ArticleFEMS microbiology letters2023
Striving for equity in academia: embracing the power of no in decision-making.
Article in FEMS microbiology letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In academia, saying "yes" to opportunities and "no" to distractions is crucial for effective decision-making. Here, we emphasize the importance of carefully considering commitments and courageously declining those that may lead to overextension. We highlight that discernment is vital, particularly for junior faculty/scientists and those with marginalized identities, as overcommitment can hinder career advancement. The "Fame, Fortune, and Fun test" offers a practical heuristic for evaluating opportunities, enabling academics to make informed choices. Saying "no" effectively involves preserving personal and professional integrity by declining tasks that do not align with one's abilities or interests. However, challenges in saying "no" are multifaceted, including fear of missing career advancements, pressures to please superiors or peers, and perceived negative consequences. This decision can be even more complex for individuals with minoritized identities, as additional expectations and responsibilities may arise due to implicit biases. The article provides a scheme for academics when deciding whether to accept or decline opportunities. The "Fame, Fortune, and Fun test" is a simplified scheme based on the Japanese concept of Ikigai, which comes from two words that mean life's purpose. The concept allows an individual to determine their reason for being and aim to align their time spent with as many components that satisfy the following four categories: what one loves, what one is good at, what one can be paid for, and what the world needs. The more overlap, the more alignment with Ikigai, and the more compelling reason to say yes. Once one has determined that they can say no, effectively saying "no" involves clear and direct communication, offering alternatives, expressing gratitude, and considering a "not now" approach if unable to commit immediately. To promote inclusivity, we suggest recommending individuals from diverse backgrounds for opportunities. By amplifying underrepresented voices, we can foster a healthier academic environment. Saying "no" empowers academics to prioritize meaningful contributions and maintain work-life balance. Embracing the power of "no" is essential for maintaining integrity and well-being in academia. Junior faculty/scientists and individuals with marginalized identities may face additional challenges in their decision-making. By carefully evaluating commitments and effectively declining non-aligning opportunities, academics can focus on what truly matters, fostering a supportive and thriving academic environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.