Growing_the_Best_and_Brightest._The_Drivers_of_Research_Excellence

Growing the best and brightest March 2014
An important point emerging from our
interviews was that the day-to-day
collaborations can be as important as the highlevel
strategic alliances above. By day-to-day
collaboration, we mean the informal
conversations that take place around an HEI
between researchers. This could be in a
corridor, over a coffee, in a lab and so on.
Indeed, some individuals suggested that colocation
as well as the arrangement of the
buildings, is a driver of research excellence
because of the importance of day-to-day
collaboration.
The factors outlined in the box below were
cited by interviewees as features of successful
collaborations. Interviewees did not explicitly
mention knowledge transfer offices, which is
consistent with UK-IRC (2013) 33 which finds
that the level of contact with knowledge
transfer offices is lower among academics from
top rated department.
Some key features of successful collaborations
1. Successful collaborations are often forged through personal contacts, developed early in
careers and through networking occasions, such as conferences.
Related to the point about day-to-day collaboration, a number of interviewees noted that the most
successful collaborations that they had participated in were developed “from the ground up” rather
than being a consequence of a university-wide strategic initiative. This success was attributed to the
need for a successful collaboration to be built on trust and a strong understanding of what each
partner wants to get out of the relationship. A number of interviewees suggested that sometimes
relationships would be forged early in a career, but not used until later, given the pressure to publish
single-author articles. This perhaps explains how any tension between “competition” and
“collaboration” is managed.
2. Larger scale successful collaborations are characterised by an environment of openness and
leadership.
We were told that it was critical, early on, to encourage those involved in the collaboration to be open
about what they wanted, their expectations, concerns, and so on. One approach to this would be to
have an early “facilitated” meeting, which a senior individual would chair and encourage a fruitful
discussion.
3. The potential for a long-term arrangement.
We were told that this mattered for a variety of reasons. First, it encouraged each party to invest in
the relationship and take it seriously. Second, it allowed for a “take it in turns approach” – a specific
example of this is in relation to co-authorship – where one could resolve a “lead author” dilemma in
such a manner.
A topic closely related to collaboration is
critical mass. Our discussions also highlighted
the important distinction between a “critical
mass” necessary for undertaking a specific
research task or project and a “critical mass” in
a department or institution.
» Critical mass for a specific research task or
project. We were told that many research
teams in lab and non-lab settings were often
relatively small – usually a number less than
10 and perhaps a figure between 3 to 7 is
typical. Of course, teams are sometimes
larger and smaller than this. Indeed, a
number of interviewees mentioned that they
had deliberately kept the research teams
smaller than they could have been for three
quality-related reasons: first, to retain
control over the quality of research
undertaken; second, to reduce the burden of
management; third, to ensure that
responsibility for delivery was clearly
33
UK-IRC (2013), “The Dual Funding Structure for
Research in the UK: Research Council and Funding
Council Allocation Methods and the Pathways to
Impact of UK Academics”.