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.

Responding to Reviewers' Comments: Notes from Grants Factory Session

What turns panellists against an application? For Peter Bennett, who has had experience reviewing applications for NERC and other funders, it’s arrogance. ‘There’s no greater turn off in a grant application,’ he said at Wednesday’s Grants Factory event. Applicants should practice humility, and let the facts speak for themselves. Avoid bombast, pomposity and exaggerated claims. Successful proposals talk with assurance, clarity and confidence, and they respect the opinions of reviewers and panellists.

A good application ‘makes sense’, and doesn’t need to swagger. It will be built on a strong track record and a well-matched research environment, will acknowledge the key previous works, and will contain an unbreakable kernel of original, significant work.

Bad applications, on the other hand, are bloated beasts. Pedestrian and dull, they shout their ignorance, and betray their hasty construction with flawed methodology, speculative theory, and a lack of focus. The applicant’s limp track record drags along behind, and the whole just doesn’t hang together well.

When it comes to replying to the reviewers, then, it is the measured, thoughtful, clear attitude that will win through. Don’t flare up and respond in haste. Step back, take time, and plan your response. Extract the criticisms from the text, and work out how you will respond to them. All of them should be treated as valid, even if you feel that some are ridiculous. Remember, humility: thank the reviewers for their comments, and either:

• Address their concerns head on: if their feedback is valid, say that you have taken it on board, have made the necessary changes, and that the proposal is stronger as a result;
• Sweeten the pill: if their feedback is invalid, say that you consider it to be an interesting idea, but that the nature of the current project would not allow you to incorporate their suggestions, and that it might be possible to do so in a future project.

Respond to all the comments with humility, respect and honesty; it will get you much more of a hearing than if you rail and swear and curse.

Peter’s slides will be available on the Research Services website shortly.

Grants Factory: Responding to Reviewers' Comments

We’re currently putting together the Grants Factory programme for the forthcoming year. One of the first events will look at the thorny issue of Responding to Reviewers’ Comments. Most of the Research Councils (and some other funders) allow you to respond to the comments that their reviewers give your application. Often the comments seem uninformed, and it’s easy – and tempting ! – to respond quickly and angrily to these. However, there is a knack to dealing with them effectively, and if you can master this you can turn round the negative feedback and actually get your applications funded.

The workshop will take place at 2pm on 14 September 2011 and will be led by Dr Peter Bennett from the Durrell Institute of Conservation Ecology (DICE). He has had considerable experience as both an applicant, reviewer and panel member for NERC, as well as a number of other funders. His insight and advice will be relevant to academics in all three faculties, as there are common themes that apply to funders in all disciplines.

The event is free and open to all staff. Do let me know if you would like to come along.

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.