How do you deal with an advisor with a bad memory?

[ion_exchanger]

I feel like that's a weird question, right? Advisors are so busy and always have things on their mind, a lot of information to forget. My advisor has been puzzling and frustrating me lately. I'll come up with ideas for my project and other members of the lab,which is great, right? I'm an involved graduate student. One idea was for an undergrad in the lab to help her project .The undergrad went to the PI and pitched it, to which she said no. One month later, she comes to the undergrad extremely excited about a new idea she had, the same idea that I had pitched a month earlier? Also, she continually encourages me to come up with new ideas, but when I tell them to her she shoots them down so quickly that I wonder why I even bother.

 

The kicker is that she brought me in because I have expertise in a certain technique that she is also working on, and would like my input. When I give her outlines of my experimental plans, she says no, why are you doing it like that? I say that this is how it has worked for me, and reminded her that she encouraged me to design my own protocol based on my successes. I review the literature and show her that other groups have done it the same way, to which she replies, no they didn't. NO, THEY DIDN'T! As if they published papers, in very reputable journals in our field, and they lied about being able to do it? I didn't know how to begin to process or respond to that. I'm trying to remain respectful and not point out the fact that she asked me to do it because everyone else had been unsuccessful, and if it hasn't worked for you, why would I repeat your same failed protocol?

 

It has gotten to the point where she will tell me to do something and if it works, she will praise herself for suggesting it, and if it doesn't work she will question how I failed, when she is the one who designed the experiment. I'm constantly being told to think of ideas, and then once I present one its like she goes out of her way to immediately fight me on them. I can't always be right and she can never be wrong. Am I being too sensitive? Should I suck it up and do what I'm told? Thanks for letting me vent.

[serenade]

Do you think the problem is just forgetfulness/absent-mindedness or do you think your advisor is being intentionally toxic? I think the answer to that will determine how you handle it. 

[St Andrews Lynx]

There are some PI out there who will only like an idea if they themselves thought of it. Even though they might solicit ideas from you and insist you should think up your own proposals. I'd say that your PI has less of a "bad" memory, more of a "selective" one.

 

You can't really change an advisor like that.

 

Your best approach (if you plan to stay in the group) is to (i) shake off the random criticism, which isn't a reflection of you or your capacity as a scientist (ii) minimise your contact with this PI and try to find other ways to get help for your research problems (perhaps from other group members) (iii) accept that you will have to "plant" ideas in your PI's head, rather than suggest something and get immediate approval/acknowledgement. I'm not pretending that is easy.

[dr. t]

(iii) accept that you will have to "plant" ideas in your PI's head, rather than suggest something and get immediate approval/acknowledgement. I'm not pretending that is easy.

 

Reeealy good practice for life after graduation, though.

[juilletmercredi]

^^^ I think this all really depends on whether your advisor has a truly bad memory or a selective one.

 

From your description, it sounds like she has a selective memory - she doesn't like ideas unless she's thought of them; she tries to offload the consequences of her poor choices on her students; and she takes ownership of ideas that are actually her students'. My take is that you have to be really careful with advisers like that; there are mild versions and dangerous ones. The mild version is just annoying; she'll praise herself for her forethought and chew you out for not coming up with anything interesting, but you'll still get credit and authorship for the important work you do. The dangerous version is actually damaging to your career, because she'll steal your ideas and leave you off the paper (or put you further down in the authorship conga line than you deserve), berate you for your stupidity that doesn't exist, and constantly undermine any of your efforts to establish yourself as an independent researcher.

 

For the professor with an actual bad memory, the solution is to start documenting everything. Take copious notes during meetings, and then send your advisor a post-meeting email - something like "Today we talked about X, and we agreed that we would do Y. Is that correct?" Then later when they try to contradict you, you have written evidence. This is especially important when you are writing your dissertation/thesis and your advisor tries to get you to start over a section or do something again because they forgot what they said and you don't have evidence.

 

If she seems to be a reasonable person, you could also point out her contradictory behavior to her. For example, when she asks you to pitch an idea, you could say something like "I do have some ideas, but I feel like very often when I share them with you I get negative feedback." (There's probably a better wording than that.) Or you can push back a little bit: "Why do you think this idea is a bad one?" Or if she does ridiculous things like insists that research groups did not do X in Y way when you are showing her a paper that shows exactly that, you can turn it on her in a question: "Ok, I hear what you are saying, but this paper shows that Group Awesome at Awesome U did X in Y way. Are you saying that I am misinterpreting the paper or that the paper is incorrect? How would you like me to proceed?"

 

IMO, being respectful doesn't mean not pointing out the flaws in people's reasoning. I think you should feel okay in saying "Past research has shown doing it in Z way is generally unsuccessful, as shown by Smith et al., Connors et al., and James et al. The protocol I'm using has not been tried before/has shown evidence of efficacy in Yates et al. How would you like me to proceed?" Say this is a detached, dispassionate away - no emotions, just facts. Then write that down, and send it in an email to her to get her to confirm. That way in 3 months when she rants that you did something wrong, you can point out that it was at her insistence and show her the evidence in the email chain she sent herself.

 

Again, I think the documentation works regardless of her disposition, but the response assumes that she's a reasonable person. If she's the dangerous kind of selective memory professor, then this will just infuriate her and possibly cause her to make your life miserable. In which case my advice would be to GET OUT, but the less confrontational/more expedient thing to do might be find ways to put up with it.

 

*

 

Related: Two of my biggest academic pet peeves (not your fault)

 

1) The idea that advisers are so busy and have so many things on their mind. Sure they do/are. So is everyone else, including their graduate students and support staff. I have personally stopped letting my advisor and other academics off the hook mentally for forgetting things that he/she really should remember. The other day someone was joking (and I think it ended up as a PhD Comic) that academia is the only field in which you can ignore hundreds of emails and not get fired for that. Could you imagine if your lawyer completely forgot 50% of the things you talked about from week to week? Or if your doctor kept messy records and gave you the wrong medication because they thought you had a disease you didn't? You'd fire them. Buy a notepad. Get Evernote. Write it down.

 

I see no reason why we can't hold academics to the same standards as everyone else.

 

2) The idea that advisors are the God of a little universe. Sure, they do have an inordinate amount of control over your degree progress, but you're a person too - an adult person with value, thoughts, and feelings. You're allowed to push back a bit, and you're allowed to be treated like a human being. You don't have to tolerate your advisor constantly putting you down. Now that may not mean snapping at her during a meeting, but it may mean gently pushing back or even switching advisors if that's feasible.

 

I just don't understand why academics think they should be able to talk to their students/advisees in any kind of way and get away with it.

 

 

 

[St Andrews Lynx]

I see no reason why we can't hold academics to the same standards as everyone else.

 

 

I just don't understand why academics think they should be able to talk to their students/advisees in any kind of way and get away with it.

 

 Because tenure. Which is why, but of course not why.