Yes, spot on!!! There's another peculiar layer to this inequity which is that some institutions amd departments will give some faculty high start-ups and others miniscule ones (or none at all). And then, either still hold everyone to the same standards (# papers, $ raised, # students graduated) or set different expectations but still the peers doing the evaluating have in common the higher expectations (from department level on up through the entire process for RT&P, external awards, grants, etc.) So I would suggest an additional guideline of advocating for equitable resourcing in the same dept., to help PIs (and thus departments) collectively set and adhere to compensation. policies that are more equitable. To this end, I'm curious, is there a DORA equivalent for compensation through all levels of STEM training? Maybe having something like that could help us build a more extensive and actionable commitment throughout the field.
But I'm struggling a bit with some of the ethics of volunteer student labor as you have presented it here.
In situations like your own graduate experience, where a grad student may not have the resources to pay field assistants that are critical to pull off the project, is it ethical to use willing volunteers? I think we're all better off because you were able to complete your Ph.D., and your volunteer field assistants probably had an amazing experience at La Selva, so as long as they understood what they signed up for, I could still see that being a win-win.
I'm fortunate that I've been able to get NSF funding for my urban agriculture research that has allowed me to provide paid research experiences to >60 undergrads from a wide variety of background over the past decade, and also to provide paid multi-year research internships to several high school students from a local Hispanic-serving high school. But I've also provided volunteer research experiences for a few of those privileged high school students who are headed to Ivy League schools. To hear you say "GTFO, you are the problem" seems pretty harsh. My policy as a research mentor has always been to maximize inclusivity--if I can possibly take on another student in my team, I will try to make it happen. My providing opportunities to these students has never supplanted opportunities for paid students, which I'm (generously) assuming was the issue that you were concerned about.
Oh damn I managed to delete a really long comment I just wrote. But maybe this second time I can be more spot on. Key points:
-I think providing many high school opportunities to kids of all backgrounds is just fine, it's just that nearly all the times I see this happening, it's rich kids who make avail of these opportunities while students in Title I schools aren't even aware that it's a possibility for them. If you're reaching out to local high need schools, I think you're doing it right. I think everybody deserves access to opportunity, and so providing that isn't wrong, as long as everybody has genuine access.
-I do want to explain that it's not just about unpaid experiences supplanting paid experiences, it more about the overall ecosystem in which many of the coolest opportunities are unpaid and as a result, wealthier students generally will have more and higher quality experiences than students who can't afford to volunteer for free. It's a systemic and structural issue, and by engaging in this, we're part of that system. I think it's also very different depending on where you work and the population you serve. I used to be at a campus that was a lot more similar to yours, and I think it was possible to make sure that all students working in my lab were able to get compensation at a level to ensure their ability to participate, which in some cases meant students volunteering, but they weren't taking the slots of others. On the other hand, where I'm working now, almost none of the students can afford to volunteer, so if I recruited primarily volunteers, I would most definitely be the problem.
As always, I love your thinking about academia.
Yes, spot on!!! There's another peculiar layer to this inequity which is that some institutions amd departments will give some faculty high start-ups and others miniscule ones (or none at all). And then, either still hold everyone to the same standards (# papers, $ raised, # students graduated) or set different expectations but still the peers doing the evaluating have in common the higher expectations (from department level on up through the entire process for RT&P, external awards, grants, etc.) So I would suggest an additional guideline of advocating for equitable resourcing in the same dept., to help PIs (and thus departments) collectively set and adhere to compensation. policies that are more equitable. To this end, I'm curious, is there a DORA equivalent for compensation through all levels of STEM training? Maybe having something like that could help us build a more extensive and actionable commitment throughout the field.
Thanks, Terry--a lot of good content as always.
But I'm struggling a bit with some of the ethics of volunteer student labor as you have presented it here.
In situations like your own graduate experience, where a grad student may not have the resources to pay field assistants that are critical to pull off the project, is it ethical to use willing volunteers? I think we're all better off because you were able to complete your Ph.D., and your volunteer field assistants probably had an amazing experience at La Selva, so as long as they understood what they signed up for, I could still see that being a win-win.
I'm fortunate that I've been able to get NSF funding for my urban agriculture research that has allowed me to provide paid research experiences to >60 undergrads from a wide variety of background over the past decade, and also to provide paid multi-year research internships to several high school students from a local Hispanic-serving high school. But I've also provided volunteer research experiences for a few of those privileged high school students who are headed to Ivy League schools. To hear you say "GTFO, you are the problem" seems pretty harsh. My policy as a research mentor has always been to maximize inclusivity--if I can possibly take on another student in my team, I will try to make it happen. My providing opportunities to these students has never supplanted opportunities for paid students, which I'm (generously) assuming was the issue that you were concerned about.
Oh damn I managed to delete a really long comment I just wrote. But maybe this second time I can be more spot on. Key points:
-I think providing many high school opportunities to kids of all backgrounds is just fine, it's just that nearly all the times I see this happening, it's rich kids who make avail of these opportunities while students in Title I schools aren't even aware that it's a possibility for them. If you're reaching out to local high need schools, I think you're doing it right. I think everybody deserves access to opportunity, and so providing that isn't wrong, as long as everybody has genuine access.
-I do want to explain that it's not just about unpaid experiences supplanting paid experiences, it more about the overall ecosystem in which many of the coolest opportunities are unpaid and as a result, wealthier students generally will have more and higher quality experiences than students who can't afford to volunteer for free. It's a systemic and structural issue, and by engaging in this, we're part of that system. I think it's also very different depending on where you work and the population you serve. I used to be at a campus that was a lot more similar to yours, and I think it was possible to make sure that all students working in my lab were able to get compensation at a level to ensure their ability to participate, which in some cases meant students volunteering, but they weren't taking the slots of others. On the other hand, where I'm working now, almost none of the students can afford to volunteer, so if I recruited primarily volunteers, I would most definitely be the problem.