities to advocate for your trainees, and advocate aggressively.
5. Vision
Trainees look to their mentors for inspiration. If you can't get excited about your research and focus on a forward-looking vision, your trainees will lose motivation.
Maintain a vision for the future. Write it down. Revise it often, involving trainees in the process.
6. Independence
There is such a thing as being too engaged. Sometimes trainees learn best from leading a project and finding their own voice, even if the quality is not perfect on the first try. Speaking to myself here...
When the time is right, give trainees a chance to lead.
7. Honesty
No mentor is perfect. When we aren't at our best - because of family issues, other responsibilities, or just plain screwing up - it's good to acknowledge that openly. If trainees feel they have to be superhuman to succeed, they will fail.
Speak openly and apologize.
8. Structure
Whether provided by trainees or mentors, structured conversations are generally more effective. Even calling a meeting a "mentorship meeting" can be helpful.
Provide structure to your trainees - lay out what you are doing, do it, and summarize what you've done.
9. Flexibility
The surest way to fail long-term is to rigidly adhere to an inflexible system. Each trainee is unique, and structures/priorities change over time.
Make change a constant in your team. Ask trainees how you can change your approach to be more effective for them.
10. Appreciation
Our trainees are what help keep us excited and inspired at work. We need to remind them - and ourselves - of that fact.
Celebrate and broadcast your trainees' successes, tell them (and yourself) how they help to keep you motivated, and enjoy the ride together!!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
After some conversations with a trainee, I've recognized at least 7 "academic phenotypes" based on underlying core professional goals.
A thread, aimed primarily at junior researchers learning to navigate the academic world.
Take-home: know your phenotype, know your superiors'.
Phenotype -> core goal:
Politician -> power
Performer -> fame/pubs
Pragmatist -> things that work
Inquirer -> knowledge/insight
Idealist -> a better world
Epicurean -> pleasure/time off
Humanist -> relationship
We are all each of these to some extent. But more some than others.
Step 1: Recognize your (actual & ideal) phenotype by asking yourself which goals you would sacrifice for others.
Ex.: would you delay promotion to achieve an ideal?
Be honest w yourself about which phenotypes you (a) are, (b) want to be.
This may be controversial, but here's a thread on 5 problems I see with the #JohnSnowMemorandum.
I agree with the concept, but am worried about the message it sends.
I sympathize w/ those who have signed, submit this in the spirit of scientific debate.
First, I am no fan of surrender (aka "herd immunity") strategy articulated in #GreatBarringtonDeclaration. "Those...not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal" suggests vulnerable & non-vulnerable can be (a) identified & (b) kept apart. Both fallacies.
Second, full disclosure, I have a personal stake - an immediate family member has been in the hospital for months, with no visitation due to COVID restrictions. My pandemic life is not OK.
After sitting in study section last week reviewing proposals for K-series career development awards, thought I'd list my top 5 reasons why such proposals fail. (Not linked to any one submission.)
Junior scientists who might be interested in applying - avoid these pitfalls!!
1. The primary mentor(s) never read the proposal in detail.
Many applications have clear holes in logic that no mentor would let through.
Give your mentors enough time to review your proposal, and steer away from mentors who will not spend the time to offer you comments.
2. The candidate is not quite ready.
Reviewers like to see upward trajectory and (if K22/K99) near-independence.
Be strategic about when you apply. Not a bad idea to put in an initial submission before major papers come out, so you look like a "rising star" on resubmission.
It's tough to compose science-related tweets when a family member is hurting.
But here's a quick thread on 5 things I've tried at work to keep myself strong enough to support someone very special to me.
Keeping in mind that everyone's story is different and equally meaningful...
1. Put "self-care time" on the calendar.
It's easy to get caught up in my own thoughts and waste time as a result. But if I'm intentional about blocking specific times for self-care, I spend that time doing things (exercise, online bridge w/ my mom) that actually rejuvenate me.
2. Focus on others' projects.
I usually block time for writing/big-picture thinking. But when I'm low emotionally, I don't use that time well. Even if I feel like $#!+, I will show up for meetings and not let others' projects down. Which in turn helps me feel better about myself.
Another lesson for the COVID response from the TB world:
"Have we reached herd immunity?" is the wrong question.
If, by "herd immunity", we mean Rt<1, then we achieved herd immunity for TB a decade ago. And yet, 1.4 million people still die of TB every year.
What's the fallacy? There are two: 1. Herd immunity isn't a magic threshold to cross. A decline in cases doesn't mean a rapid decline, nor that the current case count is acceptable. Just as for TB, millions of people could still die of COVID after "achieving" herd immunity.
2. Many factors contribute to Rt<1; immunity is only one. If we ease the TB response, deaths will rise. Saying "we've achieved herd immunity to TB" is therefore problematic. Same for COVID: when herd immunity is reached, if we stop distancing, wearing masks, etc, people will die.
If there were 5 take-home messages for the public regarding the epidemiology of the pandemic, what would they be? I've taken a stab below, but would welcome others' thoughts. While it's important to get the details right, it's also important not to lose the forest for the trees.
1. We're less than halfway through.
Even in the best-case scenario of an effective and safe vaccine available in a few months, it will take much longer to distribute, deliver, and change public opinion.
2. We can't just go back to normal.
Even if herd immunity is starting to have an effect, this effect is being maintained by behavior change - no large gatherings, wearing masks, social distancing, etc. If contact patterns return to pre-pandemic levels, it will be deadly.