Developing Collaborations

Apollo 11: the ultimate interdisciplinary collaboration.
In space no one can hear you scream...

Funders are increasingly keen on encouraging collaborative research, but what are the pros and cons of this way of working? Run by Prof Jon Williamson and Dr Peter Bennett the Grants Factory session last week looked at some of the issues around working with others, particularly on interdisciplinary projects.

Jon kicked off by outlining possible reasons for collaborating. These included:

• Having the opportunity to answer a large or complex research question, when you don’t have the skills, the background, the data, or the time to solve it yourself;
• Having the chance to learn from others;
• Developing new ideas and exploring different areas;
•  Developing new and stimulating connections;
• Propagating  your ideas and profile more widely.

However, you have to be careful in the collaborations you develop. You are going to work with these people for some time, and you have to make sure:

• They have the time, motivation and commitment to work with you;
• They have a personality that you can work with, and you with which you want to spend time.

Inevitably, there are pitfalls to collaboration.

• Some disciplines, particularly in the humanities, may rate joint work less highly when it comes to the REF or promotion;
•  It might be more time consuming, including having to learn a new disciplinary ‘language’, and having to administer and manage a programme.

So what makes a good collaboration?

• The numbers involved are not unmanageable. Four is ideal;
•  The involvement of all makes sense: they bring complementary skills, data or other elements to the table;
•  They can commit time and energy to it;
•  The working methods are agreed beforehand, including the ways in which you want to communicate (email/Skype/personal), and publish (first author/journals etc).
•  The research question that sparked the collaboration interests you. You don’t have to know the answer, but you’ve got to be interested enough to want to find it.

And it might not work, but that’s the nature of research. It’s risky, but even if your collaboration does fail, you will hopefully have learnt by the process, have had fun, and have moved the question on.

Peter took over and started with a picture of the Apollo 11 astronauts. If ever there was a project that summed up the potential of collaboration, this was it. 400,000 people contributed, and achieved the near-impossible.

Collaboration is particularly useful for ECRs.

•  It offers the opportunity to collaborate with more experienced partners, who will challenge, stimulate and formulate your own interests;
• Partnering those with a strong funding track record will increase your chance of getting grants;
•  Linking with other, research intensive university will be good for your profile and the development of your research;
• It helps you to ‘acquire impact’ and increase your citations.

For Peter, his best collaborations were borne in tea rooms and pubs. Like Jon he emphasised the need to work with someone who shares your humour and outlook, and has complementary interests and skills. And, whilst collaborations can be fruitful, they all will inevitably end. This is not a failure, but a natural cycle, and you can move on to find others, through conferences, seminars, research visits and citation analysis.

Peter added to Jon’s list of pitfalls by adding some downsides of his own:

•  Loss of control, and the sharing of ideas and data, which might be difficult for some people;
• Collaborators might not fulfil their side of the bargain, and the project might fail as a result;
•  Projects can be ‘bloated’, and costs can go up exponentially, as partners are added;
• They can be a ‘hassle’ to run or be involved in.

However, on balance, collaborations offer huge potential to raise your profile and develop your career, to expand your horizons and to learn from others. 

Grants Factory: Developing Collaborations

The slides and handout from Wednesday’s Grants Factory event are now available on the SharePoint site, here. I’ll write up some notes and add them to the blog shortly.

The next session will be an ECR Network event on ‘Developing Collaborations’. Run by Prof Jon Williamson and Dr Peter Bennett this will look at some of the issues around working with others, particularly on interdisciplinary projects. Funders are increasingly keen on encouraging collaborative research, but what are the pros and cons of this way of working? The session will use Jon and Peter’s experience to explore issues such as identifying a collaborative idea, forming productive links, and managing a complex project.

The session will run at 12pm on 16 January. As ever, it’s free and refreshments will be provided. Do let me know if you would like to come along.

Getting Published in Journals: Notes #5

Today sees the final set of notes from last week's session on 'getting published in journals'. Slides of all the presentations, together with a full set of this week's notes, are available on the Grants Factory & ECR Network SharePoint site.

Responding to Referees Comments

Jon Williamson

Before responding to referees, you have to keep in mind what you want to achieve, namely:

·         To get published;

·         To improve your paper;

·         To defend your paper against changes that will weaken it.

The comments should be considered in light of these. Consider each of them, and decide whether making the suggested changes is crucial (i.e. the article will be rejected if you don’t), improving, or unnecessary. It may be the case that, once you receive the comments, you decide that the changes will irrevocably alter your intentions, and that you should instead try submitting it elsewhere.

In responding to the comments, you will submit three documents:

·         The altered paper itself. You should try and make all the changes suggested, if you haven’t, explain why not in the letter (below);

·         Your response, which lists the reviewers’ comments and your changes in light of them. This can be longer than the paper itself;

·         A covering letter. This provides an opportunity to talk ‘off the record’ to the editor about any review that was particularly problematic.

Additional Thoughts

Sally Sheldon

You should always take advantage of advice and help that is available, either from colleagues within your School, or in other Schools/institutions that know the field. Never submit anything without having had some reviews internal, informal feedback first.

If you are uncertain about submitting to a certain journal, contact the editor. They will be able to advise:

·         If your proposed paper will fit their journal;

·         If your article will be published in time for the REF (including, importantly, whether the journal pre-publishes on line – this counts as ‘publication’ for REF purposes);

·         During the review process, what you should do if any of the referee’s changes are difficult to meet.

Finally, don’t limit yourself to academic publications, but think more widely about how you can ‘mine’ your paper for different audiences. Whilst this might not help your academic profile, it will help you to meet the government’s impact agenda and may bring your research to the attention of important interested audiences, who might never find it in academic journals.

The Launch of the ECR Network

This year, as part of the Grants Factory, we are launching an ECR Network. This will give early career researchers the opportunity to meet and discuss issues that are relevant to them, as well as hearing from more senior staff about their experiences. The first two events are as follows:

4 Oct: Planning a Personal Research Strategy (Keynes Seminar Room 4, 2:30 – 4:30pm)

This event will be introduced by the VC, Prof Dame Julia Goodfellow, who will discuss what support there is and should be across the University for ECRs. This is an opportunity to talk about your experiences, and think about what would help in the development of your career.

This will be followed by an informal talk by Prof Darren Griffin (Biosciences) and Jenny Billings (Centre for Health Services Studies) about developing a personal research strategy. They will cover issues around strategically planning and developing your research, balancing idealism with realism, and how to cope with the unexpected.

  

17 Oct: Getting Published in Journals (Senate Chamber, 9:30 – 11:30am)

Organised by KLS but open to all, this event will look at how to improve the chances of getting your articles selected for publication in journals. A panel of academics with extensive publishing experience will cover issues including:

·         How articles are selected for publication

·         Choosing a journal

·         Disseminating a thesis

·         How to improve the chances of your article being read

·          How to deal with referee comments

The panel will be chaired by Prof Sally Sheldon (KLS), and consists of Prof Rosaleen Duffy (Anthropology), Prof John Mingers (KBS), Prof Tim Strangleman (SSPSSR), and Prof Jon Williamson (SECL). 

These events aimed at ECRs, including Research Associates and Assistants (RAs), but are open to all academic staff. The events are free and refreshments will be provided.  Do let me know if you intend to come along so that I can get an idea of numbers.

Thinking in CinemaScope

With the recent doom laden news about small grant funding, academics are having to Think Big when it comes to projects. Yesterday's Grants Factory workshop focused on how they could develop their ideas in 'CinemaScope'.

Liz Mansfield kicked off by sounding out the participants about their hopes and fears for the session. Common threads emerged: how should I start? What should the scale be? How do I integrate different work packages, and how should I deal with uncertainty? What costs should I include, and how can I justify them? What should my submission strategy be?

Jon Williamson took over to talk about how to develop a research funding profile, how to 'upscale' a project, and the pros and cons of large collaborations. He suggested that a 'funding profile' was a crucial element of a grant proposal, providing reassurance to the reviewers and panellists that you can lead a larger project and can deliver the goods.

Whilst not everyone will have a gilt edged funding profile already, you should demonstrate how you have already engaged with external funding, and successfully managed an award - of whatever scale. There is a natural progression, from PhD award to postdoc fellowships, conference grants and small grants. Other grants, such as networks, demonstrate how you have coordinated different partners. All these grants provide the platform, the background, the foundation for the larger projects.

If you haven't secured funding yet, don't give up hope: you could think about acting as a Co-I on a project led by a more experienced PI, or have in place a strong project management framework, including a committee whose members have been project leaders.

But how should one start planning a project? Liz Mansfield suggested that, rather starting with a research question, or even with the final outcome, you should leapfrog to the point when the project is done and dusted. For her the starting point should be the memory of it: how is it remembered? How has it been assessed? How has it been judged?

This may seem simplistic, but pause for a minute and try putting this into practice. What is your area of research? What is your ultimate goal? From that point, work backwards and work out what steps you will need to achieve that goal. By thinking of the final memory, it will force you to be realistic about both the methodology, but also about the dissemination. And, for both, it will force you to think seriously about the resources you will need to effectively fulfil them. The beauty of this is that it will give you a macro oversight of your project that will naturally trigger questions about how best to construct its framework and micro management.

We're hoping to run the session again next year and, in the meantime, are planning to run a series of 'mock panels' in the Spring Term at which applicants can sound out others about their projects. Do get in touch if you're planning a large project, and want to move it from TV to the cinema screen.

Upcoming Grants Factory Events

Two upcoming events that any right-thinking applicant would be foolish to miss.

• Big Questions, Big Projects (1 Dec, 12pm-2pm). With small grant funding fast disappearing, academics need to look to larger funding and start think ambitiously. Prof Jon Williamson, a philosopher in SECL, and Prof Liz Mansfield, a mathematician in SMSAS, have both had experience of developing larger projects in areas where these aren’t the norm. They will be running this workshop on developing interesting research ideas into more substantial research projects.
• Inside the Grants Committee (7 Dec, 12pm-2pm). Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (SSPSSR) and Prof Mick Tuite (Biosciences) will give an honest insight into how peer review panels work, the characters, the processes – and the politics. Peter has sat on ESRC panels, Mick on BBSRC and Wellcome panels: between them they have a wealth of knowledge on how different funders work. This will be a chance to learn from their experience and frame your application in a way that ‘works’ for the panel.

To take part, just complete the simple on-line form with your name, School and the workshops you'd like to attend.

2011-12 Grants Factory Programme Announced

A new programme of Grants Factory events is now available for 2011/12. Each of the themed workshops addresses a different aspect of the research funding process and is led by a senior Kent academic with a track record in winning (and awarding) research grants.

Autumn Term

• Thurs 1 December 12-2pm Big Questions, Big Projects (Prof Elizabeth Mansfield, Prof Jon Williamson)
• Weds 7 December 2-2pm Inside the Grants’ Committee (Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby, Prof Mick Tuite)

Spring Term

• Weds 15 February TBC Playing the Game: how to understand the rules (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Sarah Spurgeon)
• Thurs 1 March 10am-12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)

Summer Term

• Weds 9 May TBC Eurovision: the pros & and cons of European funding (Dr Jenny Billings, Prof Simon Thompson)
• Weds 30 May 10am -12 Writing Better Bids (Prof David Shemmings)
• Mon 11 June TBC Winning Fellowship Funds (Prof Paul Allain, Prof Darren Griffin)

All events are suitable for researchers of any discipline and at any career stage and you can find more information here

Please get in touch if you would like more information or want to reserve a place.

Feedback from the Collaboration Workshop

I went along to the Collaboration Workshop on Wednesday, which was the first of the Grants Factory events for this year. It was a great opportunity for a wide range of academics from across the University to hear about the prizes and pitfalls that come from linking up with others, particularly across disciplinary boundaries. Dr Peter Bennett suggested that his most fruitful collaborations had started informally, in tea rooms or pubs, and he stressed the importance of getting on well with your project partners. Prof Jon Williamson gave some reasons for collaborating, which included:

• it enables you to solve a larger problem, if you only had the knowledge and tools to solve an element of it;
• it enables you to 'do more with your time';
• it is an opportunity to learn from other disciplines;
• it is an opportunity to propagate new ideas.

The difficulties that were inherent in collaboration were recognised, particularly in large projects that had multiple partners across Europe. One participant compared it to 'herding cats', and it was clear that the leader of a multidisciplinary project needed to have strong resolve and a willingness to take tough decisions, even going so far as cutting out a partner who wasn't delivering.

Other questions that were explored in the breakout groups after lunch included:

• do partners need to understand more than one discipline?
• how do you know what is not known in the other disciplines?
• how do you find, choose, manage and reject partners?
• how do you ensure that everyone contributes and delivers effectively?
• what resources are needed by a collaborative project?
• what makes a collaborative funding proposition convincing?

Whilst it was often interesting to sketch out and explore a cross-disciplinary theme, when it comes to preparing an application you need to have a clear, well defined research question and sub-goals. It was suggested that less partners was better logistically, ideally less than four. This would make it possible for all the partners to attend meetings and give updates. Whilst there are technological alternatives to meetings these days, there is really no substitute for them.

The rest of the programme for the Grants Factory 2011 will be announced shortly.

Grants Factory: Collaborative & Interdisciplinary Research

Prof. Jon Williamson (SECL) and Dr Peter Bennett (DICE)will lead a workshop on collaborative and interdisciplinary research on Weds 15 September between 11.00am and 2.00pm.

Both Peter and Jon have worked extensively on large scale funded collaborative projects and with colleagues from other disciplines including the sciences, social sciences and humanities.

The workshop will cover:

• The benefits and drawbacks of working collaboratively
• Generating ideas for interdisciplinary research
• The logistics of building effective collaborations and managing projects
  

Places are limited to 20 but the event is open to all academic staff. Please let Jacqueline Aldridge know if you would like to reserve a place on this workshop. Lunch included.