Student poaching – whereby a faculty member hires a colleague’s research student without their full consent – 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 the poacher’s viewpoint, it can be easily rationalised as accommodating a student who is interested in moving to their team. In some cases, poachers might even make a case that they are rescuing students from a mediocre or unhealthy work environment by providing them with a better intellectual opportunity. And if the poacher is a senior colleague, their behaviour is unlikely to be challenged.
Nevertheless, student poaching is unethical and unfair. It degrades the fundamental value of academia by weakening one of the central pillars of the profession: collegiality.
It is well recognised that we need collegiality to build a shared intellectual workplace where everyone, including junior faculty members, is comfortable challenging others’ ideas and working collaboratively to develop novel solutions. That is why contributions to collegiality are considered during the academic promotion and tenure process.
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 – 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 they want. It is indeed difficult to teach virtues to people in a way that actually changes their 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 the status quo to improve the human condition. How can we do that if we don’t have the wisdom and courage to reflect on our own moral dilemmas?
Another possible criticism will be that poaching is a relatively rare event, so why bother 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 the bud, it could grow rather rapidly and ultimately overwhelm our profession.
Students also need to be educated about the perils of poaching. As faculty members, we are all inclined to give our students the intellectual freedom to pursue novel research ideas that they are passionate about. But freedom is never free: there is always some associated cost, and research freedom is no different. When students get their stipend and tuition paid from a contract grant project, they should understand that the research opportunities they have are the outcome of several years of someone else’s effort, working on ideas and writing numerous grant proposals to secure the resources to hire them. Students should reflect on this and feel obliged to fulfil project tasks that need to be completed – 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 them to complete the degree they 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 their original project if they 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 another 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 the authorities (department chair, for example) and dealt with by a grievance committee or ombudsmen appointed by the department.
But in such cases, it should be the responsibility of the student to make a written case that cites evidence of their adviser’s violation of certain academic policies or neglect of their supervisory duties, for instance. Evidence that the student’s psychological condition is no longer suitable to work under the current adviser would also be permissible. But if no such evidence is presented, the grievance committee should provide appropriate counselling and encourage the student to stay with the adviser.
One other possibility, which would preserve collegiality, would be to ask the faculty members to share the student, using models such as co-funding or co-supervision. But if the student is unwilling to consider such a collaborative solution, we would have no choice but to let them leave the programme. In accordance with the principle mentioned above, we must always value collegiality as the highest priority when resolving conflicts over students and try to avoid creating lingering resentments.
While rules may not be enough to ensure collegiate behaviour, the overall morale of our academic family depends on the choices that individuals make. And by-laws are good policy statements that can help guide us to make the right choice.
Prabhakar Clement is a full professor and director of the Center for Water Quality Research at the University of Alabama.
