top of page

Working With Others: Scientific Collaboration

Writer's picture: Mishkat BhattacharyaMishkat Bhattacharya

In much of science - and certainly in theoretical physics - one can work by oneself. I have had some experience along this line, having published several single-author papers. There is certainly a lot of fun and satisfaction in exploring a topic or idea by oneself, and then getting to take all the credit - or the blame! - for the work.


In other areas of science, such as experimental high energy physics, collaboration is well nigh unavoidable, since the tasks required are too large to be handled by a single person.


In this blog I will discuss why I like to collaborate and what qualities I look for in my collaborators.


Why collaborate


i) Extending expertise. One major motivation for collaboration for me is to learn new physics and make contact with areas other than the one I am trained in. Some scientists, a colleague once said to me, like to continue tilling the land their advisors gave them. I don't think there is anything wrong with that approach. It allows for depth of exploration.


But I like to diversify my portfolio. A good way to do this is to associate with people who are already experts in the areas I am interested in expanding into. In this way I get to learn new things and that keeps things interesting for myself.


Until recently, human beings had to atomize knowledge - into divisions such as chemistry, physics, biology, and further divisions such as atomic physics, condensed matter physics, etc. - because so little was known that in order to make advances one had to limit the scope of inquiry. Now we know enough to make connections, and in fact some of the most exciting problems are interdisciplinary, and lie in the interstices between various fields.


The attitudes in the scientific community have changed, recognizing this. Not so many years ago, suggestion of collaboration to a colleague would signal an unpardonable intrusion into their domain of professional expertise. Nowadays, people actively look for such opportunities.


ii) Connecting to theory and experiment. As a theoretical physicist, as I have mentioned before in this blog, I try to keep both aspects in my research program: a purely theoretical side, which is not explicitly connected to laboratory work; and a second aspect, which is tightly tied to experiments.


Collaboration with theorists is delightful as one can assemble teams with members all over the world (Japan + Germany + Taiwan + India as one of my examples) - making nonlocal (as a physicist might say) collaborations possible. Nowadays this is especially easy, as computers and the internet have made sharing of code and documents and discussions (if you can handle the time zones!) almost trivial.


Collaboration with experimentalists is something I find very satisfying as well. It is almost magical to suggest something and see it being realized in the lab; or conversely, being able to theoretically explain existing experimental observations. Often, the experiment itself suggests otherwise unanticipated but eventually fruitful directions for the theoretical work.


iii) Social aspect. Human beings are programmed to socialize. There is great delight in talking shop with colleagues, sharing academic and intellectual interests, obtaining feedback on one's work, networking, and making connections.


Collaborations often lead to invitations to visit, and the resulting travel is an education in itself. I do not consider myself a well-travelled person, and take every chance I get to expand my intellectual and cultural horizons.

Collaborations are beneficial for students and postdocs also, as they make valuable networking connections, learn about the academic process from their peers, and get trained to be part of the community.


What I look for in a collaborator


i) Overlap of interest. A necessary condition for collaboration, of course, is that both (all) parties should be interested in teaming up. This can happen in a variety of ways - from discussions during a conference, in response to a funding call, from a correspondence initiated by a post on the arxiv. etc.


ii) Generosity. This quality has been described as the essence of friendship, and I think the same holds for scientific collaboration. This can take various forms - patience as the collaborators learn about each others' work, allocation of resources from all sides (time, technical expertise, scientific person power, etc.), credit-sharing, and so on. Excessive bookkeeping of contributions will lead to feelings of injustice, and must, in my opinion, be avoided.


iii) Organizational skills. Without them, collaborations can turn into nightmares, with misplaced documents, uncoordinated meetings, skipped deadlines...you get the idea.


iv) Perseverance. As any researcher knows, unseen or seemingly unsolvable problems arise often in scientific research. In these situations, it is necessary that collaborators do not bail at the first sign of trouble. The solidity of a collaboration is quite dependent on the staying power of its participants.


v) Communication skills. In my experience relationships - personal as well as professional - last only if there is honest and prompt communication between all parties involved. This is something I insist on, even within my own group.


A very good indication as to whether a student or a postdoc is going to be a good fit in my group is how conscientious they are with respect to maintaining contact. A basic rule in my group: all emails need to be acknowledged, certainly within 24 hours, and preferably much earlier. The idea is that at all times, everyone should have a clear picture as to what others in the team are up to.


Clear and unambiguous communication also pre-empts ethical problems.

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Responsible comments are welcome at mb6154@gmail.com. All material is under copyright ©.

© 2023 by Stories from Science. Powered and secured by Wix

bottom of page