Time Tracking Application for Research

[kerprof]

Have you used  time tracking application such as https://clockify.me/


I just came across clockify.me  app and I am strongly considering using it for myself (especially to track time spent on research and related activities such as research meetings, documentation, research work, reading etc.,).

In addition, considering I provide the stipend/tuition support towards research assistantship, I am also thinking of imposing it to my students (specifically PhD and MS Thesis students for their time related to research and related activities like writing and presentation). That way I can track how many hours each student spend on what?

Have you tried using this? Also would this be a good idea to impose this to students for tracking their time spent on research projects and related activities.  I just hope that it will lead to productive environment and will not back fire...

Please advise your thoughts on this.

[arcturus]

Feel free to use the application for yourself. Feel free to mention to your students that you are planning on using it to track your own time. DO NOT REQUIRE your students to do this. It will not end well.

You have previously mentioned concerns about the progress your students are making. Address those head-on by setting (reasonable) research goals with specified due dates (i.e., in order to be on track for completing the work required for this grant, which is supporting your dissertation research, we need to accomplish X by date Y.) How much time it takes them to accomplish this is not as important as accomplishing it by the time it is needed.

To further discourage you from requiring your students to use an app to track their time: the app does not actually know what they are doing. They could "clock in" and then spend their time gossiping, playing computer games, etc. Do not indicate your clear distrust of their work ethic by requiring them to clock-in.

[mamselle]

It's helpful for people who have to file time-use charts for their departments (and their EAs: I used to have to do this for people I worked for at one school).

I often double-checked it by going through their emails (whenever I had viewer's rights) to see when they sent certain things out, or wrote extensive emails to colleagues to clarify shared grant issues, etc. (In fact, when I've had to do my own free-lance time sheets, I've used my own emails in the same way.)

But I agree, your power issues with your grad students need to be addressed more conversationally and less by iron-mask impositions on their trust and time.

The former is win-win, the latter is lose-lose, as noted above.

M.

[FishProf]

I've used Rescue Time for the same sort of thing. 

My research students because it gave them a better sense of the time they were wasting.

But second the suggest, don't require

[kerprof]

Feel free to use the application for yourself. Feel free to mention to your students that you are planning on using it to track your own time. DO NOT REQUIRE your students to do this. It will not end well.

You have previously mentioned concerns about the progress your students are making. Address those head-on by setting (reasonable) research goals with specified due dates (i.e., in order to be on track for completing the work required for this grant, which is supporting your dissertation research, we need to accomplish X by date Y.) How much time it takes them to accomplish this is not as important as accomplishing it by the time it is needed.

To further discourage you from requiring your students to use an app to track their time: the app does not actually know what they are doing. They could "clock in" and then spend their time gossiping, playing computer games, etc. Do not indicate your clear distrust of their work ethic by requiring them to clock-in.

Thanks for the suggestions. It makes sense to suggest the students to use Clockify for their own benefit it but that will NOT be a requirement.

In regards to the particular student that I am having issue with, I am planning to talk to the student next week in regards to the plan for next year.. 

The plan I have in mind is that the student will only do RA duties  (so that any distraction due to TA is avoided) throughout 2022. The stipend and tuition support will match the amount paid in 2021. However,  at least ( 1 conference and 1 journal paper ) OR ( at least 2 journal papers) needs to be accepted by end of 2022, with the student being the first author. If not, I will not be able to support with stipend and/or tuition support for 2023. 

The conference can be any  of the Top 300 conference proceedings in my field.  But it should be published by one of the following: AAAI, ACL, ACM, AMIA, AIS, IEEE, IJCAI, NIPS, PMLR, SIAM, SPIE, SPRINGER and USENIX. The journal can be any of the Top 1000 journals in my field. But the publisher should be one of the following: AAAI, ACM, AIS, IEEE, Elsevier, Springer, IET, JMIR, JAIR, IOS, SIAM, SPIE, Taylor and Francis, WILEY, and SAGE. The rankings for these top conferences and journals are clearly tracked and accessed using web page (For Journal - https://research.com/journals-rankings/computer-science/2021  and for Conferences - https://research.com/conference-rankings/computer-science/2021 )
.
In addition, the student need to do the research presentation in a satisfactory manner as assigned in the weekly lab meetings.

Given that student is working with me since mid 2020 and already has couple of rejected manuscripts to work on along with the one the student is working on, I believe this is a reasonable plan.  Moreover, the student has done with all the course work and can fully focus on research.

Please advise if this sounds a good option to track productivity and make the students accountable. Also please advise if the expectation should be lower or higher or is it just right on what I am laying out.

[Puget]

I think the goal of *submitting* articles is reasonable, but not *having them accepted* which is outside of the student's control to a large extent.

[kerprof]

I think the goal of *submitting* articles is reasonable, but not *having them accepted* which is outside of the student's control to a large extent.

The problem is that attitude of this student is that the student will be happy to submit junk work and  shift the blame on anything but the student.

[Kron3007]

I dont use anything like that and would hate myself for micromanaging me so much if I did.  Perhaps it would improve efficiency, but my soul would die a little every time I used it...   

As for students, requiring this seems way beyond what I would consider reasonable and am glad you dropped the idea.  Pitching it as a useful tool that you have started using is fine, but I doubt many of them will follow suit.  People that would choose to use something like that are probably already pretty organized and would not benefit much from it (perhaps I am wrong).  People who are disorganized would likely try to use it and fail with it anyway (like when I kept day planners and entered all my appointments, then never opened it again...).

Regarding your trouble student, I agree that submitting papers is a better benchmark than acceptance for the reasons given and it seems like a reasonable approach.  That being said, it also depends on how you frame things and you should work to find out what is standing in their way from progressing and try to help rather than setting hard deadlines without support.  I assume they also want to be productive, so you should try to work together to help them meet this goal.  I feel the carrot is much better than the stick, and people do their best work in a supportive environment.
     

[Kron3007]

I think the goal of *submitting* articles is reasonable, but not *having them accepted* which is outside of the student's control to a large extent.

The problem is that attitude of this student is that the student will be happy to submit junk work and  shift the blame on anything but the student.

Sure, but you can add the caveat that it needs your approval before submission so that you can ensure the quality is where it needs to be.  The point remains that acceptance is out of their control and not really a fair requirement.  I have had papers that were accepted after nearly a year in limbo, nothing to do with me... 

[Puget]

I think the goal of *submitting* articles is reasonable, but not *having them accepted* which is outside of the student's control to a large extent.

The problem is that attitude of this student is that the student will be happy to submit junk work and  shift the blame on anything but the student.

Sure, but you can add the caveat that it needs your approval before submission so that you can ensure the quality is where it needs to be.  The point remains that acceptance is out of their control and not really a fair requirement.  I have had papers that were accepted after nearly a year in limbo, nothing to do with me...

Right, aren't you also an author on these papers and controlling when they are submitted? I would never let my student submit a paper that I didn't think was in publishable condition.

[jerseyjay]

I second the advice to not require this for your students.

To be honest, if I were required to use this, I would probably seek another adviser.

When I worked outside of academia, we had to use two different programs. One was PeopleSoft, which we used to figure out that we had done enough work to be paid. The other was EPM (electronic project manager) that tracked how we divided our work between different tasks, so that the appropriate clients could be billed appropriately.

It did not exactly work, but it made some sense, when the work was made up of discrete tasks that were done for different projects. (I understand that attorneys can bill two different clients for the same work if it benefits both, but that was not the case at my job.)

I do not see how this would work for an academic job, where the amount of time spent expands and contracts depending on the work, and where there are not different clients. (I suppose different grants might change this.) For my work, it would seem to make everything more difficult and it would also be pointless. It doesn't really matter how much time I spend doing something so long as I get the results I want. It might be useful to know how much time I spend (waste) on some things, but I am not sure if this would help.

All that said, I can't object to using it for your own benefit. And if you think it will help your students, let them know. But if my adviser MADE me use it, I would run in the other direction.

[Caracal]

For my work, it would seem to make everything more difficult and it would also be pointless. It doesn't really matter how much time I spend doing something so long as I get the results I want. It might be useful to know how much time I spend (waste) on some things, but I am not sure if this would help.

All that said, I can't object to using it for your own benefit. And if you think it will help your students, let them know. But if my adviser MADE me use it, I would run in the other direction.

It's really important to remember that time management and organizational strategies are never going to work for everyone. Lots of people in my field love note taking apps. I download one once, and realized immediately that these things were not for me. My brain just doesn't work that way. I just type notes in word and then use the search function when I need to find something. This would drive lots of people crazy, but it works fine for me.

Same deal here. A certain kind of person might find this sort of thing helpful in managing their time. For many others it will just get in the way and increase their anxiety. Grad students need to figure out how they can get work done. Suggestions can be helpful, but micromanaging is just going to keep them from figuring out ways to be productive.

[mamselle]

Maybe the greater concern is what is referred to earlier, how is it that a student

a) sends out something that's not in good enough shape to be published, and

b) when it's rejected, doesn't have help from their advisor to get it back out the door?

I recall very clearly one prof I worked for calling the joint author(s) into their office as soon as an R/R or rejection hit their email box and starting them each on workshopping the thing to get it back out ASAP.

This was in STEM (one of the eye-opening times when I realized "Some Disciplines Are Different From Yours": SDADFY, maybe?) and they had it turned around in a week.

In other words, the modeling of time frames came from the prof. NO TIME was wasted in getting them to turn the thing around.

If you're not helping them get it back out quickly, you're not modeling your own time expectations: no wonder they're lollygagging, they don't know what to do when.

People learn by example.

M. 

[kerprof]

Maybe the greater concern is what is referred to earlier, how is it that a student

a) sends out something that's not in good enough shape to be published, and

b) when it's rejected, doesn't have help from their advisor to get it back out the door?

I recall very clearly one prof I worked for calling the joint author(s) into their office as soon as an R/R or rejection hit their email box and starting them each on workshopping the thing to get it back out ASAP.

This was in STEM (one of the eye-opening times when I realized "Some Disciplines Are Different From Yours": SDADFY, maybe?) and they had it turned around in a week.

In other words, the modeling of time frames came from the prof. NO TIME was wasted in getting them to turn the thing around.

If you're not helping them get it back out quickly, you're not modeling your own time expectations: no wonder they're lollygagging, they don't know what to do when.

People learn by example.

M.

Thanks for pointing out the things I need to change from my end. I will be mindful of this to ensure that on a consistent basis, the quality things go out (to the right outlet) and ensure there is a quick turnaround if things get rejected. This is first time I am mentoring PhD students and so I am learning as well from all wise people out  here in this forum.

[Caracal]

Maybe the greater concern is what is referred to earlier, how is it that a student

a) sends out something that's not in good enough shape to be published, and

b) when it's rejected, doesn't have help from their advisor to get it back out the door?

I recall very clearly one prof I worked for calling the joint author(s) into their office as soon as an R/R or rejection hit their email box and starting them each on workshopping the thing to get it back out ASAP.

This was in STEM (one of the eye-opening times when I realized "Some Disciplines Are Different From Yours": SDADFY, maybe?) and they had it turned around in a week.

In other words, the modeling of time frames came from the prof. NO TIME was wasted in getting them to turn the thing around.

If you're not helping them get it back out quickly, you're not modeling your own time expectations: no wonder they're lollygagging, they don't know what to do when.

People learn by example.

M.

Yeah, you need to figure out what expectations are reasonable, clearly communicate them and then have clear discussions with your students when they aren't meeting those expectations.

I get the impression from these posts that you are getting stuck in between. Some of your expectations are reasonable, others may not be. That's making it hard to communicate clearly to students and that results in you not having conversations with students when their work isn't acceptable.

SDADFY applies here, but when I submitted things to my advisor, he was always very clear about whether he needed to see another draft before I sent it off. It never felt like a failure on my part. There was just a distinction between, "go ahead and fix these things and consider these suggestions and then its good to go" and "I don't think this is quite there yet, rework this and then I'd like to see another draft." Of course things might still get rejected or get an RandR for all kinds of reasons, but it does seem like you can't put it all on the student if you think the work isn't good enough.

That said, I do think your proposal is a step in the right direction in terms of clear communication. My suggestion would be to make sure that the conversation isn't just you delivering the ultimatum and ushering the student out. If it was me, I would want to draw out the student about some of the problems they have been having. If the student thinks everything has been going great, that's a different conversation then the one you would want to have if they know they are struggling. After you lay out your expectations, you should also make sure you and the student come up with a plan for how this is going to happen. I would think that would involve discussing the rejected papers and how they can get them in shape to be accepted, conferences they are considering applying for, etc. This is much more likely to go well if the student comes away thinking you are on their side and want them to succeed.