A slightly more subtle point that stems from this discussion concerns the ways in which credit for intellectual contributions to group projects might be rewarded, other than by co-authorship on a paper. In this case, Imhof clearly does not think a lot of Michaels as a researcher. Thus, this avenue for receiving credit is not likely to be available to him. The reasons this situation has come about relate directly to the fundamental issues this case study is intended to address. The problem of favoritism by professors who head research groups, either real or imagined, is common enough that most graduate students will be exposed to it, either personally or by hearing someone else complain about it.
Favoritism can occur for many reasons, and it is usually quite destructive to the group atmosphere.
This case spotlights one common source of favoritism in the academic research setting. Students choose to attend graduate school with various career goals in mind. It is unfortunately common for professors at graduate institutions, who have achieved their stature in large part by dogged pursuit of research results, to think less of graduate students who wish to gain a Ph.D. under their direction but ultimately seek careers that emphasize teaching rather than research. The third discussion question is intended to begin a discussion on this topic. Clearly, Imhof regards teaching as much less important than research, as seen in his response to Michaels at the end of the narrative.