Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble?
Collaboration workshop Report
Aims:
1. To identify issues/challenges which researchers need to be aware of and act
upon to make sure their collaborations are effective, productive and long
lasting, and
2. To identify the ways of addressing these challenges, including what support is
available and areas in which researchers would appreciate additional guidance
and support from the University
Introductory Presentation (Prof Paul Martin, Department of Sociological
Studies)
-
Rigour, respect and responsibility – not just the practicalities of collaboration,
but ethics and integrity
-
Works in collaboration a lot across disciplines, research is fundamentally
collaborative – locally, nationally and internationally
-
How we might think about collaboration, specific problems
-
ESRC workshop around synthetic biology
-
Metaphors for collaboration – marriage, family, guest, parasite,
romance/bromance, transaction
-
Assumptions might not be shared by other partners, assumptions might not
be realistic or open
-
Friendships – trust, professional and social, deliver the goods
-
Problems encountered:
o
Poor communication and misunderstanding, especially when based in
different institutions, expectations can be misinterpreted (expecting
data, etc)
o
Accountability/delivery – how to deal with other people failing to
address their responsibilities (for good or bad reasons)
1
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
o
Disciplinary differences – publication norms, tacit assumptions
o
Conflicts of interests – especially intellectual property rights in STEM
areas
o
Styles of working – some people are open, some are cautious
o
Professional standards – people may stray off the professional straight
and narrow
-
Problems can be at 3 levels – institutional, contextual/disciplinary, personal
Liz Sharp (Town and Regional Planning)
-
The PREPARED project - Water engineers and social scientists worked closely
with Welsh Water to look for ways of helping utility companies prepare for
climate change.
-
Positives: better resourced; more funding; better quality knowledge; more
likely to have impact
-
Critiques: less than the sum of its parts; proposal-writing only (no further
collaboration, separate research); time consuming; conflicting agendas; cause
of tension and stress; way for one to exploit another
-
The power dynamics of the project had an important impact on what could be
achieved. Appeared driven by water companies for the purposes of the bid,
but actually driven by researchers.
-
Tailored bid to fit with what the funders were thought to want.
-
Expectations of Welsh Water were not what the academics had expected
-
Outputs across a range of disciplines: social science paper, collaborative book,
practitioner paper, 3 draft papers – 1 practitioner, 2 engineering
-
All partners need to feel they have something to bring and something to gain
-
Collaboration has potential for gain
-
Follow your instincts – if you trust people then go for it.
Fabio Ciravegna(Computer Science)
2
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
-
Digital World project is about people and interactions, not about the
technology itself
-
If you don’t collaborate you’re losing out (badly!)
-
Digital technologies will affect the future for people – e.g. jobs. People are not
prepared.
-
Big data is about the interpretation of the data, emerging
information/knowledge
-
Large scale quantification of data
-
Need the infrastructure to gather big data - engineers, but need social
scie4ntists to interpret it
-
Companies have access to data
-
Cultural change – children of the future will understand technologies and data
in different ways
-
Social scientists understand how to present the data so that people will
engage – this is how the new technologies can be sold and research can be
profitable
Alastair Buckley and Helen Holmes (Physics and Astronomy)
-
Solar Energy for Future Societies, working across 3 Faculties of the University
-
EPSRC funded project – develop collaboration between social and physical
sciences – interface between the two
-
Used anthropology and ethnography techniques, co-design of processes
-
Created a participatory research project around renewable energy working
with communities
-
Learnt very little about the technologies in the 2 years of the project, but
learnt a lot about interdisciplinary working – synthesising different ways of
knowing
-
3
Large interdisciplinary literature – mainly theoretical, often retrospective
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
-
Mess/complexity – the research happens between the different disciplines –
which discipline defines the research terms/etc. – in reality it happens inbetween – the ‘mess’
-
Usefulness of different aspects of projects (e.g. models) – useful to who? For
what purpose?
-
Focus more on process rather than outcomes
Question Session
-
How do you decide who to trust?
o
Instincts, do I think those people will deliver?
o
Previous experience of people, trust
o
Talk to contacts, investigate on the web, etc (harder with non-academic
partners)
o
Being the smaller partner is sometimes the better position – more to
gain, less to lose. Coordinating partners are at greater risk in
collaborations, they have the reputation at stake if the project does not
deliver
o
Need to be able to trust in the quality of other people’s science – the
reason you are working with them is because they have skills you
don’t have, but how to know the quality of their skills
o
There is always an element of risk, if everything is certain and clear then
it’s already too late
Group discussion - key challenges for collaborative working
GROUP 1

Power dynamics play a significant role (generosity, social structures as well as
formal working structures, leadership should be committed but not
authoritarian)
4
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report

Clear purpose (managing expectations, accountability)

Culture (disciplinary cultures, institutional cultures, different countries, external
collaborators)
GROUP 2

Can spend so much time writing protocols to address data analysis, authorship,
etc. means less researcher thinking time

Intercultural/universal norms – norms/expectations differ between countries –
where do you draw the line?

Researchers have the power to say ‘no, we won’t work with you’
GROUP 3

Transparency of methodology

Time: need to know your second subject, communications

Holistic outlook (necessary)

Burst disciplinary bubbles

REF – performance measurement/impact

Adaptability of researcher
GROUP 4

Deliverables: open-ended or clearly specified?

Identifying and managing timescales – knowing what are the right questions
to ask upfront

Whether, when and how to bail out

Managing relationships when there is conflict

Enough of a common language to understand one-another’s discipline and
enough time to understand something

Finding the right collaborators and getting funded
Relating to the wider context (Richard Hudson, Research & Innovation
Services)
5
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
-
What is driving collaboration? Funders, research councils, government,
journals,
-
Risks – ethical, reputational, accuracy of data, acceptable behaviour
expectations,
-
Perception of growing problem of standards of behaviour in research –
individual competitiveness seen as leading to slipping standards
-
Scientists are amongst the ‘most trusted’ by the public
-
Accountability, agreement, openness, cooperation are key features
-
University of Sheffield has GRIP Policy – contributions from many academics,
applies to everyone – expectations rather than rules
-
Who is offering support? R&IS – Quality and Skills, Research Support,
Research Data Management (Library Services)
-
What can R&IS do to support academics?
Group discussion - how to address the issues
GROUP 1

Checklist/ online pack for new collaborators on University website (including
grant induction, minimal format, not overwhelming)

Good Practice Guide or Toolkit

Ideas for group exercises to help collaborators to work well together from the
outset

Projects to ‘budget’ non-focussed time early in the project to allow for
social and project management processes as well as the substantive
collaborative work

Getting past the word ‘networking’ and getting to know people
GROUP 2

Culture: Spanish project surveying people hadn’t ethics but upfront didn’t
know would be co-author – legal (established practice, no ethics), good
6
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
practice (got advice from Med Ethics Chair in Spain) – to avoid this must apply
most stringent standard, work to the higher standard.

Power dynamics: e.g. with teachers/schools and wanting critical feedback from
them – they feel unable to contribute and therefore you at the University are
the experts. Anonymised feedback if a bit afraid/unsure. First run language
and documents by people who need teacher views and therefore are familiar
with teachers – they are the frontline experts.
GROUP 3

Reassurance that it is ok

Sufficient time

Clear message that it is viewed as positive
GROUP 4

Structured check-list on R&IS website of things to think about when doing a
collaboration

Collaboration advisors/counsellors – a person to turn to for advice to prevent
problems or to help address them

Leadership – bottom-up vs top-down, project management needs to be
disciplinary neutral
Summary of the key current and emerging issues (Paul Martin, Department of
Sociological Studies)
-
What is the metaphor for collaborative working? A business, a contract?
-
A team – working together for the same goals
-
How should people govern themselves in collaborative working? With
reflection and generosity
-
Collaborative working needs an ethos of how to work together, team spirit,
caring
7
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
Key Considerations:
1. Power – who holds the power and what power do you have? Sometimes in a
collaboration it’s better to be the person with less power and more to gain,
rather than a lot of power but lots at risk.
2. Is there a clear purpose to the collaboration, and is the purpose the same for
everyone?
3. Do you need a pre-nup? It’s better to have some things agreed in writing at
the start – authorship disputes are a common problem coming out of
collaborations.
4. Do you know the other collaborators well enough, or will the collaboration
allow you time to get to know one another? Collaborations are made up of
people, not just disciplines, and it is only through spending time with one
another you can build trust between individuals.
5. Are you familiar with the other cultures in the collaboration? These may be
national cultures, institutional cultures, disciplinary cultures, or others. It’s
worth checking that, even if you aren’t speaking the same language as your
collaborators, you can understand one another.
6. Successful collaborations depend on trust, good communication and realistic
expectations, and entering into a collaboration with your eyes open can make
a big difference.
Next Steps for R&IS:

Checklist / online pack for researchers around key considerations for
collaborative working

Templates for authorship agreements

Good Practice Guides
Key references:
8
Much to be gained, many ways to get into trouble? Report
Nuffield Council for Bioethics ‘Culture of Scientific Research in the UK’ (Report Dec
2014)
HEFCE ‘Concordat to Support Research Integrity’ (2012)
Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (2010)
Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research
Collaborations (2013)
Good Research and Innovation Practices Policy
Peggy Haughton
Research & Innovation Services
March 2015
9