Collaborating with other grads in research

[Alvey]

My question is as follows: When graduate students work together on a research project, are they usually expected to work on the same exact things, at the same exact time, or would it be more reasonable to have a division of labor and divide the work load?

 

I have been hearing many different pros and cons, and I wanted to hear other people's opinions on this. 

 

To clarify, I am a first-year PhD student in mathematics.

[danieleWrites]

I have no idea what the expectations would be because every field and every program has its own expectations when it comes go collaboration.

However, I am discovering the sadistic glee of making undergraduates do group projects. I'd get into the whole ethos of why, but it kind of boils down to the simple fact that most writing, and most work, along with most effective learning for most people is collaborative. This insistence on the genius in the garret inventing new brilliance is a bit counter-productive.

So, my two cents here is that there is one, basic expectation in collaboration after elementary school: the less involved the faculty and/or supervisors have to be in the administration of the group, the happier everyone is. Learning to negotiate collaborative work is a skill few of us learn (I suck so hard at this, it's almost pathological) and few learning institutions encourage (academic integrity sides with solo projects). Which is kind of odd because most professional work is done in groups. Huh.

Logic and efficiency clearly point to a division of labor that speaks to mutual respect and acknowledgement of individual strengths. I would tend to vote for division of labor. I would add that, for the intellectual and educational growth of all involved, there are instances when everyone needs to do work that one person can accomplish more efficiently and effectively. In my high school and undergrad groups, I wrote the papers we turned in, period, and that was actually bad for everyone in the group in the long run because the only way to get better at writing is to write something others will read. Sure, we got As on the paper, but I went on to get As on other papers and they went on to not.

I think it's less of an either/or and more of a finding the right balance between fulfilling the needs of the project (and by extension the group as a whole) and fulfilling the needs of the individuals in the group.

I will be giving this lecture next week.

[raneck]

I would add that, for the intellectual and educational growth of all involved, there are instances when everyone needs to do work that one person can accomplish more efficiently and effectively. In my high school and undergrad groups, I wrote the papers we turned in, period, and that was actually bad for everyone in the group in the long run because the only way to get better at writing is to write something others will read. Sure, we got As on the paper, but I went on to get As on other papers and they went on to not.

 

My happiness and well being in high school (and later undergrad) increased dramatically when I decided that my priority was the project, not babysitting my group members.  Their education is not my responsibility, and I don't have to sacrifice my peace of mind and free time for it.  If they wanted to contribute (which was rare) fine, that's great. If not, what do I care what they get out of it?

 

This attitude was born of a few high school teachers deliberately grouping me with their more obstinate students, and then asking me "help get them up to speed."  I fail to see why I had to do their jobs for them.

[TakeruK]

My question is as follows: When graduate students work together on a research project, are they usually expected to work on the same exact things, at the same exact time, or would it be more reasonable to have a division of labor and divide the work load?

 

I have been hearing many different pros and cons, and I wanted to hear other people's opinions on this. 

 

To clarify, I am a first-year PhD student in mathematics.

 

I think this is a super vague question and I also think that while the above advice is good, there are some pretty big differences between working on a group project for a class and collaborating on a research project.

 

I think that a collaboration between graduate students is not really that different than any other collaboration, except maybe the level of experience in the group. 

 

So the answer to your question really just depends on the nature of the collaboration. If it's just you and another student that are pursuing a research idea on your own, then it's pretty much literally up to you two to decide what you want to do. You can decide that the project naturally has two separate phases and each of you can responsible for each phase. Or perhaps one of you will be doing the experiment and the other will be doing the analysis. You can do whatever you want! 

 

In many cases, there will be a faculty member involved though. Maybe it's a prof, plus a senior grad student plus a junior grad student, or two students and a prof etc. If there is a "leader" then that person generally decides how the work should be divided. Good leadership involves listening to your group of course and making sure everyone is happy. 

 

In general though, I think most people prefer collaborations where duplication of effort is avoided. Personally, I would not be happy with doing the exact same thing at the exact same time with someone else because that is a waste! I would rather do my part, hand it off to someone else, wait for them to do their thing, and then get it back, work on it etc. Ideally, I would have other things to do while the project is in someone else's hands. Or, I would prefer to have us work in parallel streams and then tie everything together at the end. One critical part is communication though, and it would be important for collaborators to meet as often as necessary to keep everyone on track and updated.

[danieleWrites]

My happiness and well being in high school (and later undergrad) increased dramatically when I decided that my priority was the project, not babysitting my group members.  Their education is not my responsibility, and I don't have to sacrifice my peace of mind and free time for it.  If they wanted to contribute (which was rare) fine, that's great. If not, what do I care what they get out of it?

 

This attitude was born of a few high school teachers deliberately grouping me with their more obstinate students, and then asking me "help get them up to speed."  I fail to see why I had to do their jobs for them.

What you describe is not collaboration on a project, but individuals not working together to accomplish a single goal. There is a difference between "babysitting" and working together. The scenario you describe? I agree with you. Why would you want to work in a group if the only thing expected of you is to do all of the group's work and/or to put up with others who refuse to pull their own weight or do anything but take advantage of you? Of course, I ask how refusing to consider options for mutual benefit is a remedy to this problem.

My point wasn't that the members of the group are responsible for everyone else's education or opportunities. My point was that sometimes (not always) expediency should be set aside for the mutual (note the word is mutual, not individual) benefit of everyone in the group. In my case, it was expedient and of short term benefit for everyone in the group that I write the paper we had to turn in. It would have been more beneficial to everyone in the group (including me) if we had all written a paper and then picked the best paper, or combined parts of the papers, or whatever for the paper we turned in, even though this would have added hours and meetings and whatnot to the project time frame. This is not about babysitting and I'm with you: no person in any collaborative project should be responsible for another person's, um, edification. But, I also believe that there is room to negotiate the project that allow for individual members to get something out of it. I apologize for not being clear on that.