In Brownsville, Texas, home of the Walmart detention center for children there is also a community college using an old rundown mall for a campus. And while in fairness, UT Brownsville, fairly close to the border, was impressively-manicured, it does not put a dent in the militarized landscape. All that to say, they can make a border of anything. Just add some barbed wire, some soldiers, and a permanent enemy of color. The military edifices of the border and the thousands of people they employ look impervious to ballots. I wanted to run back and tell what I saw to the white activist in McAllen who along with activated others believed that Texas is actually a blue state waiting to happen if we could mount a zealous electoral ground game.
There is a zealous ground game in South Texas. Built around services for brutalized people. Catholic Charities provide food, supplies, and respite to hundreds of ankle-monitor shackled mothers released from detention. Volunteers work tirelessly. A young man who daily makes food for the refugees gets choked up and unable to relate his own story of crossing the so-called border as a child. The community college professor who put Sean and myself onto the Catholic Charities at the Ursula demonstration appears now with his volunteer shirt on.
He has been at it all day since the morning demonstration and will stop in the evening only to teach his college course. I did not have a translator and speak next-to-useless Spanish. In attempts at conversations with people I get fragments of image and sound effect. Children crying all night. Making two-month treks to get to border patrol abuse. People not being allowed to legally seek asylum and being forced off of bridges into the hands of soldiers calling them illegals. The RGV is the home of beautiful, perpetually destabilized people.
A perfect place to erect and maintain concentration camps. The LUPE office is full of people looking for services, looking for survival. Even the most non-reformist, theory-directed revolutionary has to admit that people do immediately need a change of clothes, lawyers need translators, and people need to find and pull their families out of the jaws of the military industrial complex. A military industrial complex so fused with the prison industrial complex in this crime against humanity that maybe they were never not the same thing in the first place.
We stopped back through McAllen to chat with a woman I befriended working in a gas station. She had become a second home base for us. Sean and I stopped in the gas station during the Ursula demonstration to buy water for everyone and for some cosmic reason, at the counter, are small talk was big enough to discover that her son is getting a PhD in Literature, was a huge fan of the beat poets and by extension City Lights, and by extension knew and dug my work.
Besides a couple of people with video cameras, the street was empty. Empty aside from the McAllen city employees who were painting all of the curbs yellow to make sure future protestors would have to walk from a lot farther to demonstrate in front of the detention center again.
But an escalation of resistance may be coming. Some activists at LUPE, including the director, are ready for more direct intervention. Various people in various organizations related that it is the international bridges where effective stands can be made. But this will take more people. A lot more people than the RGV has mobilized now, especially given that the people mobilized now are incredibly stretched by all of the struggle they are currently trying to hold down.
We daily checked in with or were checked on by the folks who graciously put us up in the RGV. They fed our confidence in the people and a liberation we must continue struggling for. The United States is at war with the people of the Global South. A war without terms.
Neoliberal policies, global warming results, and direct political and military annihilation of political forces for the people and resistance to capitalism have produced a social environment so deadly that people would rather deal with abuses in the north than survive their repressed and exploited homelands.
Imperialist violence is borderless. Our resistance must be the same. It must be international and politically clear on the entirety of the contradiction between the global oppressors and the global oppressed. Link to original article in El Tecolote. He has taught at detention centers around the country and at the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University.
He lives in San Francisco. My isolation was absolute, interrupted only by the caretaker, who every three or four days, brought me my meager A mother named her child Rumor. The child was a boy, the Whether or not strategies and motives change during the life course, it seems likely that bad outcomes are especially likely in early-career collaborations: When I was first starting out as an assistant professor about half of my collaborations were bad ones.
I was very flattered to work with people who are well-known but then I would get into the collaboration and think oh my God what have I done? She talked him into getting a Ph. I want to leave. She was coming up for tenure and needed to have both a certain number of students as well as publications.
She was pushing him to finish multiple papers at that point. She was refusing to allow him to graduate until he finished the papers. Nearly all of the women we interviewed, and at least a few of the men, reported that gender issues negatively affected research collaborations. In some cases these issues played out exactly as reported in the feminist literature on occupations and workplace dynamics, with nothing specific to STEM careers. In other cases the issues were more distinctive to academic science.
In some cases, problems go directly to biology, especially child bearing. This respondent recounted the negative feedback she received from some of the faculty members in her department who assumed she would not complete her PhD when she had her first child. She goes on, however, to recount how in the matter of collaboration, her primary advisor supported her academic research as well as her need to attend to the needs of her family. I had two children when I was in graduate school, and so I had two maternity leaves. Science is very competitive, and the project I was working on was very competitive.
There were others outside our group working on it, so it is not unheard of for an investigator—if someone is on maternity leave—to take that project and give it to someone else. And then if you have done all the legwork to get it working, you lose credit for that in the publication process.
To her credit, my advisor did not give my project away, despite the fact that she was then going up for tenure [and needed quick results]. I felt that she was really being supportive, that she was willing to wait, that she was willing for me to do a decent maternity leave. I was literally gone for three months the first time and six months the second time—I had some complications.
I came back and my notebooks were there. In some cases, there are institutional and public policy protections already in place and they are still not sufficient to the task. Moreover, some of the most troublesome gender problems encountered in the academic workplace have much in common with those found in any work setting. One such problem is sexual harassment, a focus of much attention by policy-makers but a problem than has not been eradicated. Consider the following case with a highly troublesome collaboration outcome: During my geophysics post-doc, my direct supervisor decided he was in love with me and began to stalk me.
This caused a lot of anxiety and I began to have health problems shortness of breath, heart palpitations, and stomach problems. When I reported the man to a senior manager, somehow the problem became public. I was never able to integrate myself into the research group I was placed in. At that point, I left my Ph. It was a wonderful group and I enjoyed my time there. However, I had to start over again when my husband and I came to our current institution.
I did yet another post-doc in [gives new field] and am now a senior researcher [in a non-tenure track position]. Things have been somewhat better in this field, but far from perfect. Again, there are few women, and non-professorial research staff mostly female tends to get the short end of the deal, irrespective of the scale of their contributions. I suppose I am a little bitter about it, after trying so hard for so many years to gain respect and acceptance. Occasionally I wonder if I should have left research and gone to medical school years ago—at least I would have some job security and a little respect.
There are few females in life sciences that are in [indicates her own highly specialized area]. I have encountered many gender issues, not so many race issues, which is good since I could get the double whammy. It is okay to be an aggressive young male but not an aggressive young female. I did find when I was a young scientist that I could work well with men, even very senior and aggressive men, but only if they perceived me as a sort of daughter and not as a competitor.
Maybe it helps if they have daughters themselves. Organizational theorists have known for a long time that group dynamics and the informal organization can provide powerful and useful ancillary support to the policies and rules of institutions Selznick ; Conrath ; Sonnenfeld In other parts of this project, we have found that the informal management structures of collaborative groups are extremely important in preventing bad collaboration outcomes.
It does not take much. Thus, for example, teams that routinely have early, frequent and participative discussions of credit sharing and other strategic choices seem less likely to have bad outcomes Youtie and Bozeman However, surprisingly few collaborations systematically incorporate such processes. In a large number of cases, the principal investigator seems to assume that all parties have similar perceptions about work rules and credits and there is no need to discuss them because it is so obvious.
Here is an instance, not uncommon, of a principal investigator who simply mandates the author order. When asked about author decisions, the respondent told us: I pick the author list for all the papers I am on. I pick the author list for all the papers I am on. I had a disagreement with one of the authors as to whether a student should be on a paper. I convinced her that my student should be on the paper. But what is enough? He was closer to putting in 50 hours, which was remarkable enough.
When we were writing the paper, she wrote the first draft and the first thing I did was add my student and sent my revision back to her and we talked about the author lists not being the same. She is a good friend. So we went to lunch and discussed it and once she understood my viewpoint, she was fine with it.
My primary instinct is to put the person who did the most work in the first spot and the idea person—the person who came up with the idea is usually the professor—who goes in the last spot. I address that stuff right up front. Something comes up and someone asks for samples or analyses. I will say what is the authorship related to it? Based on what you ask I think it is appropriate that I am the 5th or 4th author. Or I will say what are your expectations? I have learned that it is far better to be upfront about it.
The Global War on Christians: Dispatches from the Front Lines of Anti-Christian Persecution
Table 1 includes the collaboration factors derived from the provisional model. It gives the number of times each collaboration factor was mentioned by our respondents, as well as new examples not presented in the preceding analysis. In computer science we care about efficiency. We care about using resources, kind of optimizing resources a lot. You know the neat thing about that collaboration was that all three of us brought different things to the collaboration.
The senior person was mechanism design; I was virtual reality and my focus was mechanism design and the other person had some more practical skills. I visited a professor a couple of years back and started a collaboration with him. His attitude was that I was to do all the work and he would micromanage it. You want to work with people who are team players. I have had mostly successful collaborations. The few unsuccessful ones have been with people with large egos and they let that get in the way of the science.
It should be noted that the body of data as a whole lends good support to the provisional model, although issues related to disciplinarity are clearly the most common theme. As already noted, commercial experiences are relatively few, and when gender attributions are made, they are almost always negative examples. We expand on the implications of the various factors in the model as exhibited in the content analysis in Section 6. We know from evaluating our data systematically based on the literature-derived themes, that each of the factors suggested in the provisional model of research collaboration effectiveness has a least some resonance with our interview data.
Procedures were as follows: first, the first and second authors for this study did separate careful readings of all the interviews, identifying comments and themes relating to collaboration quality. Third, we identified key additional factors 1 mentioned as respectively good or bad aspects of collaboration. Finally, we ultimately developed a category set and a tally for each category. The extent of agreement in the categorization of the good and bad factors mentioned was only moderately lower but well above generally accepted standards.
The main purpose of this second systematic analysis was to explore additional constructs that were not included in the original provisional model. In Table 2 , we see that two factors lead the list of complaints: failure to meet work commitments and crediting disputes. However, there are many other factors that are often mentioned including: personality clashes, selfishness and unreliability, exploitation, and conflicts related to cultural origins and inter-organizational dynamics. Because so much of the collaboration literature presumes its positive benefit, one of the important contributions of this paper is to explore in more depth the ways in which collaborations can be disrupted.
It should be noted that personality plays a dual role in research collaborations: good personalities, and good personality fit can be a boon to collaborative productivity and happiness, while bad personalities and poor personality fit can seriously disrupt collaborations. In each of the two tables we see that the respondents, all of whom were asked to identify both bad and good collaboration experiences, identified twice as many new bad collaboration factors categories 10 than good ones 5 and more aggregate instances for the bad collaboration factors than good ones.
It may be that good collaborations are more alike than bad ones, but it may also be the case that bad collaborations are more readily recalled. In so many realms, including ones far removed from research collaboration perceptions and experience, negative experiences have higher salience than positive ones.
Generally, negative experiences are especially memorable and likely to influence future choices Rook ; McFarland and Buehler ; Moberly and Watkins Particularly in a collaborative context, one can learn much from negative experiences Scindler and Eppler For whatever reasons, we observe both in counts and in detailed content analysis that reports of bad collaborations are more numerous, more variegated and often more detailed.
Indeed almost all the factors mentioned could be viewed as dimensional. Perhaps this is because the absence of noticeable gender dynamics or of exploitation is a success. The failure to mention a positive case may not be evidence of a lack of dimensionality but a means of reporting. Thus, many candidates mentioned explicitly that effective groups were made up entirely of women who had worked together for years at least suggestive of a positive gender dynamic and others indicated that mentors and collaborators were especially helpful to students.
Taking the results of the interview content analysis as a whole, we find support for the initial provisional model that stemmed from the extant research literature. In addition, we identified a number of factors that should be included in a revised model of research collaboration effectiveness, to which we now turn. Our results show that the components of the provisional research collaboration effectiveness model have some considerable veracity, and also that they are insufficient. The structure of Fig. We do not show linkages among the components of Fig.
We can see from Fig. Much of the research treats these as essentially the same. Clearly, the two are intimately related inasmuch as team characteristics flow from those of the individuals. But often in teams it is the fit of the particular skills and preferences and values that are most important. In any team, effectiveness is a matter not only of the components of the team but the unique relationships among those components and, thus, team characteristics flow from this fit, not just from aggregated attributes.
While we are not profligate in signaling causality due to the limitations of the data , in this case we at least show a two-way causal arrow between characteristics of teams and team members owing to the dynamic relation between the two. The only other respect in which the revised model in Fig. We discuss the factors above and give examples in tables but, in general, personality issues do not receive much play in the literature, perhaps understandably since the mesh of personalities is idiosyncratic.
Even if one knows that they are important, it is quite difficult to use this knowledge to construct more effective collaborative teams. Even if difficult to predict, it is nonetheless the case that personality problems, rampant egomania, and selfishness are all inter-collaborator factors that can lead to poor collaborations. Most interesting perhaps is the finding that crediting norms and procedures are often important to research collaboration effectiveness.
This is a set of factors that has received attention in the literature on research ethics but rarely in studies of research collaboration effectiveness. Moreover, much of the research ethics literature understandably focuses on the most egregious violations, but we find that even relatively minor differences, even ones that are not communicated directly, can easily undercut the effectiveness of collaborations. In general, we expect that the most promising avenue for future research is likely to be focused on the management and decision-making structures related to collaboration.
When people are not close to one another, either socially or geographically, good management can sometimes help forestall problems. In short, much more attention needs to be given to crediting issues and, the related issue of collaboration management procedures for dealing with them. We have, at best, presented preliminary evidence in support of this revised model, but certainly more research is warranted, particularly using a research design that would allow the testing of the different causal structures implied by our revised model presentation.
This paper is chiefly about identifying collaboration problems, not solving them.
Dispatches from the browser-war’s front lines @ AskWoody
We are working on solutions research but it is in process. Nevertheless, some preliminary lessons are apparent from our interviews and the thematic content analysis. In the light of our results, three approaches to increasing collaboration effectiveness occur to us. First, researchers can choose collaborators they trust and to continue to work with them, generally increasing levels of trust. Second, individuals who are collaborating can devise informal practices and rules that work for them, including well-specified crediting and collaboration management procedures.
Third, institutions such as professional associations, universities and research centers can do the same and then implement them successfully. Previous research tells us that researchers often have strong preferences to focus most of their collaborative work on those with whom they have had previous collaborative successes rather than developing the broadest possible collaborative network Bozeman and Corley This may be especially the case with female researchers Fox and Ferri ; Corley and Gaughan We do not expect that a procedure will be a magic bullet for avoiding bad outcomes or a necessary requirement.
The role of experience in collaborations is closely intertwined with trust.
The relationship is reciprocal. When asked about their most positive research collaborations, many of our respondents mentioned trust and experience, often in tandem. Most collaborations have a range of issues flowing naturally from the collaboration, including: deciding publication timing and outlets, determining publication objectives, choosing fora for public presentation, and, especially important, assigning credit.
Typically, institutions do not have rules pertaining to these choices. There are, of course, a few instances in which these choices are constrained by institutions. For example, university—business research contracts sometimes have specifications about when and where findings can be released.
Dispatches From The Nexus Of Bad Research And Bad Journalism
In the vast majority of cases universities and other research institutions do not have hard and fast rules about these research collaboration choices and the decision to leave discretion to the researchers themselves seems wise. However, in the absence of clear rules of the game, the routine choices made during collaborations can often give rise to disappointment, disagreement and conflict. Why is it the case that such a small percentage of extremely bright, often highly experienced, and generally well-intentioned professionals have not learned that a modest amount of participative group decision-making and a few simple but transparent decision heuristics can make their collaborations run more smoothly?
On the basis of the evidence we have thus far collected we cannot give a confidence-inspiring answer to this question. But here are some possibilities. First, the fact that an individual is a brilliant physicist or biologist seems to relate not at all to either management skills or human relations ability. However, highly accomplished individuals may have a false confidence or limited ability to empathize with those in less powerful positions.
It should be noted that some senior scholars we interviewed said they decided to manage in a more participatory fashion because of a bad experience they had with their advisors when they were a student. Second, we are dealing with a set of extremely busy people who understandably have limited patience for management, even at its simplest level, and may view process work on collaborations as an undesirable transaction cost to be avoided.
Third, if collaborative groups directly confront decisions about allocating credit, author order, selection of journals, timing of release of results, and all of the other small and large decisions that must be made during collaborations, there is clearly a potential for conflict. It is certainly the case that many people prefer to keep any conflict sub rosa so as to avoid direct confrontation. Fourth, academic scientists, much as the rest of humanity, are not necessarily eager to share power. This does not always mean that those who are in power and preemptive in their collaborations have bad intentions.
In some cases, there is simply the assumption that they are experienced and they know best. Indeed, there is some defense to that point since inexperienced people participating in collaboration decisions may have difficulties.
For example, many graduate students seem to feel that the most important determinant of crediting is number of hours on the project, an idea that they often lose quickly when discovering how challenging it may be to conceive and construct a project. Despite the fact that we can understand reasons why collaborators wish to avoid processes, transparency, and participative decision-making, we nonetheless hold that doing so is one of the easiest means of avoiding bad collaboration outcomes.
First, the fact that there is a self-conscious approach to managing research collaborations does not imply that it is necessarily an effective approach. In some instances people simply perpetuate bad management and increase the likelihood of bad outcomes though, to be sure, most problems we observed owed more to non-management or ad hoc approaches than to poor systematic management.
Second, not everyone contributes equally to informal management frameworks and heuristics. The less powerful and those with less status often have little or no role in establishing the collaboration management framework they work in. To some extent this is understandable: junior people and students often do not have the experience helpful in developing systematic approaches to collaboration. But this does not mean they should necessarily go unprotected, subject chiefly to the whims of persons who are generally, but not always, well-intentioned and who generally, but not always, develop a collaboration management framework that has mutual benefit.
Despite the many advantages of the bottom-up approach to collaboration management, there is something to be said for an institutional and more formal role Landry and Amara Some professional journals have led the way, specifying requirements for contributorship. Some professional associations have begun to develop ethical codes, or at least explicit expectations, about the conduct of collaborations, especially as they pertain to coauthor credit.
Our results suggest that extending research on contributorship to other STEM fields beyond the medical domain is important for addressing these ethical, practical, individual, and institutional issues. Discourse on ethics in science research is not new. Federal research funding agencies recognize the variation in collaboration and contributorship practices and lack of universal standards among disciplines that threaten the quality of research.
Nevertheless, we see little empirical research, and in particular interpretations of specific situations, about ethical concerns in research collaborations outside of the biomedical fields. The institutional innovations are still very much the exception. Is further expansion of institutional formalization a good idea?
This is a topic ripe for debate. At the same time, ethical breaches do occur. We expect that more formal approaches could be useful in lessening the likelihood of nightmare collaborations but, perhaps, routinely bad collaborations will be less sensitive to formal rules. Although this paper represents only one of many aspects of a large-scale, multi-year project and employs only interview data, we nonetheless feel that we have been able to learn some worthwhile lessons about good and bad collaboration factors and their associated constructs.
When reflecting on their worst collaborations, even the most senior respondents typically mentioned problems related to short-term personal acrimony, conflicts about crediting on a single paper, or, most common, the failure of individuals to come through with promised work. One caveat is that our interview subjects were still in academia, so we may be under-estimating the extent of nightmare collaborations by not having talked to former academicians who left for other professions.
Within this limitation, we nevertheless conclude that the vast majority of collaborations are good collaborations. With respect to routinely bad collaborations, it seems to us that the most common factor is a lack of fit among work styles and, related, autocratic management of collaborations. We are not surprised that commerce plays a small role.
We feel that there is always a strong potential for commerce-based, university—industry collaborations to have bad outcomes and that they are particularly prone to nightmare outcomes. However, while many researchers have some interaction with industry, the proportion having more than casual paper exchanges, seminars, technical assistance work with industry, collaborating directly on research and patents, is a very small percentage Lin and Bozeman We are not really sure how what we refer to as egomania fits in.
Certainly it is a major problem but one not in any way unique to academic research or collaboration. Sometimes people simply behave badly, treating others unfairly, exploiting the weak, and making the workplace a site for exorcising their personal demons. There does not seem to be one approach to collaboration management that has much potential to remedy this. Our respondents do have a relatively effective strategy. When mentioning someone who could fit into the egomaniac category, they almost all say the same thing—they will never work with that person again.
Perhaps the most significant limitation of our paper is that it is based on 60 interviews. Our only consolation is that our present findings can perhaps be set beside related studies using survey data and curriculum vitae data Bozeman and Corley ; Bozeman and Gaughan ; Youtie and Bozeman , studies having data from a much larger number of researchers.
Perhaps our current limited number of in-depth interviews will complement findings from studies with more respondents but based on less detailed and nuanced findings. What if it is the de facto egomaniac that is doing the reporting? Our concern here was to cast a wide net but it would be useful as a next step to study collaborations as a unit rather than collaborators. We caution, though, that this will be challenging.
To elaborate on our future research agenda on collaboration: first, we are interested in tracing systemically the life cycle of collaborative groups and the quality of outcomes from sets of collaborations. Second, we wish to firm up the idea of good and bad collaboration factors, developing indicators and testing them more thoroughly. Third, we wish to understand the long-term career effects of bad collaborations, and especially how good or bad early-career collaboration experiences affect student and junior researchers.
Fourth, we wish to understand the impact that guidelines developed by or under development by science societies, journals, and funding agencies are having on collaborations in general and reducing bad collaborations in particular. Finally, after we expand our grasp of the determinants of collaboration outcomes we hope to develop some viable prescriptions.
Perhaps certain steps can be taken to remedy some of the predictable problems encountered in bad collaborations and to increase the likelihood of good ones, or even dream ones. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents. A subject-dependent concept of research effectiveness. A provisional model of research collaboration effectiveness.
Data and methods. Findings: An initial evaluation of the provisional model. Findings: Content analysis of good and bad collaborations, additional themes. A revised research collaboration effectiveness model. Distilling lessons about improving research collaboration. Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines Barry Bozeman. Email: barry. Oxford Academic.
Google Scholar. Monica Gaughan. Jan Youtie. Catherine P. Heather Rimes. Cite Citation. Permissions Icon Permissions. Abstract The scant literature on individual scientists collaboration dynamics is used to develop a provisional model of research collaboration effectiveness.
Figure 1. Open in new tab Download slide. Table 1. Once we agree on that then the norms are like academia. It can be very difficult to get papers out with a senior faculty member. It is usually easier to get junior faculty to let go of a paper. He was from [gives national origin] and I had a class with people from lots of different departments. For a bunch of assignments I assigned them to small groups. After every assignment I would have someone come and complain about him. It was always female graduate students and I would move him to a different group.
I thought hmm… I wonder what is going on with this. The last time it happened the student [said she] felt physically intimidated. Then, he came to my office for something and I understood what they meant. He got verbally abusive and I ended up kicking him out[. Open in new tab. Table 2.
Bad collaboration factors and incidence: Additional constructs from revised model. I tried to contact him many times. I saw him once at a conference and was mad at him and he apologized and said he was very busy. Too busy to send an email? We had full faith in him and when it came to surface it resulted in unpleasant exchange. Ultimate resolution was retracted paper and internal investigation and at the end was clear that nothing was win—win for anyone and the postdoc left.
He was too negative. Math is a lot of work. You are in isolation. It is a little depressing. I like to have a group of people who are enthusiastic.
I am extremely positive because I want to be encouraging — even if I privately feel that it might not work out — because I want these guys to be having fun and working hard. This one guy, I got sick of his attitude. It was a great idea, which became his thesis. We worked it out and talked about it at a conference. Two other people heard my presentation and read my paper. They began to work on this same problem after they read my paper… I was trying to be the first author but everybody wanted the authorship to be alphabetical.
Then someone from Spain came up with another proof. I felt that my original idea was taken away from me. I wanted the paper to be the best it could be and we collaborated but he was basically blackmailing me. He really wanted to get a masters and she wanted him to get a PhD. She talked him into getting a PhD. I was doing more of the work than he did but he was counting on that for his PhD dissertation since dissertations are a combination of papers.
It bugged me but I understood later on that his need was more than mine. The USDA has less flexibility in what they do. Most people in a government facility will have a boss who tells them that they can or cannot address particular questions. There is a pair of people, one from [gives nation of origin] and one from [gives a different nation of origin] in the [gives name of project] project. The one person is very upfront and the other person takes it hard.
That tends to alienate people fast. I have to take responsibility for this, the human relationship problems. He wants to be the boss. He wanted our project to be a success, but he felt threatened if somebody else tried to move it along. Table 3. Personality, personality, personality.
I like to talk regularly. I work by standing at a board and playing with ideas. All those sort of good professional activities you would want. You have a joint grant where you are required to work together. A shared grant means people have to work it out and people have to trust each other more.
So they lead to different conditions in which you suggest to collaborate with one another. Figure 2. The respondents were not prepared to make precise analytical distinctions on this point and in some cases they seemed to differ in their conceptualization with some, for example, implying that unfair crediting is a cause of bad collaborations and others implying that it is a type of bad collaboration. Our results indicate that the vast majority of research collaborations are happy, perhaps not true of family relations.
Search ADS. Academic—practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. Research guidelines in the era of large-scale collaborations: An analysis of genome-wide association study consortia. Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM.
University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Bodas Freitas. University—industry collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new industrialized countries. A jack of all trades: The role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. Google Preview. Research collaboration and academic entrepreneurship: A state of the art review.
How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Interpersonal traits, complementarity, and trust in virtual collaboration. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university—industry collaboration. The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature.
Does research organization influence academic production? Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. The role of the informal organization in decision making on research and development. Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? De Dreu. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Bridge over troubled waters? Problems and opportunities in interim research collaboration. Academic careers, patents and productivity: Industry collaboration as scientific and technical human capital.