It’s a brave new world for Assistant Professors, Graduate Students, Post-docs, and grant-seekers these days.  Traditional disciplinary boundaries are blurred and, in many cases, disappearing as modern scholarship becomes increasingly collaborative and cooperative.  Many would argue that collaboration and interdisciplinary (ID) approaches are unavoidable as academic research expands, adapts, and evolves to remain vital and relevant in an increasingly connected, digitized, and resource-conscious world.  Institutions of higher education and agencies that support their research are responding to this sea change to varying degrees.  Some of the changes are progressive and positive, but there’s an elephant in the room.

Hiring practices and faculty searches at many institutions of higher education already acknowledge this shift, actively seeking incoming faculty who are multi-disciplinary themselves in their training, teaching, and service interests.  For many incoming faculty, the silos that defined training and teaching in the sciences, for example, 15 or 20 twenty years ago have given way to team-based approaches to graduate training, postdoctoral mentoring, teaching, and field and laboratory-based research.  Some types of research funding are now, in fact, predicated on the existence of collaboration, and demonstration of the viability and vigor of the collaborative team approach is a critical aspect of succeeding in the application process.  These are good things in the sense that they create networks of investigators who provide different and complementary views of a problem, and have great potential for formulating theories and amassing bodies of data that answer important questions and, potentially, speed up the development of solutions to, for example, complex health, environmental, social and political challenges. 

Teaching and curriculum development increasingly reflects an ID approach as well.  For example, at our institution, humanities, social science, and life and health science faculty are developing new research questions, courses, and curricula that provide true cutting-edge educational and training experiences for our students.  Many courses involve community service activities.  In addition, teaching and service activities that cross boundaries and mix community engagement with professional and academic activities help to connect faculty with the populations they serve on and beyond the campus.  This is all good, right?

Enter the elephant. 

Universities are sending very mixed messages to faculty on where collaborative and ID work fits in their progression through the reappointment, tenure, and promotion (RTP) systems that literally make or break their careers as Professors.    Not surprisingly, many institutions of higher education remain behind the curve in reinforcing and rewarding ID scholarship, teaching, and service, in RTP criteria, RTP reviews, and, most importantly, in outcomes of RTP processes.  Many universities show that they support and encourage ID research, teaching and scholarship, for example, by providing administrative and financial support for such activities through internal grants and centers.  When the time comes for RTP reviews, however, faculty engaged in significant amounts of collaborative and ID work find themselves in the position of essentially defending their activities.  This is because many existing RTP criteria are designed for traditional fields as they were defined at the first half of the last century in terms of publication venues that are valued and the manner in which external reviewers are chosen.  ID and collaborative work, especially research, are seen as an aberration that requires justification, additional documentation, and assurance that the collaborative or ID approach was entirely necessary in for the activity in question.  Indeed, the degree to which this message is unequivocally delivered varies somewhat, but as a general rule, a Google search of web-accessible RTP criteria for many science departments and other units that are not explicitly ID in nature, returns RTP criteria that require significant justification of ID work.  Examples of the types of validation required for multi-authored and ID work include but are not limited to:

• detailed descriptions of the individual contributions of all collaborators on a multi-authored or ID project
• explicit justification of why a collaboration or ID approach was necessary for a project
• description of the candidate’s individual research, funding, or scholarship, and
• assurance that ID or collaborative work does not interfere with the candidate’s individual activities

Clearly, part of the purpose of these guidelines is to assure that candidates are, in fact, making substantial and relevant contributions in research and scholarship, and when more than one individual is involved in a research or teaching endeavor, there can be concern that participation and responsibility for the project is not spread equally.  It could be argued, however, that it may be possible to measure this variable in a more supportive, positive, and meaningful way.  For example, the definitions of contributions to the field can be expanded beyond the traditional disciplinary divisions and the journals associated with them for generations.  Instead, equal weight can be given to relatively new but high quality venues dedicated to ID research.  Additionally, changes in the manner in which external reviewers are chosen needs to occur.  Departments should make attempts to seek out respective scholars actively engaged in ID work themselves, even if these individuals are housed outside of traditional department homes in other institutions.  Finally, the development of innovative ID courses that require team teaching to bring in multiple perspectives should be rewarded rather than being viewed as an attempt by the candidate to reduce their teaching load by half a course a year.

Importantly, valuing ID and collaborative work, even, and perhaps especially, among pre-tenure faculty, has garnered significant support from several respected groups in higher education, supporting the development of specific RTP policies and review criteria that equal value to ID, collaborative, and solitary publications and work, rather than requiring special justification of non-solitary activities.  This sentiment is well-articulated in a 2005 National Research Council report on fostering “independence” in emerging scientists:

“An “independent investigator” is one who enjoys independence of thought—the freedom to define the problem of interest and/or to choose or develop the best strategies and approaches to address that problem. Under this definition, an independent scientist may work alone, as the intellectual leader of a research group, or as a member of a consortium of investigators each contributing distinct expertise. Specifically, we do not intend “independence” to mean necessarily “isolated” or “solitary,” or to imply “self-sustaining” or “separately funded.”- (Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005)

This definition is fundamentally different than the definition of independence that is used in many RTP documents which are based on the way we conducted research 20+ years ago.  It is certainly different from the definition used, formally and informally, by review committees in many universities.  The traditional definition is of a solitary, funded, scholar, recognized in his or her own rite as a contributor to the discipline.  ID and collaborative work are discouraged, at least in the early career phases, in this definition, with the admonition that for tenure, one “has to prove one’s independence”.  Once tenure has been attained, collaborations and ID work become more acceptable, in accord with the mandate to tenured faculty members to increase their reputations, influence, and notoriety in preparation for promotion to Full Professor.  In the days when collaboration meant considerable travel, working “for” another faculty member on a project for which they are funded, or addressing a research question from a risky or thoroughly untested standpoint, this definition made more sense.  It could be argued that in a world without the digital, data, and real-time communication and knowledge access capabilities of today, engaging in collaboration or an ID project was much riskier, and had the real possibility of diverting a pre-tenure faculty member’s attention, resources, and focus.  Embarking on such a project under such circumstances might, in fact, have been indicative of a lack of judgment on the candidate’s part, which, in the case of a pre-tenure review, would not bode well for an upcoming tenure decision.

Today, however, the world is a very different place, and it is entirely possible for faculty to collaborate, cross disciplines and time-zones, and get the on-demand data and communication they need to develop highly functional, innovative, and well-grounded collaborative and  ID projects.  Doing this successfully can be a career-building centerpiece for some of our most innovative, committed, and promising faculty, a fact that has been explicitly recognized by major research funders including NIH and NSF.    As institutions, we strive to recruit the brightest, most promising faculty, many of whom are doing wonderful ID work.  It’s time for us to meet them halfway by creating RTP criteria and systems that reward this new definition of independence. 

Well, the lab saga has ended. The Love and Logic bit did work, and the subject in question opted for the consequence of poor behavior and poor choice rather than taking responsibility for the conflict that was tearing the project apart. It started out innocently enough; I had a series of conversations with the subject, indicating that for her to continue working in the lab, that she was going to have to have a direct conversation with the person she was having problems with and find a solution to the communication problems she felt were compromising her ability to work. I offered to be there for the conversation as a facilitator, but that I would not “fix” the problem; I hired the subject and her colleague (“nemesis”, for the purposes of this post) with whom she had the conflict as professionals, and expected them to behave that way. The subject was really angry with me, and when we ended our discussion, I anticipated her resignation, with came within hours, and was, in fact, a relief. When you realize you have someone on a team who is not willing to step up and take responsibility for something that is a problem for them or have a tough conversation with someone else, it is best for that individual to leave- managing them and limiting the damage they cause is a huge undertaking.

In any event, she tendered her resignation, and I accepted it. I had told her in our conversations, and reiterated in my response to her, that I wished her luck, and that although her resignation would limit the scope of the things upon which I could reccomend her (i.e. Not much good to say on the “works well with others” questions), I would be glad to support her for other endavors based on her technical skill, which is considerable, and her intellectual capacity. In the bak of my mind, I knew there was another shoe waiting to drop…

So, I informed the rest of the lab and the study staff that the subject had resigned for personal reasons and invited everyone to express their appreciation for her hard work. This email generated a contact from nemesis to the subject, which was actually gracious and professional.

The subject, of course, fired of perhaps the most poisonous, immature and unprofessional email I have ever seen at nemesis, spewing all sorts of venom and personal insults. It was not to believed. I know the content because the subject had the incredibly poor judgment to copy me and, in fact, to include me in her rant and blame me for her departure from the lab and for her own problems with communication. The email belied a level of poor judgement and immaturity that was really shocking to me; I know we have all sent things in anger, but I think we’ve all learned the lesson that once you hit “send”, there’s no taking it back.

Needless to say, the letter of recommendation offer has been quietly recinded, and the next day, the subject was releived of her keys, her credentials, and issued her last paycheck. I’ve regrouped with my remaining team, and the lessons learned by all of us are notable.

Science is hard enough to do without letting emotions, pride, and unspoken misunderstandings ruin an otherwise great opportuntiy.  I only hope that the lesson that should have been learned for this mess by the subject, never email when emotional, was taken to heart.

I’m sure I’m not the only spouse who’s experienced the seemingly endless, tragic, incredibly sad progression of a parent or parent-in-law from independent, proud, self-sufficient adult to ill, weak, dependent, burdensome, and demoralized custodial care resident. My husband is gone, for the second time this year, across the country to nurse and now, take care of the affairs of, his once brilliant and now very compromised father. The cost to him, his siblings, his mother (divorced from his dad) and our family is incredible. This process is one that reminds me of the inherent frailty in all of us. You can be a Princeton graduate, an Harvard MBA grad, a recognized business and civic leader, and still be leveled in a matter of years by disease, addiction, and age. It really emphasizes, for me, the importance of valuing my life, the relationships that matter, and of being kind to my friends and family, despite momentary stresses and conflicts. As my wise graduate advisor says “You’ll never be on your deathbed saying ‘I wish I’d spent more time in the lab.’” Hug your kids and call your friends.

As the retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) season starts up at my university and I work with Department Chairs and our college RTP committee to plan for this year’s cases, I find myself thinking about a question I had to answer myself when seeking tenure, “Are you an independent scholar?” I remember being sort of shocked at the time that I had to address that question- I had a grant, I was publishing, I had students, I was the PI on my projects, and sure, I had co-authors for the papers and collaborators for some projects. What was the big deal?

Well, the big deal was that the tenure system wanted to make sure I was really “independent” in my research work. I understood the concern, given that I did have colleagues who had come to tenure-track positions and were still doing projects with doctoral or post-doctoral advisors, but that was not my situation. I distinctly remember a conversation with my department chair about this- he told me that what I needed to do was for every paper, grant, project and abstract I’d put out since coming to my university, document who all the authors were, specifically what each of them did, and explain why the project needed collaboration and why I could not have authored the paper myself.

Of course I did it, but to this day I think it was ridiculous. What’s more, many institutions still require such documentation in RTP cases to assure “independence” of candidates. What does this say about how we view collaborative work? Why has there been so little movement on this one despite the increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of much of the work scholars do, especially in the sciences? Many would argue that collaboration is unavoidable as academic research expands, adapts, and evolves to remain vital in an increasingly connected, and resource-conscious world.

Collaborative work is increasingly encouraged, and sometimes required, by funding agencies, including NIH and NSF, suggesting that the definition of “independent” may need some updating. A possible update was well-articulated in a 2005 National Research Council report on fostering “independence” in emerging scientists:
“An “independent investigator” is one who enjoys independence of thought—the freedom to define the problem of interest and/or to choose or develop the best strategies and approaches to address that problem. Under this definition, an independent scientist may work alone, as the intellectual leader of a research group, or as a member of a consortium of investigators each contributing distinct expertise. Specifically, we do not intend “independence” to mean necessarily “isolated” or “solitary,” or to imply “self-sustaining” or “separately funded.”- (Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005)
This is fundamentally different than the way many institutions still define independence in RTP documents, and it is certainly different from the definition used, formally and informally, by review committees in many universities. The traditional definition is of a solitary, funded, scholar, recognized in his or her own rite as a contributor to the discipline.  In the days when collaboration meant considerable travel, working “for” another faculty member on a project for which they are funded, or addressing a research question from a risky or thoroughly untested standpoint, this definition made more sense. Today, however, the world is a very different place, and it is entirely possible for faculty to collaborate and get the on-demand data and communication they need to develop highly productive collaborations, even before tenure. Let’s change the way we think of “independence” to value this type of work and the initiative, planning, and commitment that it requires.