Case Study #1: Reader’s Theater – Dr. Janet Williamson

Three assistant professors at the Karolinska Institute are walking back to their offices after a faculty meeting. They are discussing an announcement in the meeting that a senior faculty member, Dr. Janet Williamson, will be leaving the department for a position at Yale.

__________________________

Roger: I can’t believe we lost Janet! It’s obvious that she took the position because it’s a better university, though. Who could resist an offer from a place like that?

Jennifer: I’m really surprised that she’s leaving, her kids are still in school. Why would she move now? Not to mention her husband…do you think she lined up a job for him too? Maybe he’s the one who wanted to move, and Janet just agreed to go with him. She’s such a devoted mom, that announcement was a shock.

Brian: I just want to know if they’ll hire a replacement, and who will get her lab space. Her leaving frees up resources for the rest of us. It’s just as well that she’s going. She wasn’t really well-respected in the department, you know. She was removed from the Excellence Cluster project, and she was the main driver of the original proposal!

Jennifer: Well, maybe she left because she wasn’t respected enough. She was pretty isolated; maybe being removed from the Cluster was the last straw. I think a lot of the senior faculty in this department didn’t take well to her very direct leadership style. It’s too bad— she’s an exemplary scientist and has accomplished some wonderful things. I hope our department’s ranking doesn’t go down because of this. She’s going to take a lot of grant money with her.

Brian: You’re right about her leadership style being too direct. I’ve even heard people call her “abrasive”.

Roger: I don’t know, the prefect said they tried hard to keep her, but I heard that one of the reviewers rejected Janet’s application to be promoted to senior lecturer—insulting for someone of her stature—and that the decision for her approval came very late, after she and her husband had made a second visit to the US. I was surprised, it was common knowledge that she was being aggressively recruited, even though she wasn’t really looking to leave. Maybe we really didn’t try hard enough to keep her?

Jennifer: Well, I’m going to miss her. She’s been a big help to me personally. It was usually between the two of us women to act on student committees, and she’s given me some excellent career advice and mentorship. She even read over and edited my first grant application on a weekend! I’m not sure it would have been funded if it weren’t for her. She was a role model to me—especially the way she always spoke her mind in meetings and stood up for herself. I suppose that some might see that as abrasive, but sometimes that’s what you have to do to get your ideas heard, especially if you’re a woman.

__________________________

Modified from Carnes et al. 2015 Acad Med. 2015 Feb;90(2):221–230. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552

Case Study #2: Reader’s Theater – Dr. Sandra Thompson

Vetenskåpsrådet has issued a program announcement seeking grant proposals to support scientists willing to “engage in high-risk, high impact biomedical research that is likely to lead to technological breakthroughs.” One criterion for review assessed whether applicants had the potential for scientific leadership. After a rigorous review process, finalists were selected to be interviewed by a panel of seven distinguished reviewers. Dr. Daniel Sorenson was selected for this prestigious 20 million sek award.

Assistant Professor Sandra Thompson, who was one of the finalists, is discussing the interview experience with some of her colleagues during lunch at a national conference.

_________________________

Dr. Sandra Thompson: I was surprised by how nervous I was! Walking down that hallway, I passed by all these photographs of accomplished men whose work had made such an impact! It was a bit intimidating. The assistant who showed me into the interview room was extremely nice, though; her reassuring smile helped me calm down before I entered. Everyone, especially the one woman on the panel, seemed very interested in my research and I was able to answer all their questions – but I didn’t feel completely at ease and I suppose it showed. Since you won the award, you probably didn’t feel that way, did you Dan?

Dr. Daniel Sorenson: I guess I was a little more nervous than I usually am before I present my research, but I found those photographs reassuring—one of them was my postdoc mentor. Once I was in the room, and could discuss my work, I really relaxed because the conversation flowed so easily. The panelists were really interested in the interdisciplinary nature of my newest ideas, and my reviews indicated that the interdisciplinary component was the reason for my selection.

Dr. Melissa George: You’re kidding! I can’t believe it! I went through this whole thing last year, and I got slammed in my reviews for being too interdisciplinary. My review comments noted that my research was too diffuse and so not appropriate for the disciplinary focus of this award! The award criteria didn’t change between last year and this year….maybe I would have had a better chance if I had applied this year instead!

Dr. Sandra Thompson: This is not to take away from your achievement Dan – your work is extraordinary and I’m really happy for you – still, since our career achievements have been largely parallel, I wonder if I would have done better last year while Melissa would have done better this year. We’ll never know, though…

Modified from Carnes et al. 2015 Acad Med. 2015 Feb;90(2):221–230. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000552