text:
Dealing with a PhD student reneging on an agreement to appear in social media
Inspired by this question, I have a similar but somehow different problem.
I recently assumed a tenure-track position. One of my strategies for a visible start is to have a strong presence in social media. We have a youtube channel in which students regularly explain their achievements. Or sometimes we post short educational materials. We also prepare brief videos for each publication as some publishers promote the videos.
However, one of my PhD students refuse to cooperate. I specifically asked him in the interview (both video chat and email questionnaire) if he is willing and ready to prepare such video materials for the group, and he firmly answered YES. Now, he claims it is not part of the job description for a PhD.
I first preferred to ignore this conflict, but now other students are reluctant to do so. Now it is more a matter of my authority.
Since I am new, I do not want to take the case to the department head or other officials.

Is there an official 'job description' for a PhD at your institute? In most places there is some catch-all phrase of 'other duties as assigned'. Perhaps you need to dig deeper about the reluctance, but many places will now include participating in video and interviews about one's work as an expected part of a researcher's job duties, explicit or not.

As the ultimate in snark (and definitely not recommended) would be to suggest that writing letters of recommendation for students is not listed on your job description. (Note this is not a real suggestion.)

everything about this situation strikes me as odd and totally foreign to my experience . . . both your fixation on making youtube videos (and on your "authority") and your student's bald refusal and reference to his "job description" . . . can you at least state what country (or region of the world) you work in, so i can get a vague sense of your cultural background?

Several answers have touched on this... what benefit does this activity hold for the students?

If you are in the US, what you are asking the student to do may in fact be a violation of FERPA. The same goes for other countries with similar privacy laws.

I have so many questions. The title says "appear in", but then you say "prepare". Which is it? You say "We have a youtube channel". Who is "we"? Who is "the group"? What do you mean by one of "my" PhD students? When you say "A visible start", a start for what? When you say "the" interview, what interview do you mean? Interview to be admitted into the PhD program? Interview to be in your "group" (whatever that is)?

In a US-like system, my question would be whether the student is employed as a research assistant.  If so, then it might be reasonable to assign them tasks like this, which involve disseminating the group's research.  If not, then in my view, you may not assign or pressure them to do things that are not in direct furtherance of their own dissertation research.  In that case, it was inappropriate for you to make this a condition of advising, and I would not consider their agreement binding.

I made this comment on another question somewhere else too, but it is possible for both of you to be at fault, hence invalidating both of your rights to complain.

@DanRomik - if talking about your work on a video violates FERPA, so does presenting at a conference...

@JonCuster indeed, there are lots of unresolved questions about FERPA, especially as it concerns graduate students. I don't claim to know whether OP's request would violate it, and suspect the question has never been tested in court. However, I do feel that OP's demand would be more likely to be found in violation of FERPA than an adviser having their student present a paper at a conference - the latter is a much more restricted, and much more academically relevant, forum than the former.

So why did the student go back on his word? The bit about the "job description" doesn't really explain it. He said he would do it when you interviewed him, and now he says he won't... What changed?

"Now it is more a matter of my authority.":  Are you saying that you're primarily concerned about your ability to compel others to obey your direction?
Just want to make sure that it's not miscommunication.

@JonCuster: Talking about your own work on a video doesn't violate FERPA. Someone else making that happen without your adequate consent is what could violate FERPA. I don't see why conferences would be different here.

I think you need to clarify just what the student agreed to in interviews.  To "prepare" a video is not the same thing as to appear in one.  I'd be perfectly willing to prepare graphics and animations for videos, but I certainly wouldn't appear in one.

@Mehrdad: Conferences are a one-time thing.  Videos can last forever.

Does your university's outreach department provide professional support for those activities?  As some answers have commented on, it is important that the result looks professional.  I would refuse to do it completely on my own, but if I had some major result I would gladly participate in a video produced professionally by the university's outreach department.

As mentioned by others and on my answer, what is missing in your question is a general description of what you asked the students to do (vs. what they agreed to in interviews). [Side comment: Certainly you made some online impact here, look at the popularity of this thread. A pity you're anonymous on this one!]

It's been mentioned in comments, but I don't think that they made the implication obvious. If this student started out saying that they would make these videos and then later decided not to do so, something changed their mind. Having been in situations where a toxic relationship caused me to find any way out of a verbal agreement, I think you really need to reflect on the entirety of your relationship with your students. It's possible this has nothing to do with you, but it's also very possible that it has everything to do with you.

"I first preferred to ignore this conflict, but now other students are reluctant to do so. Now it is more a matter of my authority."  Are the students opposing your video program (and supporting a colleague) or forcing you to enforce your mythical authority ?  I doubt you have any legally supportable authority to force the student to do what you want.  Drop this nonsense before people start filing legal cases against you and your department is my gut instinct.

How would this student react if you reneged on your agreement to fund or advise his or her research?

Another note; Was the scope of the videos clear when the agreement was made initially? Doing some video for a publication or the occasional educational material is a completely different scope compared to regular explanations on their achievements,

Why do the students themselves have to appear in the videos? Creating "promotional material" of your work is a common part of research (and squarely within the researcher's own interest, for finding collaborators and making one's work more known). However, in my field, videos typically show the on-screen output rather than the researcher (other fields without on-screen output could likewise show some explanatory graphics), and whether it's the researcher themselves speaking, a helpful colleague with good pronunciation, or a TTS engine is up to the researcher, as well.

Why do you assume you could/should/have authority to force people to post in social media?What is the relevance to the PhD?Have you considered privacy, personal security and financial repercussions of this policy?How can you  warrant your stance that by declining to partake in (public) social media the students unjustifiably attack your authority?Should you not rather concentrate on teaching students instead of entertaining the world by apparently unwilling students?Wouldn't monetizing(not saying you do) these videos in your channel made by students be ethically,even professionally unseemly?

Now it is more a matter of my authority.

Well, yes... I’m sorry if this will come as a surprise to you, but coming across as an unreasonable, coercive boss who wants to force their students to participate in distasteful, privacy-violating activities that have zero relevance or value to their professional training, is in fact something that will greatly undermine your authority as an advisor. Effect, meet cause.
My suggestion is that, for your own good and the good of your students, you cease those authority-destroying activities immediately. Your “authority” is something that is given to you for the sole use of doing research and training and educating your students. Asking them to appear in social media videos so that you can have a “visible start” is no different than asking them to make you coffee or give you a back massage so that you can feel energetic - both of those things are indeed not in any job description of any PhD student anywhere. They are not things you should ask students to do, and they are not things you have any right to be upset at a student for not wanting or agreeing to do.
Finally, the fact that you asked the student in the interview if he would be willing to appear in YouTube videos only means that you declared your abusive intentions in advance. It does not make those intentions any less abusive.
Good luck in your tenure track career.

Edit: I said I will address some of the comments left below. Rather than try to discuss fine points of logic, which I think will be tedious, I've decided to add a more personal type of note, which I think will do a better job of getting the point across.
I have been asked many times over the years by various people to have lectures I was giving recorded and made publicly available online (on YouTube, etc). I always refused. Frankly, I find the thought of making publicly available videos of myself lecturing pretty repugnant. Why? Well, just because; I don't feel like it, and I don't owe anyone any explanations. If some silly people want to think that it's because (to quote a comment someone wrote) "some people are super self-conscious about their voice and/or their looks", fine, go ahead and think that. (Oh, and by the way, on another occasion I did agree, happily, to participate in a YouTube video that now has more than 700,000 views. Go figure... I guess I'm inconsistent! Again, I leave to others to engage in their pointless Freudian analyses of what that means about my personality or whatever.)
One of the lessons I learned from these experiences is that people who don't care about privacy have a really hard time understanding people who do. The people who asked me to make my videos available online were sometimes quite offended at my refusal, as if they could not understand why anyone might refuse such an amazing opportunity, and even (this was really bizarre) subtly pressured/guilt-tripped me, implying that I would be depriving the world of an important resource (trust me, I wasn't).
OP, I am sure you are a good person and a good researcher who means well, but know this: your student who doesn't want to make YouTube videos really, really, really means it when he says he doesn't want to make YouTube videos. You might have a hard time understanding why; well, it's not important (or any of your business really) why -- just trust that it's true. And it's quite possible that your other students who haven't been as firm in standing up to you feel exactly the same.
To summarize, you probably don't view yourself as an abusive adviser. You think the student is being unreasonable, but he isn't. Attempting to force the issue will have bad consequences for both of you, and more importantly, is simply wrong. So please let the matter go, and figure out more acceptable ways to market yourself and your group.

The discussion on this answer has been moved to chat. Please continue any discussion there. Comments not adhering to these guidelines will be deleted without warning. If you want to have this post deleted for being offensive, start a new discussion on [meta] (unless somebody did so before you). Finally note that there is a meta discussion about the deleted comments.

tl;dr: You need to inspire, you mustn't coerce.
If you believe it's significant for the group to invest time in social media presence, you need to convince incoming junior researchers of this fact. You need to provide compelling examples of how doing so helps the group and helps them. It's not sufficient that it helps only other people in the future - remember your Ph.D. candidates will likely not continue as part of your group in their future, nor do they know they'll ever interact with it; and it is also up to the existing group members to inspire in them.
So when your PhD candidate says "it's not part of the job description", what he's really telling you is: "You've not demonstrated that this is worthwhile and important, and since I believe it would be at least somewhat detrimental,  I'm avoiding it."

I specifically asked him in the interview (both video chat and email questionnaire) if he is willing and ready to prepare such video materials for the group, and he firmly answered YES.

If someone asked me in a job interview whether I'm willing to go buy them lunch, and I really wanted/needed the job, I'd likely say YES but then try to get out of actually doing that.
Luckily for your PhD candidate(s), your inappropriate questionnaire is not reflected in the contract in any way. You could theoretically get that changed if you really expected the questionnaire to be binding; but, well, don't do that.

Now it is more a matter of my authority.

So, what you're saying here is that you want them to...

right? Well, it's ridiculous for Cartman from South Park and it's inappropriate for you as well.

I'd likely say YES but then try to get out of actually doing that - I'd call that a black mark against your character ...

Everything is ridiculous in South Park, it's a comedy show.

Hah, I really dislike South Park, but that's still the first image that came to mind reading the question.

@Allure: You're ignoring the imbalance of power and conflict of interests. Anyway, and just so you know - I once almost failed to be accepted into a Master's program because I used the "wrong" name for my country of birth (the one that management doesn't like politically).

@Allure that is unfair. Would you say that a woman who is coerced to agree to meet her boss at his hotel room late at night and then tries to get out of it, say by making up a dishonest excuse, has a “black mark against her character”? The nature of coercion is precisely that it puts people in situations where they have to resort to behavior that is normally perceived as dishonorable, like reneging on an earlier promise (in the case of the student in the question) or lying (in my example). The fact that coercion is involved completely changes the moral calculation of what’s acceptable.

@DanRomik yes, I would say the woman has a black mark against her character. She should not be making promises she does not intend to keep; if she does not want to meet her boss at his hotel room she should say so and deal with the consequences (I think there are also laws protecting against such wrongful dismissal as well). I think though that this is strongly coloured by our personal values. I find it unacceptable behavior, but you and einpoklum clearly don't, and none of us are "more right" than the other.

@DanRomik I'm actually considering asking the reverse question, if it is OK for the PhD student to promise to appear in social media while secretly intending not to. Any thoughts on this, or how to frame the question?

@Allure She should not be making promises she does not intend to keep. Again, I find this a simplistic view that is objectively (not subjectively as you suggest) wrong. Say the woman is a single mother. Does she not also have a “promise” to feed her child, which is in fact considered one of the most sacred promises in most societies? So, if she follows your strict honor code and refuses her boss’s demands, then gets fired and as a result becomes unable to keep her commitments to her child, is she then not behaving in a way that is even more “unacceptable”, even according to your own logic?

@Allure obviously if the student can avoid making promises they do not intend to keep, that would be a preferred course of action. But since there is an element of coercion (or an imbalance of power as einpoklum put it) in the request, especially in the setting of a job interview, if the student feels they have to agree to it (possibly in a moment of inattention or before thinking deeply enough about the matter), I don’t think they can be faulted for later going back on that agreement.

@DanRomik yes, it's clear our personal values differ. That's why I want to ask the reverse as a question; if nothing else, it'll be interesting! I'll word it as "I lied to my supervisor in the pre-matriculation interview that I want to appear in social media because I really want to work with him. Is that OK?". Do you see any issues with this wording?

@Allure go ahead and ask whatever you feel like asking (who knows, I may be tempted to write an answer to your question). I don’t have any comments about your wording.

@Allure: With due respect - the issue is not "personal values" but class outlook. You seem to have an ideological conception of human society consisting of independent property-owners who engage in free contractual relations. In that scenario it (may) make sense to hold moral principles such as "should not make promises one does not intend to keep". The proletariat does not live in such a world, however.

@Nat: I read your comment; then I read the quote on your profile page; then I read the attribution for that quote; and now I'm somewhat confused.

@Allure I think there is a possibility your logic is not considering.  Your claim about 'making a promise the do not intend to keep' implies that the intention to break the promise was known at the time it was made.  How does your 'black mark' calculus handle when things change between making and fulfilling a promise? The single mother might have agreed to meet at a hotel thinking lobby or bar and then refuses when it's clear it's his room.  Or maybe they change their mind in the social media case.  Keeping ill-conceived promises is a trope of literature for ages, we should learn from that.

@einpoklum Does the confusion imply that you saw Bush as an authoritarian, or...?

@Nat: I couldn't figure out which piece of text to take seriously, as reflecting your opinion, and which to consider as tongue-in-cheek. But - never mind, this discussion would digress even further from OP's question.

Hah, yeah, if they seem to be contradictions, I'd imagine that the world's a lot more black-and-white in your eyes; in fact, much of what I liked about the quote in my profile is the objection to Trump's push for disunification, and the counter-partisan appeal to consider our common humanity.

@KellyS.French yes, I was wondering if the student agreed, tried it, then realized he didn't like doing these videos. I would judge that differently from lying during the interview. The OP doesn't give details however. I'll wait a bit to see if the OP will give details before asking a new question.

@einpoklum as mentioned we clearly have different personal values. From my point of view, the student was not coerced - he could have said he will not do it and find another supervisor if necessary - so this was indeed a free contractual relation. In any case, we should discuss that in another question.

Every time I read "not part of my job description" I translate either
a) "You are here to exploit me and I am protecting myself by exhausting the interpretation of any formal contractual agreements we may have"
or
b) "I am here to exploit you, namely to take as much as I can while offering as little as I can, and I do that by exhausting the interpretation of any formal contractual agreements we may have".
Collaborative efforts in either case are bound to be lukewarm to difficult to non-existent.
I would suggest to first assess objectively which one of the two describes better the situation you're in. Understanding why the student changed course so completely, is critical in deciding how best to deal with the problem the PhD student has created.
Why do I say that he has created the problem? Because, to indulge his approach, reversing course and reneging on an explicit previous agreement without a shred of explanation apart from the "job description" angle, is not part of the "PhD job description" either. In fact it is part of the "Unreliable and Untrustworthy" job description. This is a PhD student we are talking about, not a teenager, so failure twice to raise and argue his (possibly valid) objections to the matter, is not a good sign.

OP is also “not a teenager”, so it’s a strange bit of logic for you to assign all the blame on the student for behaving in a way that someone who is “not a teenager” presumably shouldn’t behave, when you acknowledge (viz. “possibly valid”) that the exact same may be true of OP.

@DanRomik The OP may be faulted as regards the essence of his behavior (his demand for marketing activities), but the essence is what we fight about all the time. His approach was appropriate in that he brought up the issue unambiguously. In contrast, the PhD Student is to be faulted not for the essence of his stance, but for the way he went about it.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Collaborative efforts will be lukewarm and difficult mostly if the employer persists in its demands/pressures on the employee. In case b it would probably more like non-existent.

@einpoklum So the premises are two, and, treated as a union, they lead to the three predictions about collaborative efforts. I don't see any logical inconsistency here. What I wrote is not meant to be read as a verbal description of a function or of a mathematical lemma.

@AlecosPapadopoulos: What I was implying was that OP should consider not pressuing the PhD candidate, and that would probably allow for more productive collaboration.

@einpoklum This is always wise advice.

Downvoted because, as I said above, there easily could be a misunderstanding between the OP and the student as to exactly what was agreed to.  Until that point is cleared up, there are no grounds to castigate the student.

@jamesqf Thanks for taking the time to explain a downvote.

You blame the student for violating an "explicit previous agreement", but also blame him for bringing up the job description, which is in fact a much more explicit (and binding) previous agreement.

@Kostya_I Certainly, because he should have brought it up in the first place, or even just a plain refusal. Again, my issue with the student here is immaturity. Either he is erratic (and so unreliable), or he didn't want this from the beginning but initially caved and "tried to please the master" -which again makes him unreliable (as a professional partner I mean, nothing here relates to his potential as a researcher).

Nope, it's the advisor who should have brought up the fact that he was asking about the tasks not included in the job description. By not doing so the advisor deceived the candidate and abused his power, since he's not a  "master", but an employee, who is paid, in particular, for selecting the candidate best fitting the job description (as opposed to pleasing himself). This, of course, nullifies all the promises made by the candidate. And I still fail to understand how bringing up an explicit, written agreement could possible make you "erratic" or "unreliable".

@Kostya_I We are discussing something that we have no data over -we do not know what this "job description" actually contains. Apart from that, it appears that you are endorsing the general approach "in an agreed collaboration, we do only what is explicitly written in the text, and not a tiny bit else or more than that". I, from my part, am completely against such an interpretation of what is the function of a written agreement/job description.

Forcing him will not yield desirable results, appeal to his egoistic interests
I think even if you could force him to comply by insisting on his contractual obligations or threating to sue/fire him the produced result would be of low quality because the type of work (creating Youtube videos) requires a positive attitude, i.e. appearing happy and interested. If he just does the bare minimum (reading a script with a monotone voice) it might yield little to no positive results for the perception of your group.
I suggest:

Find out why he does not want to cooperate. Maybe he finds the other videos too childish, unprofessional or "below" his qualification ("let some art students do it", "Why does he put me on the same level as some stupid youtube creator that comments on funny videos of cats?"). This will help you identify the exact nature of the problem. For example explaining that vanityis not the reason for you doing this.
Also, personally I find that "social media" carries a negative connotation: fake news, self-portrayal, orchestrated life on Instagram, people of questionable levels of contribution to society with millions of followers, etc. Maybe he has the same attitude.

Present to him reasons on how he will profit from this as well, e.g. "It is important to be visible in academia even for PhD students." or "Other researchers in your field might stumble up your video and contact you for a chance to give a talk or cooperate with you on further research." and "You will profit from this just as much as I." The latter communicates that you are not exploiting him for you own end.

If he is convinced of the personal benefit for himself, he will probably put much more genuine effort into the production of the videos, increasing their persuasiveness and positive self-portrayal of your group.

One other reason he might not want to do one is because he thinks he wouldn't do a very good job, even if he understands the benefits.

Yes, some people are super self-conscious about their voice and/or their looks. Maybe, the OP could allow them to prepare videos where they are not in it. For instance, they could ask a friend, or they could hire someone on fiverr.com to do the voice over. Another approach would be for the OP to video their project himself. And finally, the OP needs to tighten his initial interview questionnaire and perhaps ask for a prepared video as part of the screening process. That should weed out the ones that are truly incapable of doing it.

The requirement to present work is a very reasonable ask, and in fact part of what a PhD student is supposed to learn.
That said, take a step back and think about what you're asking for.  Perhaps "produce a video" or "submit to an interview" might not be a fair ask, both for different reasons.  Producing a video requires expertise which, arguably, has little to do with what your student is trying to learn.  Doing it well takes skill, and it frankly requires some aptitude.  Done wrong, it looks bad, and can negatively reflect on a student who does it badly.  It can take quite some time to learn, and can be a substantial detractor from what your student should be spending time doing.  As for the interview, appearing on-camera can be very stressful for a shy student.  For all you know, the student may have skipped bail and doesn't want to attract undue attention!!  Of course, that last is ludicrous, but the point stands -- you don't know because you didn't ask.
If you would like to put up a social media presence around this student's work, you should find out what the student's real objections are, and address them.  If its "I don't know how to do this", you can teach the student, or make sure the student gets help from the right support staff.  If it's "I don't think this is my responsibility" (and the student might have a real point there), you can suggest that presenting data is the responsibility of a student, and you would like the student to work with staff member "X" to generate material sufficient for that staff member to produce a social media article or video.  That is the student's responsibility.
"You said you would do this and now you won't!" won't get you very far, with students or with colleagues.  If you dig in your heels on this, you won't accomplish what you need to, and your authority may take a beating.  Worse, the grapevine can carry the message, and your source of valuable students could dry up.
"I'd like to generate an exciting social media presence for our lab, and I think your work would be a great thing to include.  I understand that you don't want to make a video, but communicating your work is an extremely important part of being a researcher, and even if you don't feel you can produce a video, you are still responsible for helping your lab keep our social media presence up to date.  Can you provide material to go into this template?  Can you video your next experiment for us, maybe with your phone, and write a brief description to accompany it?  Are there tools or expertise I can match you up with to make this social media post possible?  What sort of help do you need?" might be a more productive approach.  It might start a conversation that points you to what the real obstacles are.  It might help your relationship with this student, instead of killing it.
Your student might not end up doing  the entire job on his own (which may really not be what the student needs to do with his time anyway), but you clearly lay out that the student still has substantial responsibility toward helping the lab complete the mission, and he is not off the hook for contributing.  You have reasonable expectations,  and fulfilling them will advance the student's abilities.

Re "skipped bail", that might be stretching things somewhat, but the student could easily have an abusive (ex-)spouse or significant other who possibly could track them down through videos.

I see a strong contradiction between "The requirement to present work is a very reasonable ask, and in fact part of what a PhD student is supposed to learn." and "Producing a video requires expertise which, arguably, has little to do with what your student is trying to learn." just one paragraph later.

@O.R.Mapper There are many ways to present work.  In academia, the "normal" ways tend to be papers, posters, and live presentations.  Those are the "reasonable asks", at least for the moment.  Preparing materials similar to what one would prepare for those media, and handing them to a producer, would thus not be a distraction from the academic workflow.  One could argue that video is the way of the future, and have a valid point, but then again, I've seen a ton of really bad videos, too!

@ScottSeidman: I see then. I consider the papers, posters, and live presentations the bare minimum of "having" (published) work in the first place, and the true "presentation" (the one that actually entices possible collaborators, students, authors who might build on top, users whose products will serve as case studies in the future, etc.) starting only beyond that (by providing links with additional materials, live demos, tutorials, etc.), but that might indeed be field-specific.

@O.R.Mapper  I can certainly agree with that, but I would put most of that in the PI's pile of stuff to deal with, and not necessarily the students' high priority.  Of course, how, then, do the students learn to do this without doing it??  Even that considered, the nicest examples of that form of communication I've seen here come from a joint effort of the PI, the lab staff, the students, and people who know what they're doing with respect to web design, graphic arts, user interfaces....

he claims it is not part of the job description for a PhD.

But the matter has nothing to do with what he "claims"; either it is a part of his job description or not. If it is not, then you should cease and desist, there is nothing to discuss here.
I'm quite astonished that some answers blame the student for referring to his job description and get upvotes. First, this is a typical way to set boundaries against power abuse. Second, there is a third party - that funds the student - and it is the job description that specifies its intentions. Third, this may be the only way to for him to stand his ground without telling his (perfectly valid) reasons that will put you at cross.
I also don't understand blaming the student for changing his opinion. At the time of the interview, the student (with no experience in academia and possibly from another culture) thinks that what you are asking for is a usual part of the job. Later, he finds out that it is not, students in other groups spend their time more productively, and, moreover, many colleagues find this activity distasteful. What's he to do?
The last remark: if this activity is not a part of the job (as stated in the job description and thus as intended by the funding party), including a question about it in the interview is in itself an abuse of power. This alone makes the answers of the student non-binding.

I really like your legal perspective.

"I'm quite astonished that some answers blame the student for referring to his job description and get upvotes" -- My overall impression from seeing a number of student x abuser debates in SE Academia is that most users here are biased against the student.

"either it is a part of his job description or not" - I think this claim is nonsensical. A job description can never be so detailed that it explicitly covers each possible situation and detail that might make sense in context. Referring to the job description is, as you say, a way to set boundaries against power abuse. But unless the entirety of the task is unreasonable (which promoting one's research is clearly not, for a researcher), referring to one's job description signals a complete unwillingness to even think about possible alternative solutions to achieve the intended effect.

@O.R.Mapper, nothing indicates that the student is "unwilling to think about possible alternative solutions". Quite the contrary, it is the advisor that insists on a particular way of promoting research, and it is this particular way that is opposed. Otherwise, you have a point that the job description may be vague. But an ambiguous job description doesn't mean the employee has to do whatever can be stretched to fit there. "Acting in publicised videos" is a specific activity that is not universally understood as a necessary part of "promoting research".

Since I am new, I do not want to take the case to the department head or other officials.

Many of us here understand the nerves of being a new faculty member, and having uncertainty about how to deal with a difficult situation.  But for God's sake, talk to your department head!  I'm sure your department head would be happy to give you guidance and assistance on a difficult matter, and would probably appreciate being consulted in preference to a group of random people on academia.SE.
New staff at a university can sometimes be nervous about bringing problems to senior faculty, but this is a deficiency in their own work habits.  It is far preferable to seek guidance from experienced staff in your faculty than to try to muddle through on your own with the sporadic advice of outsiders.  You will be doing your job better if you swallow your nerves and go and talk to your department head, or other senior faculty who run your department.  Presumably these are the same people who chose to hire you, so I'm sure they are happy to hear from you!
Personally, I agree with some of the criticism of your practice, and I think it is a stretch to require a PhD student to participate in this activity.  (Though I am critical of this practice, I appreciate that you have a bona fide belief in its value.)  As you can see, some of the academics on here are pretty scathing of this, and you might find that your department head is also critical of this practice.  But even if this is the case, it is much better for him/her to hear about it early, and be able to do something about it, than to hear about it later when it becomes a staff complaint and a disciplinary matter for a student.

I totally agree. The OP's position is as counterproductive as a newly married person not wanting to ask their spouse what they would like from the relationship. It is very hard to succeed in a department if you violate local norms and show no interest in finding out what they are. The OP has a lot to learn from their senior colleagues. All of us do. FWIW, I'm a department head (and former junior faculty member).

@Ellen: Thanks for your comment - it's nice to hear this echoed by a HoD.

I find this question quite important. As there are so many laboratories in my field taking up this 'marketing model' of establishing a strong online presence. I understand the potential gains and how it relates with the Impact Factor craze but I shall not linger on this aspect here.
As you said, students agreed in  participating during interviews, which is your main argument to be used in pushing them to do it. However you also said that after a while this particular student (i.e. probably the most courageous) started refusing and others soon followed. As mentioned by others in this thread, you ought to find out why student(s) are refusing to participate in videos. Which brings up the point that no potentially relevant details about such videos are disclosed of in your question. I think this point is quintessencial to your problem: perhaps the investment in your videos turns out to be more than students anticipated in the interviews? And it took one stronger personality (i.e. potentially your best student) to spark a revolt? My point here is: reconsider what you're asking of your students regarding these videos. If it takes a few minutes and is a lot of fun, I am sure almost everyone will engage every now and then. On the hand if it takes extra work hours, scalding, unwanted exposure, and surplus tasks (i.e. editing) then soon enough you'll end up only surrounded by minions and likely producing unquestioned (i.e. bad) output.
Finally, I do not encourage you to push some authority onto someone refusing to participate in videos, unless your local priorities are not the usual of a scientific research facility. Apart from destroying your reputation in the mid-term, you will (also) end up with very bad videos & results & lab ambiance in the short-term.
Do write about the experience on your blog and shoot a vlog about it: I think this problem is more widespread than you expect.

The student must understand that outreach is part of academia.  A lot of scientific research, in particular blue-sky science, is tax funded.  It is entirely reasonable to expect scientists to reach out to the general public and present what they're doing.  As a scientist-in-training, it is very much in the interest of the PhD student to be trained in outreach.  Nowadays, social media are a popular way to do outreach (but not the only way).
However, some scientists are unwilling to participate in outreach in general or to outreach via social media in particular.  Perhaps they don't want to spend the necessary time, they feel shy, or they for some reason have negative connotations to outreach in general or to a specific medium such as youtube.  Talk to the student, and find out where his objections are coming from, then try to address them:

Does the student believe outreach in general is a waste of time?  Try to explain why outreach is important.  Later in an academic career, it may very well be part of promotion criteria.
Does the student fear the produced video may not look professional?  Ensure support from the university's outreach/media production department.  Surely they're on it already?  They should be, for amateurish videos reflect poorly upon both yourself and the university brand.
Does the student have personal reasons to not have his/her face on a video?  That should be respected.  Perhaps he/she is willing to instead provide a voice-over, or write a script that someone else will read out, or support the production of video outreach material in another way?
Does the student have specific reasons to oppose social media in general or youtube in particular?  An alternative compromise could be to post the video only on the website of the university.  It may be less visible, although I think Google Video search may still find it.

If none of that works, so be it, other answers have pointed out the student cannot be forced.  But in any case, explain to the student that saying one thing at the interview but another thing after getting the position is, to say the least, not helpful.
The bottom line: explain to the student that if s/he wishes to stay in academia, s/he may very well experience (strong) pressure to do outreach later in life.  Training in outreach is good for his/her CV, and outreach is a moral duty in publicly funded science.  Dig into his/her objections, and try to address them where possible.

There is a clear line that may be blurry to you, but its not to a lot of people. Outreach does not mean social media presence. There can be outreach in social media, yes, but no academic job requires a Facebook page. Outreach is important, but not any type of outreach, especially if by doing it you can violate personal privacy (which social media does).  It boils down to a personal choice, and if a human being doesn't want to be in social media, you should respect that. This answer is only valid if the student refuses to give department seminars or go to conferences.

@AnderBiguri I have already addressed your objections in the answer, specifically in the 3rd bullet point. Unless you think that providing a script (or even voice) for a video that is posted under the department or supervisor Youtube account violates privacy?

Sorry, I might have sounded harsher than I pretended to, but my point is that for this question, the fact that outreach is part of academia is completely irrelevant,

@AnderBiguri Outreach irrelevant? What is Youtube (or Vimeo, or a personal website) if not a medium to reach out to others, including the general public?

Yes! But youtube is also part of social media where personal information is posted and not everyone is OK with being recorded and that information is publicly shared with everyone in the world.  The student is refusing to do accept that. I suspect that they would react equally to someone taking a photo of them and posting it to Instagram publicly. Therefore, the fact that OPs objective is outreach is irrelevant for the question itself, as I believe the real problem that is exposed is that OP does not respect personal privacy of the student. That was my point

@AnderBiguri I assume that university-related work would be posted under a university account, so request from OP should not require that student has personal social media account. So the personal information that youtube will have from student may be minimal. But as stated, conversation needs to happen between OP and student not between you and me :)

I would also add, along the lines of what I wrote to Dan Romnik's response, our research group does stuff like this per publication or per project, the videos are silent and subtitled, and are complimentary material to conference or poster presentations (re-using parts of experimental data and showing results). It is not up to the student to distribute the video, and the attribution is the same as on published papers (often related to it). I can possibly understand reluctance to upload it to "non-scientific" youtube but not to hosting them e.g. on the uni web along with group publications

@gerrit He didn't say "Outreach is irrelevant." He said "The fact that outreach is part of academia is completely irrelevant." Those are completely different statements that mean different things.

@barbecue You are right. I did intend to refer to that, but my comment is too short and therefore unclear. I do believe that the fact that outreach is part of academia is very relevant to the question.

Since I am new, I do not want to take the case to the department head
  or other officials.

You don't know the laws or rules and regulations of your country and/or college.  The purpose of these people is to make sure your doing the right thing legally and ethically.
If between the video and the emails are considered legally binding and enforceable your option of last resort is to kick them out of the program and/or group.
However, you definitely need to make this clear at the beginning of the process.  If you are serious about this and have the legal authority to demand this you need to have a signed contract.
The contract needs to say exactly what is expect, when it is expected, and the consequences of failure.
If you say I expect youtube videos within a week of request and we plan to expect them at  point (or actual date if available.  Failure to comply will result in being kicked out of the program (or etc).
In many cases a student can and will go and complain, and the final decision maybe up to a committee.  The decision may go in the students favor if you don't properly document everything in minute detail.
Then you need to have your department head and probably others review it to make sure it is legally enforceable, and that you have your department there to back you up.
Many instructors have gotten in trouble by trying to fix the problem themselves and in doing so did the wrong thing and got in trouble because they didn't consult the department head or other source of authority.

All that being said, you should probably ask detailed questions about why they are refusing before acting.  I would definitely prefer to find out if it is a solvable problem like stage fright, the projects not ready, or some other legitimate excuse before acting.
Making sure resources are available to help them.  Here's 20 other videos from other students, so they have something to go by.  A written template for a script, allowing the student to ad lib so they don't sound fake and scripted (unless there supposed to).  We have camera you can use on site to make the videos and etc.  Here are other resources for the students .......

Probably the best course of action is to sit down an ask your student: If you don't feel comfortable taking part in YouTube videos, why did you say otherwise when we spoke previously? This will give you a starting point. Maybe something happened in your student's life that changed their mind. Maybe the other requirements of the PhD program are putting too many time-constraints on your student, and spending this extra time engaging in social media would take focus away from their research. Maybe it wasn't clear to them what "social media" involvement meant.
It's also possible that they were just telling you what you wanted to hear because they wanted into the program (If they were being purposefully deceitful, then that may be a case for your department to step in).
These will give you a better understanding of your student, but one thing should be very clear - you should not and cannot force your students to perform duties outside of their contractual obligations to the PhD program. I would even question the ethics of admitting students to your lab on the condition that they agree to social media appearances. It could be your other students are now reluctant to create videos because they are now less afraid of saying "no."
As an advisor (particularly a tenured advisor), you have a great deal of power over the future of the students in your lab, and while it's not technically in your job description, it is in your lab's best interest to not abuse that power.

It isn't clear which jurisdiction or discipline you are working in?  Is this your first time managing people?
There are several northern European countries where PhD "students" are actually fixed-term employees and the supervisor may not even be included in the line management, with obvious implications.  It is not uncommon for people to work in the public or private sector for some time before undertaking a doctorate; in particular, they may have held positions in their previous life which are comparatively more senior than yourself.
The point of saying that is that you appear to be focusing on your authority rather than your responsibility.  Your primary concern in relation to your students is to guide them well and look after their professional, and on occasion personal, welfare.  If you do that in a competent manner, the rest will fall into place.
The old axiom that the best advertisement for a teacher is a good student applies here: is the student in question performing well otherwise?
Is the YouTube video idea really for your students' benefit or is it because you've got a new position and are perhaps feeling insecure?  Is that time really best spent on what I would personally perceive as a somewhat frivolous activity rather than undertaking research and building a robust publication history (which will cement your position)?

A research group is much like a workplace. The group takes on the personality of it's leader. Some groups require weekly presentations, some go out to beers together, some are broad, some are very narrow, some have web 1.0 web presences, some present their work on YouTube. If you made it clear that you expect your group to be out there on social media and presenting their ideas to a broader audience than they can reach just through conferences and papers than that is a reasonable expectation. If that student doesn't want to share their knowledge in that way then maybe they should find another group.
This can cut both ways though. If you as a new professor have this policy in place and cannot attract good students because of this expectation then realize it is going to adversely affect your career.
All this bullshit about "privacy" is just that, bullshit. People can want privacy, but need to recognize their are side effects to that (one of which might be not working with you). So many academics feel like they can do everything themselves and come off as extremely arrogant because of it. The nature of the world is that you MUST work with others and you can't expect privacy while working with others. Anyone can choose to limit their exposure but they have to recognize that they are giving something up by doing so.

I upvoted this answer, not because I agree with what you wrote (I don’t), but because you seem to have a coherent view and you expressed it well. So I feel that this answer furthers the debate even though I disagree with your view that privacy is bullshit.

You seem to imply that those who want privacy often does not recognize the side effects. Trust me, we do. It would sure be handier to let Facebook manage all my online accounts and connect my credit card to Google so I can easily buy Candy Coinz™. In this particular case, there has been no side effect (only benefits - less work), so I don't see how it applies.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
My accepted paper now appears as "under review" - could it still be rejected?
I have a paper that was accepted at a conference and in publication of conference special issues of a journal. The acceptance email stated that we will be contacted by the journal editorial office for further actions regarding the publication.
At the time of acceptance the status was “editorial assessment”
But this changed to “under review” again about a week after.
Now the status changed to “reviews received”.
Why could this happen? It was already peer reviewed before. I am confused and anxious and it will get rejected. Any thoughts?

Your work was accepted to be presented. The proceeding  was received not accepted. Then it went through editorial assessment, then through peer reviewing, now you should be contacted and they will tell you the final decision. Hopefully positive.

It already went through the reviews, revisions, then I got the acceptance email.

I am confused because the acceptance email clearly stated (our pleasure to inform you that your paper got accepted for oral presentation and publication in conference special issue). The submission to the conference was through the journal webpage and the classical steps already were conducted.

I think they weren't that clear then. Especially if you did not see any reports or nothing was stated about the referees opinion, even in a concise fill-in format such as "publish as it is". They basically accepted your oral presentation and said publication in a rush of optimism :) by the way referees are benevolent towards special issues manuscripts so don't worry too much.

Some conferences try to encourage submissions by providing an expedited path to journal publication.  However, the condition is that the journal version must have x% new materials as compared to the conference version.  Also, the journal version is treated like any other journal submissions but fast tracked, meaning it has a strict deadline on when acceptance will happen.  The journal standard remains unchanged.  So it is possible for a journal to reject the extended version of an accepted conference paper.

I agree, but I feel like this is special case. The submission to the conference was through editorial manager, and the progress from the initial submission to the revision was like the journal. They clearly stated that accepted paper (will) be published in a special issue of a journal. They do not say it will be considered. I am very confused. Sigh

It seems to me that the conference committee accepted your paper to be presented.
The related proceeding is then  subjected to its own revision according to the journal standards.
This is what I get from your Q - in which is not that clear who has accepted what - and it is a common work-flow for many conferences when the proceedings are to appear in a journal, albeit in a special issue of it.
Alternatively, the editor at the journal could have decided to consult one more referee. This can happen, of course.
But in this situation you shouldn't have received any acceptance letter from the journal, yet, but only that coming from the conference organisers and regarding your actual presentation at the conference only. Hope it helps and good luck.

This probably hasn't happened in your case - but technical glitches do occur. It is possible for an acceptance email to be issued by mistake: Human error or software bug/glitch.
The main (and perhaps only) thing to do IMHO is to contact the program committee chairs or contact-person and ask.

Well, I hope it is not the case. I emailed the committee chair (who usually replies quickly) but did not reply yet. Which makes me wonder if it was mistake and they are reviewing their files.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can I get a job while still applying for a scholarship for PhD studies?
I'm interested in a Ph.D. program in Switzerland. I know that all Ph.D. students can apply for scholarships, and it is very possible to get it. I am wondering if, meanwhile I could find myself an actual job—and if so, if the salary is not enough, for tuition, rent, and so on, if I could still receive at least part of the scholarship?

There are several types of PhD students in Switzerland, among them are:

University/laboratory employees. These receive a monthly salary of about 3 to 4.5 kCHF (the exchange rate is approximately 1 to 1 with the US$, there are rare variations above and below this range) and have to pay a tuition that is typically in the range of 500 to 1200 CHF per year. This salary is low in comparison to the standard of the country (the median salary is about 7000) but enough to comfortably cover the cost of living and some extras. To get on these positions, you apply to them like a regular job and in an increasing number of cases, you have to apply to a graduate school. These contracts frequently include teaching duties, TA work, sometimes infrastructure work (like lab maintenance and management). Having a part-time job besides these position is not necessary, but not unheard of. Note that depending on the location, if you are issued a full time contract, you might legally not work for another employer.
SNSF-funded doctoral students. (rare in the experimental sciences, more frequent in the humanities). These applied to a grant, with the collaboration of a professor or senior researcher. They receive a stipend typically lower than the above category but still in the order of 3000 CHF. They don't have teaching duties. For part time jobs, see above.
Industry-funded PhDs. Companies like large pharmaceutical companies offer industry-based PhD studies in collaboration with the local university. I've heard mixed feedback on these, since they are often paid like a PhD student but require industry-standard commitment and constrains. No chance of having another job in general.
'Freelance' doctoral students typically ex-members of the two first categories who ran out of time as a regular student and didn't manage to finish their thesis during the time they where funded. These people have another job and try to finish on weekends and evenings. Allow 10 years until graduation.

With all this being said, I have a hard time understanding your situation, PhD studies in Switzerland are rarely funded with a 'scholarship'. I think you need to figure it out with the institution you are interested in first. It's rare that PhD students have another job, some do a bit of consulting, some have a start-up, but the PhD is typically a full time job.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What attitude should a speaker have to going over time?
From John Baez's Advice for a Young Scientist:

Your talks should be clear, concise, fun, exciting, and never ever run over time. For each extra minute your talk runs over, 10% more of the audience will decide you are a jerk and start fantasizing about you falling down a trap door.

After 11 minutes, 110% of your audience will start hating you.
That makes perfect sense, because that includes the people waiting for the room to open up for the next talk to begin.
But some people at my college like to take the opposite view. One lecturer never releases his class until he's run at least five minutes overtime. In the mandatory presentation class, the teacher maintained that going five minutes over the twenty minute talk period time was ok, but when one student went one minute undertime, she insisted that he repeat the assignment.
My question is: how should the speaker treat overtime?

I don't understand. Are you interested how somebody in the audience should react to a speaker who goes over time or how the speaker should act when they go over? Also, are we talking about teachers or speakers at conference?

Context should give you some indication. It's very difficult to perfectly time a talk. Going a minute or two over to finish off is far from uncommon. Starting on something new, or saying 10 'last thing's gets annoying (for me at least).
For most talks, the opportunity to ask questions is expected. Sometimes that falls within the allocated time, sometimes after. Where possible organisers usually allow gaps for this sort of thing, but when there are tight time constraints you should aim to stay entirely within them.

Related-almost-duplicate: Is it reasonable for a professor to ask students to stay 30-45 minutes past scheduled class time every week?

How far over (or under) time is reasonable is something you'd measure more on a percentage-of-the-whole-talk basis, not in a fixed number of minutes. If your talk is supposed to go for an hour then two minutes over is barely noticeable - assuming you're a good enough speaker to keep people's attention that long. But if you were only supposed to have  five minutes then going two minutes over is inexcusable... And I think it ridiculous that your teacher made someone repeat the assignment for being 5% short - they might just have spoken a little quickly due to nerves (perfectly understandable).

I'd hope they'd have the attitude "I'd better wrap this up quick, I'm over time!"

Even people who are enjoying your talk would have to be really enjoying it to not feel annoyed when you go over time. People have places to be, some have scheduled appointments after the talk, and some just expect their time not to be treated as worthless.

Very approximate rule of thumb, overruns are about as bad as showing up late by the same amount. People are busy and they have schedules based on when you claimed your talk would start and stop. You're choosing to mess with them.

Going over time excessively indicates that either you're a poor planner of time, or that you don't adequately respect other people's time.

With abject horror. Or at least acute embarrassment.

Perhaps you could clarify something: In many situations talk times are given in the form talk+questions, e.g. 15+5. Are you talking about eating in to your own question time or to the next speaker's slot.  Most session chairs I've come across will stop you before you eat in to the next slot, but say 1/2 way in to your question time you could get away with (though aim not to).

Speaking for longer than the allotted time is unprofessional, and it can be very damaging and offensive in some circumstances.  For example, if a conference schedules talks back to back, then it's not acceptable for one speaker to try to use part of the next speaker's time.
It may not be quite as bad in other cases, but it's still disrespectful to the audience.  It tells the audience that the speaker believes his/her final words are more important than whatever else the audience might need to do, and it forces anyone with other obligations to risk drawing attention by leaving before the end of the talk.
Classes are something of a special case for two reasons.  One is that the professor has a certain degree of power over students in the classroom, unlike a typical seminar speaker; another is that it's easy for professors to rationalize that they are going over time for their students' own good.  Going over time is still problematic, but some people don't feel bad about it.
As for how to handle it, this problem should never even come up if the speaker is on top of things.  It's important to keep track of the remaining time and adjust the presentation to omit details as needed to finish on time.  If you screw this up, then you are out of luck if anyone is scheduled to use the room after you.  Otherwise, you could apologize and offer an extremely brief summary of your remaining points.  (I.e., if you suddenly discover that your time is up, that's when you should switch to the 30 or 60 second summary of your conclusions, rather than continuing with the seven minutes remaining in your talk as planned.)

However, if you're a good teacher, you allow reasonably high amount of student interaction (asking questions, on-topic discussions etc.) which can make it difficult to stay on time, especially if your subject is really important for their studies. In such cases, even as a student I would have preferred the professors to continue, but they should make it clear when the time is up, like: "Well, I'd like to finish this, it'll take like 7 extra minutes. It's of course in the lecture notes, so those who are in a hurry can leave if they wish."

@tohecz: true, but then you're prioritising your students' educations over those of the people waiting to use the room immediately after you. You might feel those other students aren't you're responsibility, but 100% of them and their teacher will start hating you, and they might convince your boss to hate you too ;-) You're also prioritising your class over the class that your students need to get to next, so even though you've given them permission to leave early and miss the extra 7 minutes, they'll hate you because they missed 7 minutes.

@SteveJessop We've got 20-minute breaks between each two lectures, so that's not an issue. Of course I know that for the students, the 7 minutes lost can mean being late for another lecture or having to skip their sandwich. However, they usually realize that if I leave it unfinished or spend 20 minutes of the next lecture on it (because you always have to re-introduce something), it's not a better choice. Of course, still this should be exceptional, but it's a reasonable option nonetheless.

Here's an extreme case of a teacher keeping his students late in lectures, underscoring your point about teachers having the potential to abuse their power over their students when they go over time: http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/28320/is-it-reasonable-for-a-professor-to-ask-students-to-stay-30-45-minutes-past-sche

I think the presentations teacher who is forcing students to repeat talks if they run too short is not working in reality. Her students will be very ill-prepared for real conferences, where such behavior is not likely to be appreciated.
As someone who has chaired a lot of sessions at conferences, I have to admit that I have minimal tolerance for people who try to run over their allotted slots. If your slot is 20 minutes, I will warn you when you have five minutes left and again at two minutes. If at 20 minutes, you're not on your conclusion slide, I will cut you off and ask the next speaker to set up their talk.
However, a lot of that issue comes up when one of two situations occur:

The organizers of the event where the talk takes place do a poor job of managing the session and ensuring speakers stick to their time slots.
The speaker is clearly unprepared for the time slot they have been allotted.

I recently attended a talk which should have been about 45 minutes long. When the speaker stopped, after nearly 75 minutes, he had only completed two parts out of seven in his outline. He had way too many slides, talked about each one for far too long, and generally ticked off the audience in the process.
As for lectures, as a student, I would tolerate a minimal overrun to "tie things up"—if the lecture is 90 minutes, for instance, a one- to two-minute overrun would be OK. But an extra 10 or 15 minutes would be unacceptable. As an instructor, I would rather end the class five minutes early and leave some material uncovered rather than run that far overtime.

+1 for making clear the difference between a lecture being overtime and a conference/similar talk being overtime.

+1 for "too many slides". One course I was on asked all the participants for a one-minute intro; all of them needed a PowerPoint crutch, some of them five slides...

Amongst the answers presented so far, I see a lot of strong sentiment, but am missing two things that I think are extremely important: 1) context-sensitivity, and 2) how a speaker should manage timing.
To the first point, the degree to which a speaker should be concerned with running over (or under) time is highly sensitive to the precision with which their talk is scheduled.  Contrary to what most of the answers have said thus far, this can vary highly depending on venue.

Lecturing a class is the most rigid context, as students often have other classes that they must leave to go to immediately at the end.  You need to stop on time, period.
Conference talks are typically designed for a five minute question period, which provides a cushion for going a couple of minutes over: you just get less questions.
In settings aimed at discussion, such as workshops, there is often a looser schedule with more flexibility and buffer times built in. Here, one can feel comfortable running over somewhat longer as long as the extra time is primarily caused by interaction with the audience, as that is the purpose.
In informal settings, such as an invited presentation in a group meeting, you can go over as long as the discussion takes you.  In this type of setting, I have had a 15 minute talk turn into a 90 minute talk, because the people I was presenting to wanted to dig deep into discussion with every slide.

To the second point, for the more tightly constrained talks, it is important to also have a way of thinking about time management in order to ensure that one can end on time.
A very useful method that I learned from one of the best speakers I know is to include an "accordion section" toward the end of the talk, containing material that
is enriching but not strictly necessary.  If you are running ahead of schedule, you can dawdle in the accordion section, explaining all of the lovely details.  If you are running behind schedule, you can skim through.
For example, I might give a talk that ends with a couple of case studies.  The first case study will get an in-depth treatment no matter what, while the second case study is there to show the generality of what I have been talking about.  If I have enough time, the second case study can be presented in the same detail as the first.  If not, then I can instead say something shorted, even to as short as, "X is fairly general, as can be seen by the fact that is works just as well in case study Y as well."
Thus, you should always plan your talk to be precisely on time, and include an accordion section that simplifies the task of controlling your timing.  In settings where there is flexibility in the schedule, however, you should feel free to allow the audience to extend the time of your talk within the bounds of schedule flexibility.

For the conferences in my field the alotted time usually includes questions.

@cbeleites I've seen it phrased both ways, either "X minute talk" in an X minute slot or "X minute talk" in an X+Y minute slot, depending on whether they assume you're smart enough to leave time for questions.  The point is: plan your talk to leave time in its slot for questions, and then you can be a little imprecise and it's OK.

@cbeleites In my field, the question time is included if you're told its included and not if you're told it's not. It's generally a good idea to find out what the rule is, rather than guessing.

Yes, the accordion section is key. How fun to know that other people call it that, too! Practicing will get you hitting your time, every time. And your audience deserves that.

The speaker should follow the guidelines given. Granted, normally one should limit a presentation to exactly 20 minutes. A range is much more common, and much more reasonable. Indeed, I would say the limit that was given was really 20-25 minutes (though not given in a very clear way).
It's like speeding. The posted speed limit is 65, so how should you consider yourself when you go over 65? You should slow down and fit within the posted limits.
In presentations, when you cannot fit your material within the allotted time, it shows your lack of preparation. If you just keep blabbing away, it shows your inability to follow your own structure. If you simply do not think the limit is important then you are showing a great disregard for the audience.
This is true of lecturers, too. If they do not care about the time limit they are simply being disrespectful. A philosopher would say being disrespectful to anyone is really showing your own disrespect to yourself.
In the end, people who do not follow the limits are saying they are special and the rules do not apply to them. Sadly, this attitude is all too common. Trying to change others is futile but we should do what we can to set a good example for others, regardless of our position.

I don't know if speeding is a good example. My observation suggests that a huge fraction of drivers, probably the majority, see no particular problem with exceeding posted speed limits.

Talk chairs, like policemen, are somewhat lenient. You can get away with going 68-70 on a 65 road, but going 100 will earn you a ticket. Similarly, if you get to the end of your allotted time and it's clear that you only need an extra minute or so, nobody is going to stop you; if you are still halfway through your talk, a good chair will step in and tell you to stop talking right away.

@NateEldredge If you are in the US, I completely agree with you. There is a very high disregard for speed limits in the US. This is not true in other countries. Switzerland, as one example. Clearly different cultures care about different things...and that should be factored into my answer.

@earthling it's not that americans don't care about the speed limit, it's just that the posted speed limits are always around 5-10 mph below the real limit (i.e. what a cop would actually stop you for going).

Keeping to time is just basic respect, for your audience and for any fellow speakers.
Admittedly, it varies somewhat with context - the only presentation at a group meeting going over probably doesn't have many knock-on effects, whereas at a conference there's coffee going cold outside, parallel sessions getting out of sync, and generally far more going on and more people to annoy.
That said, a rule of thumb: Is your time worth more than that of everyone in the audience combined? No? Then don't finish late - even when they all filed in five minutes late (another pet hate of mine). Yes? No, it isn't.
At the courses and conferences where I've presented, I've always been the last speaker before lunch, where you're already struggling to keep the audience's attention before you start. With a bad chairman, half of that last slot can disappear easily; that speaker is then faced with either making everyone late for lunch or mutilating his/her presentation. Bad chair or not, it's disrespectful for earlier speakers to put other speakers in that position. Admittedly, my experience is that you get massive brownie points for getting back on track and saving the lunch break, and you can get some interesting conversations in the lunch queue as a result, but you shouldn't have to.
Within the department, where we're being kept from actual productive work, I like to count the people in the room, calculate a rough figure for their combined hourly cost, and hence work out how much of our hard-earned funding is being wasted every minute that the speaker goes over. Needless to say, I'm not paying attention while doing this.
The worst example of going overtime that I've experienced was at a conference with a number of lunchtime sessions. Someone whose name started with Sir was assigned one of the first ones, and he was still talking (and his audience still hungry) when the second sessions were over and we were meant to be back in the main auditorium. As it happens, that was the same room where we were booked to give the second session; we ended up giving a software demo standing in the hallway, with one of us holding a laptop for the other and people pressing in to see what should have been projected on the wall.
So, having been on the receiving end of it both as audience member and speaker, my personal tolerance for it is very low indeed. From discussions with many colleagues over many years, I haven't found one yet who's OK with it, even when they find the topic interesting.

Going overtime in a conference is a nightmare for the organising committee. Usually, there are parallel sessions focusing on different topics, and people try to make their own collision-free schedule to make the most of the conference, if one talk gets shifted, the people changing rooms will be affected. Also, it is common to have a few keynote speakers for the whole conference, but if one session is very delayed, you are either forcing the whole conference to wait for you (and then you will get the hate of 10x the audience of your talk), or make people miss the keynote (that is presumably of particular interest).
Exact timing of a presentation is difficult, but perfectly doable. You should rehearse it until you are confident. You can always take an extra minute from the questions, but then be aware that you are depriving another person from speaking.

Don't do it. If you do, don't expect attention from anyone after your allotted time. The busier people in the audience may very well need to leave at the scheduled end-time in order to make their next meeting.

I think the amount of time leeway in how long you can talk is proportional to how long you are talking. If you are supposed to give a 4 minute summary and it takes 6 minutes, that is too long. Similarly, giving a 4 minute summary in 2 minutes is too short. Alternatively, I think it is perfectly reasonable if a 60 minute lecture takes anywhere between 58 and 62 minutes. I think audiences will generally give you up to a 10% margin for error. Many talks, both research and teaching, also include a small period of time for questions at the end which provides a nice buffer.
For a typical teaching scenario a 1 hour time slot is often only 50 minutes of teaching and you might allocated your self 3 minutes for questions at the end. This means you should be aiming for your class to take between a 43 and 51 minutes. If you hit 51 minutes, you apologize and tell the students they can stop by your office to ask questions and that there will be a chance for questions at the next session and you let them out 1 minute late. If you finish early you can ask for questions. If you do not get questions you can recap the syllabus and schedule for a few minutes and let them go 5 minutes early.

There are many contexts where it is extremely important that talks fit the allocated time as precisely as possible.  Some other contexts benefit from more flexibility.  A speaker may be able to precisely predict how long it will take to present a certain corpus of material, but it's much harder to predict how long it will take to present the amount of material the speaker has which the audience will be interested in.  In some contexts it may be better to have the speakers guess what the audience will want to hear and present a fixed corpus of information, but in others it may be better to have speakers adjust the lengths of their presentations according to the audiences' levels of interest.  The latter approach would likely be better most of the time but for the fact that speakers and audience members may have conflicting time obligations elsewhere.  The problems created by conflicting time obligations, however, often outweigh the benefits of such flexibility.
If in a certain context a speaker could go overtime without creating difficulties for himself, the audience, or anyone else who would want to use the space, then it may be good for the speaker to adjust the length of his talk according to what the audience wants to hear.  Such situations are not the norm, however.  If a particular conference or convention has many activities which people will be able to do at "any time", and most visitors will be expected to want to spend a lot of time on such activities, then it may make sense to have talks which might benefit from going overtime be followed by "free time".

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Statement of Purpose-How specific it should be?
I have a doubt regarding the Statement of Purpose for grad school.
Toward the end of the essay, should I specify the list of professors who I am interested to work with? For example:
"...Since research in this field is very active in Dr. A's, Dr. B’s, Dr. C’s groups at XXX University, I would like to apply to your program..."
My concern is: though doing so may indicate that I have read about the professors and their works (which is a plus I suppose), it is risky at the same time. What if Dr.[A-C] are not able to accept more people to their labs? Will the admission committee automatically disqualify my application in this case?
Hence, I would love to hear more advices from you of how to play it safe: whether such specifications are needed, and how to phrase them properly.
Thanks!

Disclaimer: I am still a graduate student and my experience is limited to my own application process and as a student member of my department's graduate admissions committee.
I have seen that specific reasons are almost always better than general reasons. When I was going through the application process, my SOP always mentioned current specific projects that my POI's were doing and how I could be an optimal choice for those projects in the near future with my background and current research. This approach seems to have worked well enough for me.
During multiple interviews in the application process, my SOP was often alluded to, especially in context with these specific projects and my fit with them.

If you have specific and substantial reasons for wanting to work with a particular professor, definitely mention them by name and say why.  But do not lie, do not bluff, and do not just drop names and paper titles.  Admissions committees already know you can use Google; anyone can read the department web page.  But actually incorporating appropriate technical details from someone's papers into your own research plans will generally draw their attention and impress them.

What if Dr.[A-C] are not able to accept more people to their labs? Will the admission committee automatically disqualify my application in this case?

It should.  If you want to be a student in department X specifically to work with Prof. A, but Prof. A is not taking students, then joining department X anyway would be stupid.  In that case, you should hope that Department X rejects your application.

I don't understand your last sentence

If the only advisor you want to work with is not accepting students, then it's better for you to be rejected by their department.

I mean, is it because you will have a courage to apply to another department?

No, I mean because you really don't want to go to a department that doesn't have a suitable advisor. I already assume that you're applying to multiple departments; applying to ony one department is reckless under the best of circumstances.

"Admissions committees already know you can use Google; anyone can read the department web page."  I'm pretty sure there are many applicants who cannot do those things.

Perhaps I should have written "assume" instead of "know".


text:
talk with professors about prospective graduate study
Following some tips about graduate study, I have contacted the professors before the admission cycle, and managed to secure some appointments with them. I have read through their publications that match my research interests, and prepared some brief write up about my research experiences (though I had sent them my CV beforehand).
I am just confused about what I should expect from such meetings. To be frank, do you think to impress them to the point that they agree to accept me is a feasible thing? Or I should aim for something simpler, like maintaining relationships with them through this semester?

I endorse such meetings, but keep them brief. Prepare a couple of questions, not too many, listen to them talk about their research (and maybe their graduate program), thank them, and get out of their hair.
I don't know what "maintaining relationships with them through this semester" means, but unless it involves you having something to offer them, or having particular questions which are uniquely important to your case, and whose answers can't be determined by looking at the department's website, then I recommend against it.
Good luck to you.

Hi, thanks for your comment. So, could that imply that to contact the professors in person before the admission to increase the chance is just a myth? Says, if he "likes" me, can he do anything at all to interfere with the admission process? I am talking about the graduate programs that do not require contacting the home faculties. For the ones that require, I assume that such meetings is a must

I don't know whether it's a myth or not. Individual professors certainly can influence the admissions process, but generally choose not to, unless there is a very particular and specific reason. Also, I'm not aware of programs that require such meetings, which suggests that maybe your corner of academia is far from mine, in which case please take my advice with a grain of salt.

As a rule, I think such meetings are a bad idea.  At a minimum you should go in with no admissions agenda.  If you are interested in research and only research I think the meeting will go well.  But if your real agenda is to help the admissions process, they will read through the facade and probably be annoyed.

exactly what I have been pondering on. Thanks.


text:
How do journal editors and reviewers view previously published conference paper?
I am submitting my paper to a journal, but a very small part of the work was previously presented in a quite prestigious international conference (although not the top). The journal policy allows for this, given the revised journal version has at least 30% novelty as a thumb rule. It even allows some copied texts and figures, which I do not have.
So from what I see, it is not absolutely necessary for me to mention the conference edition as part of this work although I am citing it as relevant, along with other references. But researchers will understand that it is not black and white, but gray. The previous research will always somewhat influence the future research.
If I do mention the conference presentation as part of the submitted work, will it make the work more authentic to the reviewers? Will they somehow take it more seriously, so to say? I am interested in the opinions of experienced reviewers and editors.
Just to make it clear, in my field, journals are considered more prestigious and they publish the more refined, expanded versions.
Also, this journal has an anonymous review process, but not double-blind.

There doesn't seem to be any issue here. The journal explicitly allows you to publish material based on conference papers. By omitting mention of the conference paper, you are risking being seen as trying to hide something. Why wouldn't you just be transparent?

it is not absolutely necessary for me to mention the conference edition as part of this work — Yes it absolutely is.  "Portions of this work were previously present at the 43rd Annual Conference of Really Cool Stuff [5]."  Leaving this out of your journal paper runs a serious risk of rejection without review.

I do not think you really have a choice here: if part of the paper has been previously published elsewhere, you need to mention that fact explicitly.  Not mentioning such is generally considered self-plagiarism and looked on very badly.
Now, depending on how you are re-using the material, there are two different ways that you might do it.  If you were doing a typical "extended version" paper, then the appropriate thing to do is to state this fact both in the introduction and in the cover letter.
It sounds, however, like it's less an extended paper than a repeat of a particular section.  In that case, I would instead recommend putting early in the repeated section a statement like:

"This section has been adapted from [citation]"

For example, I often do this when presenting background sections, on which the new results of a paper will then be built.  The background section will be adapted to fit the circumstances, of course, but rather than artificially try to paraphrase definitions just for the sake of avoiding self-plagiarism, I prefer to handle the issue by making a clearly stated reuse of background material that is similar in spirit to a block quotation.