We can always do better; in fact, the best path to sustained success involves regular re-evaluation and change. We also do not want to let perfect be the enemy of good. As such, this living document represents our current best attempt and suggestions for revisions are welcome. As the faculty leader of the group, Emily Rauscher is the main person responsible for maintaining this document and ensuring adherence to the values and practices stated within, but all members of the group should feel welcome and enabled to make contributions as well. Sources that inspired material within this document came from: here, here, here and this resource is especially recommended.

Shared values

Our expectations for each other and what defines appropriate behavior are based on our shared values. In short, we value:

• Humans more than science: the health and wellbeing of each other is more important than our professional activities. We do not want to do any harm to each other or those in our larger community, but at the same time are neither professionally equipped nor fully responsible for maintaining the holistic health of each other.

• Research: the main activity uniting our group is our research effort. All members of this group collaborate in some way with Emily; many also collaborate with each other. While we may not enjoy every aspect, on the whole our research effort should be something that is overall fun and satisfying. In addition, we hold ourselves to important ethical standards in the way that we conduct and report our research.

• Professional development: for each of us, participation in this group is one component of our ongoing career path. We endeavor to help each other understand and excel at all of the “non-science” that accompanies doing science. The context of this research group is academic, and so most of the focus of professional expectations and activities will be as pertains to academia. That said, everyone but Emily will eventually move on from this group to the next step in their own career path. We want to support each others’ success, in whatever form it takes, and welcome discussions about the differences between academic and non-academic career paths, as well as how to navigate them. 

Requirements for Professional Behavior

We hope to maintain a group environment that is friendly, supportive, and fun for everyone. We require the group environment to be safe, respectful, and one that appropriately values our shared humanity. As such, all members of the group must adhere to ethical and professional behavior within the group, its activities, and our communications with each other.

The American Astronomical Society’s Code of Ethics should be used as the standard for what comprises professional behavior within our discipline and our group. Members of this group must read and adhere to the expectations set there, paying particular attention to the Conduct Toward Others section, which specifies that:

• We must treat each other with respect, promoting equal opportunity and fair treatment of our colleagues regardless of any aspect of their identity (gender identity, race, ethnic and national origin, socioeconomic background, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, etc.). We must work to promote an environment in which everyone can freely express themselves and perform their science.

• It is unacceptable for there to be any abusive, demeaning, humiliating, or intimidating behavior; abuses of power are particularly egregious. Regardless of intent, behavior that harms others is not tolerated and actions will be taken to correct any unacceptable behavior, as described below.

• “More senior members of the profession, especially research supervisors, have a special responsibility to facilitate the research, educational, and professional development of students and subordinates. This includes providing safe, supportive work environments (e.g., free from bullying or harassment), reasonable and fair compensation, appropriate acknowledgment of their contribution to any research results, as well as respect for them as individuals and protection of their academic freedom (e.g., freedom to disagree with or dispute wider community-held positions without fear of retaliation). In addition, supervisors should encourage the timely advance of graduate students and young professionals in their career aspirations, be they in or out of the academic career track.” As such, the expectations on Emily’s behavior are of higher standard than the rest of the group, although the postdocs and graduate students in the group who mentor undergraduate students should also keep these additional standards in mind in their behavior with their mentees.

Members of this group must also read the sections detailing particular examples of unacceptable behavior (Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Bullying) and avoid such behaviors themselves.

Positive Ways to Promote Good Behavior

Although the next sections discuss consequences and reporting of inappropriate behavior, we can best prevent non-professional behavior by actively working to promote an inclusive, equitable, friendly, and supportive environment within the group. In the future, we will expand this section to further discuss ways good behavior can be promoted.

Consequences for Non-Professional Behavior

It is primarily Emily’s responsibility to address any unacceptable behavior that occurs within the group, and she commits to endeavor to maintain an appropriate, professional environment for all group members. It is also expected that group members should maintain these standards for professional behavior outside of the group, but those interactions are generally beyond Emily's purview. If she notices—or is made aware of (see Reporting section below)—unacceptable behavior, she may take one or more of the following actions (not necessarily in this order), depending on the context:

• Publicly or privately informing someone of their inappropriate behavior, including an explanation of why (if needed), and explicitly stating that this behavior cannot continue. For truly egregious behavior, this could include immediate termination from the group.

• Discussion with the person(s) harmed by the behavior about their desired outcome for the situation.

• If a person’s harmful behavior does not cease after an initial warning, and there is no believable plan for this person to change their actions, then they will be required to discontinue their participation in the group. Continued participation in, and authorship on, ongoing research projects will be evaluated for the most ethical and least harmful path forward.

• Depending on the type and severity of unacceptable behavior, it could need to be reported to appropriate authorities, for example the University, the American Astronomical Society, or law enforcement (although we strongly prefer not to engage with police unless there is an active risk of someone physically harming themselves or others).

Reporting Non-Professional Behavior

We hope that group members are never in the position of needing to report inappropriate behavior, especially as this adds extra burden to those already harmed. However, we cannot fix problems of which we are unaware. Below is a list of possible avenues for reporting unacceptable behavior:

• Speak with Emily if the behavior of someone in or out of the group is harming someone within the group. (Emily can also discuss harmful behavior toward those outside the group, but it may be beyond her responsibility/ability to enact corrective action.) Email or slack could be used for initial contact, but for an issue this sensitive, an in-person or zoom discussion would be best.

• If Emily is behaving inappropriately, she would very much appreciate it if someone is willing to bring this to her attention and she commits to listening without defensiveness. However, it is understandable that someone may not feel comfortable doing this, so alternatively concerns about Emily’s behavior can be reported through some of the mechanisms listed next.

• The Astronomy Department has an anonymous reporting form, which is read by the Chair of the DEI Committee. While the ability to report concerns anonymously is very important, please recognize that maintaining anonymity can limit others’ ability to respond effectively and fully.

• Any sexual or gender-based misconduct can be reported through official university channels here. There are also confidential consulting resources offered through that page, as an alternative or preliminary step.

• Depending on the career status of the person with a concern to report, they may reach out to the Director of the Undergraduate Program, the Graduate Program Chair, or the Chair of Astronomy. The persons in these positions should be listed in the department directory.

• For graduate students, they can also speak with the current person holding the “Grad Tsar” position within the department and that person is not required to make a formal report (unless that is the course of action that is agreed upon). Current graduate students should know who is currently assigned to this role.

• There are also Ombuds staff available that undergrads or grad students and postdocs can reach out to with any concerns. For grad students and postdocs, the linked resource also includes other conflict resolution options.

This whole section under development (probably for forever, as more material is added and/or changed). You may also find headers below with no text underneath; those are sections that will hopefully be filled in later.

Who we are

Our group is made up of folks at U-M who are engaged in research projects with Emily Rauscher, either being directly mentored by her or through mentorship by one of the grad students or postdocs in the group. This includes undergraduates (through research programs, 399 "independent study", or for pay), graduate students (working towards a PhD), postdoctoral researchers (who have a PhD and have been hired to work on some project), and "affiliates" (folks who do related research and want to hang out with us).

Getting started

When someone joins the group, here are some things they may need/want to do:

• read over the Code of Conduct outlined above

• set up a time to meet weekly with Emily (or whomever else is directly advising them, since this may be a grad student or postdoc in the group)

• add the group meeting to their schedule (this is optional for undergraduates and affiliates, but grad students and postdocs are expected to attend)

• join (or be added to) the group Slack channel, Google calendar (both the group's and maybe the department's), and email list

• (optionally) share a photo with Emily for her to include in the list of Group Members, also a link to your website if you have one

• maybe get access to computing resources (e.g., an account on Great Lakes), depending on the nature of the project

• make a plan for carefully documenting research progress, including notes about progress (and challenges)

• make sure that all research material is regularly backed up, preferably in some automated way with version-controlled material kept online somewhere

At the first meeting, there are some common things that will be discussed, although the context will be different for a group member who is an undergrad, grad student, or postdoc:

• Undergrad researcher: may or may not be working directly with Emily (if not, then they'll be working with a grad student or postdoc in the group). In the first meeting they will meet with Emily (and the direct advisor if this is not Emily) to discuss: expectations for research overall (including the rubric we use for evaluating the research grade, if it's a context where one will be given), any timeline constraints for the project (e.g., there will be a poster presentation at the end of the semester), and practical first steps for getting started on the project.

• Grad student: it is likely that there has already been some communication about the project itself before the first meeting, but the first steps will be discussed. We will also discuss expectations, communication, and perhaps sketch out a timeline for the project (or get to this after a few weeks, once the project is underway). We will also try to sign up for the first MORE workshop that we can both attend, to develop a mentoring plan.

• Postdoctoral researcher: we will discuss expectations, communication, and identify the first steps for the project. I will also present a template for a "one year plan" strategic exercise, where the postdoc lists the projects that they are committed to or could consider starting and then evaluates the effort and impact for each project. We will also discuss career goals, short term and longer term, to the level that they are known.

Communication

With Emily: the most reliable way to communicate with me is via email. 

• Emailing me will ensure a message is not lost and that any request eventually gets answered. I can generally respond to most emails from group members within one business day and I hope for a similar response time to emails I send. Tip: the shorter your email/request, the more likely I am to be able to respond quicker. If it's longer and/or requires more thought from me, it will take longer for me to respond.

• If I am in my office, with the door open and/or my sign reading "welcome, please knock", then I am available to chat. But if you want to make sure to have my uninterrupted attention, you can email me to arrange a time to meet.

• Meetings are preferentially in person, but can always be switched to Zoom if that's better/needed for some reason. Meetings do not have to go for the full time that has been scheduled for them (usually 30 or 60 minutes) and can be canceled if there is nothing to discuss (in which case, an email should be sent ahead of time). We do not have formal agendas, but it is good to prepare for a meeting by making a list of anything that we should talk about in it.

• You can send me a message on Slack or post in the group's channel, but sometimes I will be away from Slack or otherwise engaged and cannot respond quickly. In those cases there is also danger that I lose track of your message. So it can be an effective form of communication if you just want to ask me a quick, non-important question, but otherwise email is preferred.

• I do not generally give my cell phone number to folks in my group. On occasion, I may share my number for coordination (e.g., traveling to a conference together or arrange for food pick-up) but in most cases I do not want group members to call or text me.

With others: this group is best when it is strongly collaborative. Traditionally the more senior members of the group will help out the more junior members of the group, as they themselves were helped out by previous members. This includes practical help (e.g., how to do a thing) and general advice (e.g., how to manage Emily, how to decide whether to go to grad school, where to find tea in the kitchen). Emily is not entirely sure of how folks in the group choose to communicate with each other, but is glad that it happens!

Letters of recommendation

Emily considers it a part of her job (and one that she likes!) to support folks in her research group as they progress into future positions. It can generally be assumed that I am happy to write letters of recommendation for undergrads applying to REUs or grad schools, grad students applying to postdocs, postdocs applying for their future positions, etc., but it is still good practice to ask. Things that make it easier for me to write a strong recommendation letter for someone are:

• getting the request well in advance of the deadline

• having a well organized way of communicating the relevant information: what is the letter for, what is the deadline, how am I supposed to submit it

• even though I will put deadlines on my calendar, I never mind gentle reminders of upcoming deadlines; I'd hate to accidentally miss one!

• a CV and/or a draft of whatever application material is being submitted, to make sure I have my information about the person correct

• knowing whether there is anything about someone's experience with me that they are hoping I will highlight as a strength in my letter

Regular departmental meetings and activities

During the Fall and Winter semesters there are weekly activities within the Dept. of Astronomy that folks in this research group may want to attend. Whether or not they *should* attend depends on whether they are an undergrad, grad student, or postdoc, and can/should be a topic of conversation with Emily. These events are (with likely times, subject to change):

• Exoplanet Journal Club (probably Mondays from 1-2pm): an informal discussion of the exoplanet literature that has appeared on the arXiv within the last week. There is an email list (that Emily can add folks to) that sends out weekly reminders and a link to vote for papers to dicuss and/or volunteer to lead a discussion.

• AstroCoffee (probably Tuesdays and Fridays from 11-11:30am): faculty, postdocs, and grad students in the department sign up to present a paper for 15-minutes, with two papers per AstroCoffee

• Stars, Planets, and Formation Group meeting (probably Tuesdays from 2-3pm): folks who work on these topics (faculty, postdocs, grads, etc.) meet for these large, joint-group meetings. Usually we have internal or external speakers, talking about what they're working on. Sometimes there's discussion of literature, recent conferences, or proposal plans.

• Grad lunch talks (probably Wednesdays from noon-1pm): throughout the year every grad student in the department will give a short talk about the research they are currently working on

• Colloquium (Thursdays from 3:30-4:30pm, with tea beforehand at 3pm): the department invites scientists from other institutions to visit us and tell us about their research

• Tea (Fridays from 9:30-10:30am): this is a purely social occasion, for folks in the department to chat and eat breakfast