A systemic perspective on academic culture -- feedback cycles in academic culture

Objectives:

• Introduce concept of systemic issue, as an issue stemming from economic, cultural, legal, etc. structures and incentives.
• Re-motivate the purpose of the seminar so far as a systemic intervention to the problem of hidden curriculum in doctoral programs.
• Demonstrate to students how positive feedback cycles in academic reinforce problematic misconceptions. This ultimately impedes us as a community from performing rigorous, inclusive and useful science, as well as individually in our professional growth, by contributing to unrealistic self-expectations (and therefore poor mental health), hindering from building supportive academic communities.
• Brainstorm interventions to break such cycles

Pre-class work

1. Watch The Pursuit of Collective Intelligence by Professor Radhika Nagpal. We encourage you all to watch this talk in groups!
2. Answer:
   • What are the “rules” of academic culture mentioned in the talk? What are the criticism of these rules?
   • Are there any other such “rules” you’ve observed or experienced in your Ph.D. experience so far?
   • What else did you take away from the talk?

In class [slides]

Tip: We have also found that this class material (and the below exercise) can be effectively repurposed as a standalone-workshop for cohort building to encourage explicit discussion of shared struggles.

1. [10min] Socialize
2. [20min] Discussion of “The Pursuit of Collective Intelligence”:
   • How does the speaker define collective intelligence?
   • Ideally, what are the goals of the scientific community?
   • According to the speaker, what are some bad rules and good rules that we currently operate under to achieve the goals of our scientific community?
   • In groups: can you think of bad rules and good rules that we currently or could operate under to achieve the goals of our scientific community?
3. [10min] Re-motivate the seminar (what we’ve covered so far) as an intervention to a systemic issue – hidden curricula in doctoral programs. Use this as a platform to talk about the broader issue: positive feedback cycles that reinforce problematic academic cultural values.
4. Remainder of class: each group gets assigned one section on the course readings page. From the paragraph in that section, and from skimming the abstracts of the papers, students will construct their own feedback cycles following the template below.
5. Re-group to discuss the students’ responses
6. [5min] Ask students to fill in-class survey:
   • What is one thing you took away from class today?

Understanding Feedback Cycles in Academic Culture

Instructions: Go to the readings page of the course website. Read your assigned section. You may find it helpful to quickly skim through abstracts / titles of the listed papers. For your section, come up with an undesirable feedback cycle in academic cycle following the below template. Please pay particular attention to the way the cycle reinforces societal misconceptions and perpetuates itself. Then come up with systemic interventions for every step of the cycle.

Step	Instantiation	Example	Intervention
Step 1: Societal misconceptions about research/science/Ph.D.	The myth of the lone genius	"Good science is done by lone geniuses who have brilliant breakthroughs."	A mandatory workshop students attend that highlights the hidden curricula of Ph.D. programs.
Step 2: Effect of misconception on us internally	Unrealistic expectations & ineffective research practices	"If I deserve to be here, I should be able to figure everything out alone."	A requirement that students must attend at least one session at the Academic Resource Center throughout their first semester to discuss time-management and self-organization.
Step 3: Effect of misconception on us externally	Failure to meet expectations	"I'm working really hard but not making meaningful progress on research or acquiring new skills."	A mandatory form students must fill (and submit) together with their advisors about their advisors' expectations of them for the first year. If the advisors' expectations are more realistic than those of the students', the students can adjust them. Otherwise, this will increase transparency into potentially atypical advising practices.
Step 4: Effect on the culture, as a whole	Imposter phenomenon & isolation	"Everyone else can do good science alone. I can't succeed without support, so I’m not cut out for this program" (i.e. only lone geniuses succeed, and I’m not a lone genius).	Mandatory seminar (e.g. CS290) with built-in socialization time and explicit discussion of the Ph.D.'s hidden curriculum.
Step 5: Reinforcing initial misconceptions	Poor performance, reinforcing idea that science is done by lone geniuses	"I can't succeed without support. Since no one else seems to be struggling, I'm the one not cut out for the program." In other words, the myth of the lone genius must be true.	A "service" requirement for the Ph.D. program, in which students in their second year must help organize some social events or serve as peer mentors (e.g. in InTouch). This will create an institutional/systemic incentive for students to invest in their community.