Over the past several years, I've had some excellent first hand experience with large collaborations. You know, the projects where there are PIs (that's Principal Investigators for you non-science people) from multiple institutions. They are all interested in their own little slice of the project, yet they still need to work together to answer larger questions.
And so the endless conference calls begin...
It's really not that bad. No, seriously. It takes a lot of time to be a part of a larger group, time you could have spent doing your own work. But then you pool the results of the joint effort to answer large, over-arching questions. And it is amazing.
Instead of being stuck in your own niche, you branch out and grow. Sure, you can still write the technical papers that only the handful of people in your sub-sub-sub-sub-field will understand and actually read. But you also help write the synthesis papers that makes the work you've done useful to answer a bigger question.
Here are some of my reflections on the process of working as part of a large project and what I've learned from it:
You start to think about multi-disciplinary approaches. For most projects, the important results aren't what some individual researcher happened to find. The results that really matter are the synthesis of different types of data from different sub-fields to understand a larger system or process. When you work on a large project, you still consider what advances you can make, but you also think a lot about how what you do can help someone else. As the project progresses, you learn a lot more than you ever cared to know about other sub-fields. This changes the way you think, and when you move on to new ideas and new projects in the future, you will already have an idea of how your work can help answer questions in a different field. Right now, the most important results in earth sciences are coming from areas where multiple sub-fields intersect.
Prioritizing your work becomes more important. Once you start working for a group, you have essentially two separate goals. One is to finish your own work in a timely manner (so you can publish, graduate, move on...). The other is to provide the support other project members need to do their work. For me, prioritizing the proper goal was a matter of trial and error. In some cases, maybe when a paper in review needs more data from you to get it published, it is clear the project work must come first. But then there are also times when the project work isn't as important, and you can put it off to pursue your own work. The right answer to which should you prioritize seems to be mostly based on specific situation. Just keep a good handle on deadlines and expectations. And notice you aren't the only one on the project who isn't doing as much as they could be.
Do not make unrealistic claims about how fast you can work. Projects often require status updates and future plans to be given to the group. And this is fine. Just don't say you will finish such and such a stage by next month. As soon as those words are out of your mouth, your equipment will break, or your computer will crash, and you'll be left making excuses. Unless you are directly asked for a time when a certain part will be completed, don't offer any sort of information on timing. Just report what you've done and outline what you plan to do next. In the event that you are asked for a timeline, consider a worst-case scenario to finish a task, then double that amount of time. Finishing something early always looks better than finishing it late, and the only difference is what you say at the beginning.
It is possible to herd cats gracefully. Scientists are like cats. Independent, intelligent, and impossible to herd without some incentive or bribery. And even then, it's a toss up if they will go where you want them to. So when you get a roomful of scientists, who each lead their own lab group, and specify one to be the leader for the project, it turns into an exercise on herding cats. I've heard of projects where this effort does not go well. The key to herding cats gracefully seems to be a healthy dose of respect all around, and a guiding leader. If the head scientist on the project can guide discussions in the right direction, bring up important issues, and keep people on task, but NOT make decisions for everyone, it works well. You end up with a group making joint decisions after discussions and consideration from everyone. The best leader in this case is one who oils the gears of a machine rather than trying to drive it a certain direction.
Conference calls are the best way to stay in touch, and the bane of your existence. Most projects use conference calls to stay in touch and provide updates on a weekly or monthly basis. Rather than playing email tag, or traveling to the same location, it's a great way to check in, advance plans, and get feedback about important issues. At the same time, conference calls can be a huge time sink. It is unlikely that, unless you are the project leader, you will be interested in more than half of the call. It takes time to hash things out, and during an hour long call, you may be bored and un-involved for most of it. But beware of multi-tasking! As soon as you stop paying complete attention, someone will ask you for details only you know about, and the only part of the question you will hear is your name.
You reap the benefits of co-authorship and exposure and your network expands. When working on a larger project, you end up spending a good amount of time with the other project members. By getting to know them, you are expanding your professional network, and increasing your exposure. When you work on papers with them as a co-author, you become the expert they know. They, like you, may not often work with many people in other fields. Now that they know you, you are their go-to person for any questions related to your field. If you do your work well, they may refer their other colleagues to you as well, and this can open up opportunities for other projects and collaborations in your future.
Overall, I found that working with a large project is very beneficial for me. The extra time and work commitment is more than compensated for by the papers, connections, and exposure that comes from working with a large multi-disciplinary group.
So, what about you? Have you had any experiences working on large projects? Would you want to be a part of one in the future?
