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.