Situation
Mary Rodriguez, associate professor sociology on a new campus ponders an unexpected turn of events in which, after working for week to develop what turns out later to be a winning proposal for a $2.5 million grant, she discovers that she has been left with no credit or participation in the project. Approximately one year ago, she was approached by a colleague, an associate professor in the biology department at the recommendation of a mutual colleague. The colleague suggested that the biologist ask for some help from Mary Rodriquez, well known for her proposal writing skills, as well as excellent methodological skills, to draft a proposal for survey research for a cancer study. The biologist was at a loss; she was extremely limited in social science research skills despite her wide contacts in science grant circles which would guarantee her an audience, if only she could generate the proposal. Further, the biologist was under some pressures to generate a grant having come to the University only two years ago and finding it difficult to adjusted to the newer, smaller setting where colleagues were scarce. The new grant was centered on a behavioral model which was explained to Mary, along with a statement that she would be incorporated in the project if funded. Mary had some reservations about the collaboration, particularly the vagueness of her role should the grant be successful. She consulted her dean who reassured her and encouraged her to cooperate. Once the grant was won however, Mary’s long awaited collaboration offer failed to materialize. Instead of the co-principal investigator status she requested, she has been asked to “direct the survey” in return for one course release. She refuses and now ponders her course of action.
Questions
What should Mary do:
- What are the issues here?
- Who should she consult? the Dean? the granting agency?
- Should she consider resigning either before or after finding another position at another university?
Discussion
This is another example in which it “is best to have frank and open discussions about the division of credit early in the process. This can help prevent later difficulties.” Had Mary overcome her early reservations and pushed the issue about an exact role for her if the project was to become funded, this dilemma would never have materialized. Mary must become cognizant of the every-changing political climate at a university and the possibility that administrative personnel could change as well. While the dean was the same individual who “reassured” and “encouraged” Mary to participate, for some reason, the rules have now changed. Mary’s contribution should have been explicit and written into the grant, so that if problems arise she would then have recourse through the granting agency.
Failing to have done that, Mary is now in a very difficult position. There is no doubt that Mary’s contribution to this grant was paramount to the grant’s success, and to the career advancement of the biologist. Mary needs to make clear to both the biologist and to the dean that direction of the survey and one course of release time is insignificant compensation for her contribution to this grant. Perhaps the Department Chair would be willing to assist Mary in her discussion with these parties and assist in the negotiation of a reasonable deal. Should Mary be employed at an institution with a union, perhaps seeking advice from them would also prove beneficial.
The lesson to be learned from this is that everything should be in writing . . . especially in a grant proposal! There was absolutely no reason that Mary’s anticipated role in the project should not have been documented in the proposal itself. This would have saved this difficult position.
