tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post5088601704417329553..comments2024-03-14T04:53:49.513-05:00Comments on FemaleScienceProfessor: Research TriangleFemale Science Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-41246977615018975992012-05-12T21:01:45.201-05:002012-05-12T21:01:45.201-05:001 or 2.
Not 0. I have trouble getting papers writ...1 or 2.<br /><br />Not 0. I have trouble getting papers written if I work alone (though I often get more work done that way, it doesn't get published).<br /><br />Large projects spend all their time on unproductive meetings.gasstationwithoutpumpshttp://gasstationwithoutpumps.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-41544961449367726042012-05-08T17:44:49.613-05:002012-05-08T17:44:49.613-05:00I've only had experience with NC=1 so far (and...I've only had experience with NC=1 so far (and quite a bit); I've never tried larger numbers. I should write a couple more NC=0 papers.plamhttp://patricklam.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-48368876687554272842012-05-08T16:23:22.703-05:002012-05-08T16:23:22.703-05:00I like NCs of 2 or so best but it's really com...I like NCs of 2 or so best but it's really common in my field to have really large collaborations. I find that these work best (for me and in terms of output) if they are really collaborations of subcollaborations. For example, in one project I'm just finishing, I have a very tight coupling with one other person for data collection and subject specific publication, I have a couple of tight collaborative groups (NC~3) where each of our respective research foci in the same project overlap to say something new, then I have synthesis-type collaborations with the larger group. So, it's sort of a nested hierarchy of collaborations. It means something on that project is always moving forward and keeps me from being utterly frazzled by the chaos of the entire group.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-42073052106075536282012-05-08T14:51:54.236-05:002012-05-08T14:51:54.236-05:00My ONC is 2-3. With NC=1, I admit I tend to be con...My ONC is 2-3. With NC=1, I admit I tend to be controlling and if the other person in the same, it gets pretty bad; I get too irritated with that one person and they probably do with me. With NC=2 or 3, the collaboration is small enough that we can still be efficient, but I know I need to let go and things will move at a somewhat slower pace than I'd like.GMPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872461021953583473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-28874565235837353862012-05-08T12:41:11.150-05:002012-05-08T12:41:11.150-05:00This may be geographic. I think the expected ONC ...This may be geographic. I think the expected ONC for many EU funding programs is fairly large (> 5) even for the smallest calls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-58491374542295605332012-05-08T12:00:41.972-05:002012-05-08T12:00:41.972-05:00I'm a new researcher, currently a Co-PI for th...I'm a new researcher, currently a Co-PI for the first time. In our case, there are 4 partners (myself included) and it feels too large. The partners are not all pulling their weight equally, and I feel that the problematic partner would have trouble getting away with this in a smaller group (although maybe not - as I say, I'm new to this). <br /><br />I think a smaller partnership would be ideal at my current career stage. It's challenging to work collaboratively for the first time (not counting collaborative work as a grad student, which was real but felt less high-stakes). Jumping into a 4-way collaboration is not a good way to ease yourself into this part of research life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-56974240642982936442012-05-07T14:59:13.491-05:002012-05-07T14:59:13.491-05:00An ONC of ~3 'feels' about right for me. S...An ONC of ~3 'feels' about right for me. Small enough that contributions are obvious/fair & everyone gets a slice of the action. More than that & your distance from actual science decreases (you're the expert on X models called in to beef up the section on X models).<br />Less than that & the workload is very large & there's less sanity-checking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-64622837444779387392012-05-07T11:50:42.293-05:002012-05-07T11:50:42.293-05:00I have had a long and productive collaboration wit...I have had a long and productive collaboration with one particular colleague. When I was younger I worried that people would think that he was the "brains" behind our collaborative work (he is male, I am female), and I know that this did happen. However, over time I think this problem mostly went away, although every once in a while I meet someone who refers to our work as my colleague's work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-37964498281729629432012-05-07T11:25:48.412-05:002012-05-07T11:25:48.412-05:00I'm in pure math and I mostly prefer ONC=1 or ...I'm in pure math and I mostly prefer ONC=1 or 2. However, a few years ago I started a collaboration with ONC=3, all of us female mathematicians. As a group, we go much slower than if we had smaller ONC, but we reach further than any subset of us could. I'm very fond of this collaboration because we went through a lot of things while writing these papers (getting tenure-track jobs, promotions, 2-body problems, a baby, etc), and we always work with the same energy and enthusiasm as the first day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-79668423794537566372012-05-07T08:34:17.351-05:002012-05-07T08:34:17.351-05:00ONC = 1. In the special case of long-time collabo...ONC = 1. In the special case of long-time collaborators who reside at my current institution (esp. former mentees of mine, we have a real research faculty track where they can be promoted and become independent) 2-3 can be ok, because we have somewhat established roles and know how to work together. <br /><br />More and more the funding agencies want large groups. I think this is bad. Usually the $ increases with group size but less than linearly. So each PI gets not that much and as a result feels little responsibility, and the management becomes very difficult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-18195662134349550392012-05-07T07:35:20.288-05:002012-05-07T07:35:20.288-05:001- from my experience, the ONC varies very much in...1- from my experience, the ONC varies very much in different research fields. Also in the same topic, I see a lot of differences weather the research is experimental or theoretical.<br /> <br />2- My ONC varies a lot, from 2-3 to 15-20. The people involved tend to be the same for several years, especially for projects that involve a big experimental set-up. However I find more efficient to work in smaller groups, as the amount and quality of research doesn't generally scales with the number of people.nordicTTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-86746522055726730012012-05-07T07:00:09.615-05:002012-05-07T07:00:09.615-05:00My personal ONC is pretty low (0-2), but I am invo...My personal ONC is pretty low (0-2), but I am involved in a larger group that has assembled to apply for a grant program that specifically funds larger groups of collaborators. Initially I was concerned that it might be distracting and stressful to work with a group size so far above my ONC, but so far the major challenge has been logistical: with a larger group, I can tell we will need to rely on more sophisticated and regimented mechanisms for communicating and sharing than the ones I use with just a single collaborator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com