Back

Improving Lab Culture Through Self-Assessment: A Case Study

Hernandez, S.; Mumme, R.; Court, L.; El Basha, D.; Gay, S.; Marquez, B.; Xiao, Y.; Huang, K.; Baroudi, H.; Cao, W.; Cardenas, C.; Douglas, R.; Duryea, J.; Kaffey, Z.; Mann, D.; Nealon, K.; Netherton, T.; Nguyen, C.; Oh, K.; Olanrewaju, A.; Sjogreen, C.; Rhee, D. J.; Yang, J.; Yu, C.; Zhang, L. J.; Zhao, Y.; Ziyaee, H.; Gronberg, M.

2021-12-10 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2021.12.08.471870 bioRxiv
Show abstract

PurposeMotivated by perceived dissatisfaction within our labs changed working environment brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, we performed a self-assessment of our lab culture through anonymous surveys and live sessions. MethodsIn Survey 1, we asked each lab member to identify and rank up to 10 values that are important for a healthy lab environment. They were then asked to rate how well the lab embodied those values at two time points: before the COVID-19 pandemic while working onsite, and at the time of the survey while working remotely (10 months into the pandemic). In a series of live group sessions, we reviewed relevant literature and the survey results to finalize ten themes. We then reflected on each theme and proposed action items to address any deficiencies. Finally, we conducted Survey 2 after the self-assessment to judge the groups finalized themes, implemented changes, and overall satisfaction with the assessment process. ResultsThemes identified were attitude, accountability, teamwork/collaboration, communication, diversity/inclusion, emotional intelligence, integrity, training, well-being, and adaptability in crisis-management. All lab members liked the self-assessment process and felt their voices were heard. On average, there was a 12% increase in satisfaction across all themes from the start to end of the lab assessment. ConclusionWe successfully assessed the culture of our lab and subsequently improved lab member satisfaction. The success of this team project suggests that other scientific labs could benefit from similar interactive self-assessments.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.