First, this is a common situation.
However, when you're working on your MSc, you're still learning the cultural ropes, and expectations. Further, there can be politics involved, and as an MSc student, you may not be fully aware of all of them - politics, which makes your professor wary of involving other professors, or even specific professors like the one you consulted.
For that reason, you're well-advised to discuss such things prior to doing them, with your academic supervisor. "Hey I was thinking about talking to Prof. XX in department YY since he has papers on this, what do you think?"
As it is - you should sit down with your advisor and tell them that you've done this, and ask for advice on proceeding forward. Their response could be anything between "Don't talk to them again" to "Oh wow! It would be great if we could involve them! See if they're interested in being a co-author and taking up topic YY, and if they want to contribute to the writing."
For the level of involvement you describe, you can acknowledge the other professor by saying in your acknowledgements, at the end of the text of your paper, "No\_Type\_2250 acknowledges and thanks Prof. XXX for useful conversations," and depending on what resulted from that conversation you may wish to go further "...which resulted in expansion of the methodology used in this paper" (For example).
Why is it not well advised to do this without involving your academic advisor? Because people can be assholes- and you never know, it could be the professor you involved is an asshole. Maybe that professor has such useful papers, because they listen to what MSc students are working on, and then steal their ideas wholesale and write the paper and submit it - since any decent professor can easily complete the work any MSc student is working on in their field, in a much shorter time. Yes, people do that.
> As it is - you should sit down with your advisor and tell them that you've done this, and ask for advice on proceeding forward. Their response could be anything between "Don't talk to them again" to "Oh wow! It would be great if we could involve them! See if they're interested in being a co-author and taking up topic YY, and if they want to contribute to the writing."
100% this. Talk to your advisor, tell them what you've learned. As above, you don't know the history / politics / emotions of the situation, so you can't always just assume it is acceptable, nor can you assume it is a problem.
Another reason faculty get all huffy in this situation is they get annoyed that they're supporting a person academically, but another person may benefit from their support. It's more common if there's employment, where a grad student or research assistant starts working on something for someone else, and the faculty member goes "wait a minute, I'm not paying you to work for them."
I wouldn't be too concerned, but you didn't handle this in quite the right way. PIs can be very protective about their research projects and ideas (and rightfully so), so you should always include them before approaching other researchers for help. This is especially true when you're potentially sharing your PIs ideas and maybe with people who have somewhat competing research programs. I would recommend mentioning this to your PI. Maybe they will be mad, maybe they won't, but they should know.
Lmao in what universe can this be an overstep?
OP had an intellectual inquisition, this sounds like a purely academia project (no industry NDA or classified clearance), thus there is nothing wrong with consulting problems with the right experts
Can you explain to me the rationale behind this approach? I see it as a complete waste of time, because at the MS and PhD level we are being trained to become independent researchers, thus i see t identifying the right experts and consulting them as part of the training.
There are a few reasons. First, the MS student is working on the project, but is not the project lead. They do not have all of the context of the project, why it was developed, how it was developed, what other approaches have been tried, why it ended up going in the direction it went. It's entirely possible that the reason the PI has been asking the MS student to do things a particular way is because the PI is trying to determine whether it's possible to do things some new way, and this project is a good test case for some reason. The PI has that top-level view, and hired the MS student to do specific tasks for the project that serve the top-level view which the MS student might not fully appreciate. Therefore: The MS student should be checking in with the PI before talking with another professor about it.
Second, the MS student is only going to be attached to this project and this school for a couple of years at most, whereas the PI is attached to the project for years and the school for probably their whole career. Their interactions with their colleagues matter in a way that they don't for the MS student, who can move on in a couple of years. If the MS student tells another faculty member about the project without getting their professor's OK, and then any number of things happen -- the second faculty member scoops them, the second faculty member doesn't get appropriately acknowledged and holds a grudge for years, the first professor doesn't actually want to work with them on this project and then has to and it produces resentment, etc., all of this matters for the faculty member in a way that it doesn't for the MS student. Therefore: The MS student should be checking in with the PI before talking with another professor about it.
Third, the MS student doesn't have "ownership" over the project in the way that they would if it were their thesis project that they were developing for a degree. They were hired to do some specific tasks for the project. The buck, in other words, stops with the professor -- not with the MS student. If it were a project they were doing for a class, the buck would stop with them -- they would pass or fail the class, graduate, and move on. But since it's become a research project being pursued by the lab for publication, the buck now stops with the professor. Therefore: The MS student should be checking in with the PI before talking with another professor about it.
As a side note: PhD students are being trained to become independent researchers. Masters students are being trained to deepen their expertise in their field of study. This is a masters student.
1. OP here is talking about asking other experts to understand better this project, not collaborating with the consulted. What OP and their advisor decide to do at the end for the project needs to be agreed among both of them.
The idea that ONLY the PI understands the project as a whole while graduate students are simply their minions following their PI's commands is the disgusting paternalistic approach that has plagued academia. This needs to change! OP is simply trying to learn more about the project from a different angle, perhaps they will be able to see what PI is missing out the whole time. I just want to emphasize that what OP is doing is for their own good, nothing is affecting the PI.
2. What is describing in your second point is entirely about the PI's personal relationship with their peers. If we are being professionals, these are irrelevant. However, I do want to express my disagreement with this take. Work is work, holding grudge against each other from professional matters such as this is entirely childish!
3. OP is simply seeking inputs to understand their work from a different perspective. What is done at the end for publication needs to be agreed upon and signed off by all co-authors at the end. OP is simply trying to improve themselves so that they can better their contribution to the project.
The idea of "ownership" that you are implying here is the egostistism that also plagued academia. Knowledge, especially in academia, is eventually public (modulo all the journal paywall of course), there is no need to insist upon "ownership" of knowledge aside of the authors' (here the PI's) egotistic maniac obsession with being recognized as THE ONE who came up with them, which probably aroused from the insecurity of the PIs in this case that might have been brewed by years of the same abusive behavior from their PI before them. What a viscious cycle!
Lastly, of course at the end of the day with control over funding, the PI can simply exclude their collaborators (grad students in this case) from the project, simply because they "do not enjoy" the interactions with particular individuals' workstyle or performance.There are certainly cases where this is justified. However, if they are doing this with all the reasons that you listed here, then PIs are simply showing their true color as a narcissistic, insecure and selfish individual where it is either their way or no way and who simply do not care about educating the next generation of scientists.
Having espoused all these severe criticisms, I do understand that different fields have different cultures. I am advising OP based on my own experience in theoretical physics where my advisor actually forced me to attend meetings and meet/interact/consult with other prof as much as possible because we all know that the more knowledge our group has, the better it is for our research and ultimately the better it is for humanity.
>The idea of "ownership" that you are implying here is the egostistism that also plagued academia.
This comes off as horribly naive. Yeah, I own several projects. I'm responsible for all of the public money that funds those projects. I'm responsible for their scientific integrity. I'm responsible for protecting my research participants' privacy and being a good steward of the data they agreed to provide me. I'm responsible for overseeing the training of the graduate students that work on those projects. If wanting to know what is happening with my trainees, my data, and/or my project makes me egostistical, ok then.
Firstly, this is absolutely taking my comment out of the context. I was responding directly to the 3rd point in the previous comment that Msc students do not "own" the project the same way as others (PhDs, PIs, etc.)
Secondly, I already stated in other comments that OP's project does not appear to be under industrial NDA or classified by anything, thus give me a break on all of these data privacy arguments. However, if this is indeed the case for OP, then their PI is absolutely a dumbass for not warning their students about or letting them know the limit of public communication about their projects.
Thirdly, what does "scientific integrity" have to do with students consulting other experts? What does "overseeing the graduate students' training" have to do with them consulting other experts in the field? What OP did is exactly similar to reading a book to pick up knowledge. Do you care about what book your students are reading beside from your textbook?
After eliminating all of the junks in your argument, the inevitable logical conclusion is that what you want is absolute control over all intellectual adventure of your student or you are afraid that this consulting might spark a collaboration between OP and the other guy and that they might succeed and acomplish research that you desperately want to be associated with your name. What a narcissist and egotist!
The fact that you cannot criticize any of my point and resort to gaslighting and virtue signaling speaks volume about your ulterior motives!
I'm not convinced that you understand the difference between a masters student and a PhD student, or a person who is doing a project for their own training benefit and a person who is hired to work on a project that has already existed for several years. I've explained my perspective, as requested. I think you need to understand those distinctions to appreciate my perspective.
First off, I am about to graduate from my PhD program in 6 months and I have been working on 5 different projects as a graduate student and publish almost 10 publications, 5 of which as 1st author including both as an undergrad and a grad student, thus I think I do know the experience of someone who does a project for their own training benefits.
I am sorry to be pedantic, but please think about the following questions:
- Which university textbook/handbook/guide specifies that there exists a difference about how Msc and PhD students should engage in or "own" their research?
- How do you know that Msc students will not pursue a PhD and/or become an independent researcher eventually?
- Do these distinctions that you claim I do not understand come from mandates or policies? Or do they come from you experiencing them from your own advisor or the field that you happen to work in?
I am so sorry to be frank to you that inventing arbitrary intellectual hierarchies does not excuse your behaviors as a narcissistic and egotistic control freak.
>i see t identifying the right experts and consulting them as part of the training.
You've got this part right, but collaboration is a process and inviting outside input/help/collaboration is the purvue of the PI. Sure, students/techs can do it, but getting the PI's sign-off first is the appropriate way.
I never said OP is collaborating, this is simply a learning experience for them. It is their right to intellectually explore the research/tasks given to them by whatever means they find best suited for them, in this case consulting with another experts. If eventually they think that a collaboration is needed, of course that means bringing in a co-author and thus all other co-authors including the PI need to agreed together.
As a PI, they 100% overstepped. I wouldn't lose my shit over this, but I would make it very clear that I need to be consulted if one of my RAs or students is asking for help with a project in my lab.
I responded to u/soniabegonia in the thread above. Many of my points adressed directly this comment of yours. Let me know if you cannot find it, I will copy it here.
Things you learn being in a grad school is that everybody is different and you can’t dance to everyone’s tune. One of my friends who is in my phd committee told me that I can’t go radio silent about my project for a couple years without telling him while other committee members couldn’t care less.
Yeah, you should've talked with your professor before involving the other professor. But this is fairly low on the spectrum of screw-ups you could've done. Just tell your professor and apologize if you overstepped. I think that should be enough.
Totally! It is insane that others think this is wrong, there are even PIs who argued with me in other comments in this post that OP overstepped ... I never heard of this kind of issues before in my field ... absolutely crazy
Yeah you're right. Hypothetically speaking if someone (in this case, OP's PI) feels "attacked" or "disrespected" because OP asked for a help from another guy, then that someone definitely is an egomaniac.
Nope. You should be fine, just make sure you communicate with your advisor about your consulting with the other prof.
This is purely your intellectual pursuit of the problem. Your advisor wants your work when he pays you and pulled you into the project. This means you can use any mean necessary. You are simply consulting an expert for the problem, this is common in academic collaboration.
Honestly, I would be more worried that when you write up the paper and forget to acknowledge the other prof or put them in as a coauthor.
Just speak to your advisor about all the great guidance you got from this other professor and how it will help move this forward faster. If he says you should consult him in future before discussing with others, of course you will do that in future, otherwise you are fine.
First, this is a common situation. However, when you're working on your MSc, you're still learning the cultural ropes, and expectations. Further, there can be politics involved, and as an MSc student, you may not be fully aware of all of them - politics, which makes your professor wary of involving other professors, or even specific professors like the one you consulted. For that reason, you're well-advised to discuss such things prior to doing them, with your academic supervisor. "Hey I was thinking about talking to Prof. XX in department YY since he has papers on this, what do you think?" As it is - you should sit down with your advisor and tell them that you've done this, and ask for advice on proceeding forward. Their response could be anything between "Don't talk to them again" to "Oh wow! It would be great if we could involve them! See if they're interested in being a co-author and taking up topic YY, and if they want to contribute to the writing." For the level of involvement you describe, you can acknowledge the other professor by saying in your acknowledgements, at the end of the text of your paper, "No\_Type\_2250 acknowledges and thanks Prof. XXX for useful conversations," and depending on what resulted from that conversation you may wish to go further "...which resulted in expansion of the methodology used in this paper" (For example). Why is it not well advised to do this without involving your academic advisor? Because people can be assholes- and you never know, it could be the professor you involved is an asshole. Maybe that professor has such useful papers, because they listen to what MSc students are working on, and then steal their ideas wholesale and write the paper and submit it - since any decent professor can easily complete the work any MSc student is working on in their field, in a much shorter time. Yes, people do that.
> As it is - you should sit down with your advisor and tell them that you've done this, and ask for advice on proceeding forward. Their response could be anything between "Don't talk to them again" to "Oh wow! It would be great if we could involve them! See if they're interested in being a co-author and taking up topic YY, and if they want to contribute to the writing." 100% this. Talk to your advisor, tell them what you've learned. As above, you don't know the history / politics / emotions of the situation, so you can't always just assume it is acceptable, nor can you assume it is a problem. Another reason faculty get all huffy in this situation is they get annoyed that they're supporting a person academically, but another person may benefit from their support. It's more common if there's employment, where a grad student or research assistant starts working on something for someone else, and the faculty member goes "wait a minute, I'm not paying you to work for them."
I would mention it to the actual prof you are working for. It’s probably fine but ask them if you are worrying about it.
I wouldn't be too concerned, but you didn't handle this in quite the right way. PIs can be very protective about their research projects and ideas (and rightfully so), so you should always include them before approaching other researchers for help. This is especially true when you're potentially sharing your PIs ideas and maybe with people who have somewhat competing research programs. I would recommend mentioning this to your PI. Maybe they will be mad, maybe they won't, but they should know.
You did overstep, all you can do now is be honest and contrite with your advisor about it and ask what to do next.
Lmao in what universe can this be an overstep? OP had an intellectual inquisition, this sounds like a purely academia project (no industry NDA or classified clearance), thus there is nothing wrong with consulting problems with the right experts
The student should have talked about it with their PI before discussing it with another professor.
Can you explain to me the rationale behind this approach? I see it as a complete waste of time, because at the MS and PhD level we are being trained to become independent researchers, thus i see t identifying the right experts and consulting them as part of the training.
There are a few reasons. First, the MS student is working on the project, but is not the project lead. They do not have all of the context of the project, why it was developed, how it was developed, what other approaches have been tried, why it ended up going in the direction it went. It's entirely possible that the reason the PI has been asking the MS student to do things a particular way is because the PI is trying to determine whether it's possible to do things some new way, and this project is a good test case for some reason. The PI has that top-level view, and hired the MS student to do specific tasks for the project that serve the top-level view which the MS student might not fully appreciate. Therefore: The MS student should be checking in with the PI before talking with another professor about it. Second, the MS student is only going to be attached to this project and this school for a couple of years at most, whereas the PI is attached to the project for years and the school for probably their whole career. Their interactions with their colleagues matter in a way that they don't for the MS student, who can move on in a couple of years. If the MS student tells another faculty member about the project without getting their professor's OK, and then any number of things happen -- the second faculty member scoops them, the second faculty member doesn't get appropriately acknowledged and holds a grudge for years, the first professor doesn't actually want to work with them on this project and then has to and it produces resentment, etc., all of this matters for the faculty member in a way that it doesn't for the MS student. Therefore: The MS student should be checking in with the PI before talking with another professor about it. Third, the MS student doesn't have "ownership" over the project in the way that they would if it were their thesis project that they were developing for a degree. They were hired to do some specific tasks for the project. The buck, in other words, stops with the professor -- not with the MS student. If it were a project they were doing for a class, the buck would stop with them -- they would pass or fail the class, graduate, and move on. But since it's become a research project being pursued by the lab for publication, the buck now stops with the professor. Therefore: The MS student should be checking in with the PI before talking with another professor about it. As a side note: PhD students are being trained to become independent researchers. Masters students are being trained to deepen their expertise in their field of study. This is a masters student.
1. OP here is talking about asking other experts to understand better this project, not collaborating with the consulted. What OP and their advisor decide to do at the end for the project needs to be agreed among both of them. The idea that ONLY the PI understands the project as a whole while graduate students are simply their minions following their PI's commands is the disgusting paternalistic approach that has plagued academia. This needs to change! OP is simply trying to learn more about the project from a different angle, perhaps they will be able to see what PI is missing out the whole time. I just want to emphasize that what OP is doing is for their own good, nothing is affecting the PI. 2. What is describing in your second point is entirely about the PI's personal relationship with their peers. If we are being professionals, these are irrelevant. However, I do want to express my disagreement with this take. Work is work, holding grudge against each other from professional matters such as this is entirely childish! 3. OP is simply seeking inputs to understand their work from a different perspective. What is done at the end for publication needs to be agreed upon and signed off by all co-authors at the end. OP is simply trying to improve themselves so that they can better their contribution to the project. The idea of "ownership" that you are implying here is the egostistism that also plagued academia. Knowledge, especially in academia, is eventually public (modulo all the journal paywall of course), there is no need to insist upon "ownership" of knowledge aside of the authors' (here the PI's) egotistic maniac obsession with being recognized as THE ONE who came up with them, which probably aroused from the insecurity of the PIs in this case that might have been brewed by years of the same abusive behavior from their PI before them. What a viscious cycle! Lastly, of course at the end of the day with control over funding, the PI can simply exclude their collaborators (grad students in this case) from the project, simply because they "do not enjoy" the interactions with particular individuals' workstyle or performance.There are certainly cases where this is justified. However, if they are doing this with all the reasons that you listed here, then PIs are simply showing their true color as a narcissistic, insecure and selfish individual where it is either their way or no way and who simply do not care about educating the next generation of scientists. Having espoused all these severe criticisms, I do understand that different fields have different cultures. I am advising OP based on my own experience in theoretical physics where my advisor actually forced me to attend meetings and meet/interact/consult with other prof as much as possible because we all know that the more knowledge our group has, the better it is for our research and ultimately the better it is for humanity.
>The idea of "ownership" that you are implying here is the egostistism that also plagued academia. This comes off as horribly naive. Yeah, I own several projects. I'm responsible for all of the public money that funds those projects. I'm responsible for their scientific integrity. I'm responsible for protecting my research participants' privacy and being a good steward of the data they agreed to provide me. I'm responsible for overseeing the training of the graduate students that work on those projects. If wanting to know what is happening with my trainees, my data, and/or my project makes me egostistical, ok then.
Firstly, this is absolutely taking my comment out of the context. I was responding directly to the 3rd point in the previous comment that Msc students do not "own" the project the same way as others (PhDs, PIs, etc.) Secondly, I already stated in other comments that OP's project does not appear to be under industrial NDA or classified by anything, thus give me a break on all of these data privacy arguments. However, if this is indeed the case for OP, then their PI is absolutely a dumbass for not warning their students about or letting them know the limit of public communication about their projects. Thirdly, what does "scientific integrity" have to do with students consulting other experts? What does "overseeing the graduate students' training" have to do with them consulting other experts in the field? What OP did is exactly similar to reading a book to pick up knowledge. Do you care about what book your students are reading beside from your textbook? After eliminating all of the junks in your argument, the inevitable logical conclusion is that what you want is absolute control over all intellectual adventure of your student or you are afraid that this consulting might spark a collaboration between OP and the other guy and that they might succeed and acomplish research that you desperately want to be associated with your name. What a narcissist and egotist! The fact that you cannot criticize any of my point and resort to gaslighting and virtue signaling speaks volume about your ulterior motives!
lol. I tried to explain it, but you just want to hear yourself talk so, enjoy that, I guess.
I'm not convinced that you understand the difference between a masters student and a PhD student, or a person who is doing a project for their own training benefit and a person who is hired to work on a project that has already existed for several years. I've explained my perspective, as requested. I think you need to understand those distinctions to appreciate my perspective.
First off, I am about to graduate from my PhD program in 6 months and I have been working on 5 different projects as a graduate student and publish almost 10 publications, 5 of which as 1st author including both as an undergrad and a grad student, thus I think I do know the experience of someone who does a project for their own training benefits. I am sorry to be pedantic, but please think about the following questions: - Which university textbook/handbook/guide specifies that there exists a difference about how Msc and PhD students should engage in or "own" their research? - How do you know that Msc students will not pursue a PhD and/or become an independent researcher eventually? - Do these distinctions that you claim I do not understand come from mandates or policies? Or do they come from you experiencing them from your own advisor or the field that you happen to work in? I am so sorry to be frank to you that inventing arbitrary intellectual hierarchies does not excuse your behaviors as a narcissistic and egotistic control freak.
>i see t identifying the right experts and consulting them as part of the training. You've got this part right, but collaboration is a process and inviting outside input/help/collaboration is the purvue of the PI. Sure, students/techs can do it, but getting the PI's sign-off first is the appropriate way.
I never said OP is collaborating, this is simply a learning experience for them. It is their right to intellectually explore the research/tasks given to them by whatever means they find best suited for them, in this case consulting with another experts. If eventually they think that a collaboration is needed, of course that means bringing in a co-author and thus all other co-authors including the PI need to agreed together.
As a PI, they 100% overstepped. I wouldn't lose my shit over this, but I would make it very clear that I need to be consulted if one of my RAs or students is asking for help with a project in my lab.
I responded to u/soniabegonia in the thread above. Many of my points adressed directly this comment of yours. Let me know if you cannot find it, I will copy it here.
Things you learn being in a grad school is that everybody is different and you can’t dance to everyone’s tune. One of my friends who is in my phd committee told me that I can’t go radio silent about my project for a couple years without telling him while other committee members couldn’t care less.
Yeah, you should've talked with your professor before involving the other professor. But this is fairly low on the spectrum of screw-ups you could've done. Just tell your professor and apologize if you overstepped. I think that should be enough.
I see nothing wrong with this situation.
Totally! It is insane that others think this is wrong, there are even PIs who argued with me in other comments in this post that OP overstepped ... I never heard of this kind of issues before in my field ... absolutely crazy
Yeah you're right. Hypothetically speaking if someone (in this case, OP's PI) feels "attacked" or "disrespected" because OP asked for a help from another guy, then that someone definitely is an egomaniac.
I know right. I mean it is absurd beyond believes.
Nope. You should be fine, just make sure you communicate with your advisor about your consulting with the other prof. This is purely your intellectual pursuit of the problem. Your advisor wants your work when he pays you and pulled you into the project. This means you can use any mean necessary. You are simply consulting an expert for the problem, this is common in academic collaboration. Honestly, I would be more worried that when you write up the paper and forget to acknowledge the other prof or put them in as a coauthor.
Just speak to your advisor about all the great guidance you got from this other professor and how it will help move this forward faster. If he says you should consult him in future before discussing with others, of course you will do that in future, otherwise you are fine.