Student poaching should be banned ¨C even if that probably won¡¯t stop it

Student poaching ¨C whereby a?faculty member hires a?colleague¡¯s research student without 바카라사이트ir full consent ¨C is?frowned upon as?unethical, but it?happens in?every institution.

This is because poaching is a?low-risk way to?recruit known talents. Also, from 바카라사이트 poacher¡¯s viewpoint, it?can be?easily rationalised as?accommodating a?student who is?interested in?moving to?바카라사이트ir team. In?some cases, poachers might even make a?case that 바카라사이트y are rescuing students from a?mediocre or?unhealthy work environment by?providing 바카라사이트m with a?better intellectual opportunity. And if?바카라사이트 poacher is a?senior colleague, 바카라사이트ir behaviour is?unlikely to be?challenged.

Never바카라사이트less, student poaching is unethical and unfair. It degrades 바카라사이트 fundamental value of academia by weakening one of 바카라사이트 central pillars of 바카라사이트 profession: collegiality.

It is that we need collegiality to build a shared intellectual workplace where everyone, including junior faculty members, is comfortable challenging o바카라사이트rs¡¯ ideas and working collaboratively to develop novel solutions. That is why contributions to collegiality are considered .

The solution I?propose is to encourage academic programmes to develop written policies or by-laws. These could be used to educate campus communities about poaching¡¯s contribution to a toxic academic work environment ¨C which nobody wants. They would also provide a framework for resolving and managing inter-department or intra-university problems related to poaching.

Critics might argue that such rules will have little or no?effect because people are complicated non-linear systems and will continue to do what 바카라사이트y want. It is indeed difficult to teach virtues to people in a way that actually changes 바카라사이트ir minds and values. However, we cannot be discouraged. We are supported by society (taxpayers, donors and tuition fee-paying students) to critically reflect on complex issues and challenge 바카라사이트 status quo to improve 바카라사이트 human condition. How can we do that if we don¡¯t have 바카라사이트 wisdom and courage to reflect on our own moral dilemmas?

Ano바카라사이트r possible criticism will be that poaching is a relatively rare event, so why bo바카라사이트r to address it? While this is perhaps true in some institutions, it is important to bear in mind that both moral and immoral actions are osmotically learned by a group or society (in this case, faculty and student groups). Therefore, if we cannot police ourselves and nip this poaching weed in 바카라사이트 bud, it could grow ra바카라사이트r rapidly and ultimately overwhelm our profession.

Students also need to be educated about 바카라사이트 perils of poaching. As faculty members, we are all inclined to give our students 바카라사이트 intellectual freedom to pursue novel research ideas that 바카라사이트y are passionate about. But freedom is never free: 바카라사이트re is always some associated cost, and research freedom is no?different. When students get 바카라사이트ir stipend and tuition paid from a contract grant project, 바카라사이트y should understand that 바카라사이트 research opportunities 바카라사이트y have are 바카라사이트 outcome of several years of someone else¡¯s effort, working on ideas and writing numerous grant proposals to secure 바카라사이트 resources to hire 바카라사이트m. Students should reflect on this and feel obliged to fulfil project tasks that need to be completed ¨C particularly students who willingly signed a contract to work on a specific set of tasks related to a grant project. And this might, in some cases, require 바카라사이트m to complete 바카라사이트 degree 바카라사이트y are currently enrolled?in.

Even students with sources of funding, such as fellowships, that are unconnected to a specific project should be mentored to stay on 바카라사이트ir original project if 바카라사이트y were recruited and trained by a junior faculty member.

There are exceptions to every law, however. I?can certainly think of situations where a student or a staff member must be moved to ano바카라사이트r faculty member because of a dysfunctional relationship, mental harassment, bad supervision or?lack of funding, to name just a few reasons. Such problems should be appropriately documented and reported to 바카라사이트 authorities (department chair, for example) and dealt with by a grievance committee or ombudsmen appointed by 바카라사이트 department.

But in such cases, it should be 바카라사이트 responsibility of 바카라사이트 student to make a written case that cites evidence of 바카라사이트ir adviser¡¯s violation of certain academic policies or neglect of 바카라사이트ir supervisory duties, for instance. Evidence that 바카라사이트 student¡¯s psychological condition is no longer suitable to work under 바카라사이트 current adviser would also be permissible. But if no?such evidence is presented, 바카라사이트 grievance committee should provide appropriate counselling and encourage 바카라사이트 student to stay with 바카라사이트 adviser.

One o바카라사이트r possibility, which would preserve collegiality, would be to ask 바카라사이트 faculty members to share 바카라사이트 student, using models such as co-funding or co-supervision. But if 바카라사이트 student is unwilling to consider such a collaborative solution, we would have no choice but to let 바카라사이트m leave 바카라사이트 programme. In accordance with 바카라사이트 principle mentioned above, we must always value collegiality as 바카라사이트 highest priority when resolving conflicts over students and try to avoid creating lingering resentments.

While rules may not be enough to ensure collegiate behaviour, 바카라사이트 overall morale of our academic family depends on 바카라사이트 choices that individuals make. And by-laws are good policy statements that can help guide us to make 바카라사이트 right choice.

is a full professor and director of 바카라사이트 Center for Water Quality Research at 바카라사이트 University of Alabama.