- Email: [email protected]
Planning of Team Research
Br. vet.]. (1967), 1:23, 375
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH* BY MAx HAMILTON
Nuffield Professor of Psychiatry, University of Leeds SUMMARY
The planning of team research has been dealt with here from two points of view: the organization of the work and the problem of human relationships. These are not two different problems but simply different aspects of the same problem. It is easy to organize work to get something done but it is just as important and more difficult to think of the difficulties and complications that may arise and to prevent them. The planning of team research is not a subject on which there is a great body of organized knowledge. What follows therefore is based partly on my personal experience and partly on the experience of friends and colleagues. I cannot say, therefore, whether it has much bearing on the problems that others may have met or are likely to meet. Research teams may be regarded from a number of different view points and it is necessary to be clear about these. In the first place there are those teams that are all located at one research centre as contrasted with those located in m any different centres. Teams may consist either of a number of individuals working in different disciplines but attacking the same problem from different directions and considering different aspects of it, or they may be constituted of a number of individuals working in the same field and collaborating together for their own convenience. For example, it may be that the investigation proposed is one which has to be completed quickly, and it is necessary therefore to get as much material as possible in the shortest possible time. This provides a very good reason for organizing a team working in different centres. Another good reason is that it may be necessary to study the effects of locality on the problem concerned. In the field of veterinary medicine it may be necessary to know to what extent such matters as differences of climate, soil, diet and even modes of husbandry may affect the problem under investigation. Many of the problems of team research are precisely those that any one investigator may experience. Others may be very much the same but just a little more difficult, and finally there are problems which are completely new. By and large it may be said that the fundamental differences between team and individual research are those of organization and planning. As these are most difficult for teams working in a number of centres I shall discuss them first. Incidentally, "different centres" covers much more than one normally thinks • Based on a paper given on the 12 April 1967 at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Veterinary Teachers and Research Workers at Scarborough.
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9
of. If two research workers are located in laboratories or units more than about a t mile from each other they are for most purposes in two different centres. In practice, the problem of getting from one office or laboratory to the other is so great with such a distance that they might just as well be 40 miles away. The essential problem is that of maintaining uniformity despite the differences between centres. The first type of uniformity is that of material. In veterinary research what is required is that the animal subjects should be uniform and the uniformity should be defined in a standard way. If the animals used are a cross-breed then this should be appropriately defined. Other definitions may include such things as the size and nutritional characteristics of the animal, the weight, and even the size of the litter from which the animals are obtained. As far as possible it is desirable that the criteria used to define the material for investigation should be based on objective data, but it is very often necessary to use criteria which are based on subjective judgements. If it were required that the state of health or vitality of the animals should be uniform, the criteria involved might be difficult to objectify. It would then be necessary to make operational definitions and to ensure that they were comprehensible and uniformly applicable. The second type of uniformity required is that of techniques, which includes also apparatus. It is surprising how often apparatus used for measuring various physiological and chemical processes can differ in the results they produce. This is true not only for apparatus made by different manufacturers, but even for different models made by the same manufacturer. It is necessary to test them and to make them match. In some cases it may be necessary not only to ensure that the zero and end points are matched, but even intermediate ones. The third type of uniformity required is that of procedure and this covers a number of many different things which are not included in techniques and apparatus. For example, it may be very important to decide that blood samples should be taken at the same time of day. This is necessary not only because blood samples may change during the course of the day, but also because they will be kept for a different length of time before they are finally analysed. Even if this is to some extent standardized it is important to check on this and ensure that all is well. Samples of blood or other biological material may be kept in a refrigerator and its temperature may range anywhere from 50 below zero to 10 0 above even though the thermometer in the refrigerator reads the same figure all the time. Similar problems may arise with bacterial cultures; there may be great differences in the findings obtained if the cultures have been kept say for I day or for 2 days, and there may be just as great differences between I week and 2 weeks. These problems are trivial for the individual research worker who can attend to them without any difficulty, but if there are a number collaborating it is very necessary to discuss all these points in detail and to ensure that agreement has been obtained on them. Even this is not sufficient and it is neceassry to ensure that agreement which has been obtained at the beginning is maintained throughout the investigation, and this will probably require repeated checking.
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH
377
The problem is only partially solved by treating each centre as a replication of the experiment and the data to be analysed by the method of analysis of variance which will take out differences between centres. There may in fact be interaction between centres and other factors already mentioned, such as material, techniques and procedure, and information about such interactions may be of particular importance. They will not necessarily be discovered by the usual method of analysis ofvariance. For this reason, it may be worthwhile for the individual workers involved in the project to spend some time during the course of the research at centres other than their own, to ensure that they see what is going on and observe any differences between their own techniques and those of others, and do something to eliminate them. The next point that needs careful planning concerns the construction and layout of forms and the information to be put on them. The lone researcher also has to do this, but he doesn't have to argue with others and make compromises. In addition, it is very important to try and obtain agreed and defined techniques for completing the forms and filling in the data. It is quite extraordinary how varied are the methods of filling in forms on what apparently are quite simple items on which uniformity could be expected. It is a matter of practical experience that no matter how carefully the forms are planned and however much agreement has been obtained on what is to be put on them, sooner or later somebody will want to add additional information or wish to modify some of the points filled in. Unless this is anticipated these additional items will be inserted in the form as it stands, and this will mean only trouble in the end. An investigation is planned to collect data in order to answer specific questions. The data to be collected is that which will be used for analysis and for answering that question. Obviously, any oddments of information additional to what has been considered necessary are, in fact, completely useless for this particular investigation. At best it will provide hypotheses for another experiment or it may indicate a serious fault which requires a new start. Nevertheless, investigators always feel that it is necessary to put in various qualifying statements and additional items. For this reason it is a very useful trick to ensure that the forms on which data are filled in have a special area allocated for comments or additional material and so on. Whether this material is used or not, it will at least have the effect of making sure that no body feels he is being muzzled and that his opinions are not allowed expression. When the first drafts have been prepared it is very useful to try and fill the forms in, as a sort of "dry run", either with hypothetical material, or better, by copying out previous case records onto these forms. In this way it will be possible to detect difficulties which are not easy to think of beforehand. This discussion of forms for recording of data may seem unnecessary, but it is a general rule, with rare exceptions, that the use of routine record forms for the purposes of a given research should be avoided at all costs. In the overwhelming majority of cases routine forms will contain a good deal of material which is irrelevant to the investigation and they will often lack space for items which are necessary. The construction and layout of forms is an art in itself but it cannot be dealt with here.
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9
Once the forms have been completed and attempts have been made to try them out, it is then desirable to make a trial run of the investigation. The investigators return to their centres and then collect a certain amount of material to try out the various procedures and record it on the forms. Mter this they get together and discuss the problems and difficulties that have arisen. In practice, they will often find many difficulties which had not been thought of before. Insofar as the material gathered is reasonably good, it is then worthwhile trying out the analysis of the data on the little that is available. Some difficulties may arise in the statistical analysis and this may require modification ofthe methods of recording or even of the data required. Transformations of data may have to be used, and so on. Organizational problems are the least of the difficulties that a research team may experience. Their nature is easily recognized, and in general people are willing to do what is necessary to deal with them. Interpersonal relationships are much more difficult because they represent a clash of interests and these can not be solved, but only reconcileq. These problems should, therefore, be tackled vigorously from the outset. The two most important are the division of work and the allocation of credit. When a team is first assembled to tackle a particular project these are the first two things that should be discussed immediately after the problems of organization, and probably better still, before dealing with them. It is obvious that the work should be divided evenly as much as possible and in a way that is recognized as fair by the members of the team. In order to do this it is first necessary to prepare an outline of what is likely to be involved in the carrying out of the project, and make a preliminary distribution of the work. Mter further details have been settled on the problems of organization and so on, this can then be revised and again allotted as fairly as possible. Attention should be given equally to the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspects of the division of work. It is obvious that everybody should do roughly about the same amount of work and have roughly about the same amount of responsibility, but it makes it much easier if it is recognized from the beginning that some individuals have special abilities or special interests and an effort is made to deal with them. There are three aspects of a research project over which difficulties may arise in this respect. They are the search through the literature and the preparation of appropriate notes, the writing up of the paper and the calculation of the results. Special care must be taken about deciding who is to do the writing up and who is to help. This of course is generally the last stage of a research project and if it is given to somebody who appears to be congenitally incapable of putting pen to paper, then the whole work is held up to the great frustration of everybody else. If an attempt is made to pass this on to somebody else he will then complain that he is being given an excess amount of work and that the other one is dodging. Provided that everybody has had a fair share of the work and responsibility, there is usually no difficulty in allocation of credit. The matter should be gone into very carefully and agreement reached and recorded on this point. Provided all goes well, there is never any difficulty at all, but if there is any query, if the
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH
379
matter has not been properly settled at the beginning, then the question of credit comes up during the middle of the investigation and may destroy collaboration in the team. If it comes at the end it can lead to quarrels and disgruntlement, ending in a break-up of the team and the impossibility of carrying on with the development of the project. Discussion and even full argument should be continued until the team reaches not only agreement, but willing agreement. Members of the team must be convinced that a wise decision has been made in respect of every point. If there has been much disagreement at the outset, it is useful to record the agreement that has been reached and, if it comes to that, it is worth also recording the original disagreements. In case there is any doubt or query afterwards, it is possible to check the records and demonstrate what actually was decided. This however is by no means sufficient. It is true that agreement may have been reached by further discussion but this is no guarantee that decisions will be kept. Promises can be broken, not because the individual person wishes to be spiteful or has lied, or wishes to make difficulties, but simply because sometimes a promise made is difficult to carry out and the individual may not be aware of the changes. For example, it may be that a compromise has been reached on some procedure which is different from that which the person normally carries out. It may well be that despite his good intentions he insensibly tends to slip back into his normal procedure which, after all, is the one which he has worked out and which suits him best. V\1hen there are many investigators in the team concerned with a project it will pay to break it up into a number of separate parts, each of which will be published as a separate paper. Each paper will be ascribed to two or three authors in different combinations (or permutations!) and the others will be acknowledged in the "thanks". In this way it is possible to give adequate credit to all concerned. The greater the number of collaborators, the more important this becomes. Above all, one wishes to avoid a situation where there are more investigators than subjects! To make such subdivision easier it will often be helpful at the beginning of the investigation to add a few extra problems onto it. Of course, when the investigators come from different disciplines, this is made very easy because each paper will be concerned with that particular aspect of the whole project. One of the more subtle problems of planning and carrying out team research is that concerned with the adjustments of individual standards. Different people will have different ways of doing the same sort of job, or similar ones, and for the purpose of the investigation it is necessary to arrange that all this should be done uniformly. Even where there is the utmost willingness the fact remains that often one of the persons will have to modifY his particular way of doing things in order to conform with the others. In the group such modifications will always favour one or another individual and the others are therefore at a disadvantage. It is worthwhile remembering that some concession should be made as far as possible to make things easy for the members of the team. In other words, if one person gives up his particular way of doing something to conform with the others, then the others should make some effort to give up
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9
their particular way in some other aspects of the investigation to help him. In this way the difficulties and the problems are spread evenly and this should be done even when everybody is quite willing to be helpfuL In order to ensure that everything goes smoothly and that errors can be corrected quickly and in time, it is necessary to appoint, from the very outset, one of the members of the team to be a co-ordinator or supervisor. The job of the co-ordinator is not so much to act as boss or give orders, but to see if anything has gone wrong, to keep a check on what might have gone wrong and to help solve the difficulties. He need not be the most senior member of the team and it is better that he should not be. Otherwise people will begin to feel that someone is always looking over their shoulder. If he is one of the more junior members, it is better that he should not be the most junior, lest he be too diffident, not to say inexperienced. Only those who have any experience of working in multi-centred teams have any idea of the sort of peculiar things that go wrong. Everybody meets, discusses matters, comes to an agreement and then goes off and gets to work. All is well except that most people seem to be under the impression that they are the only ones who are doing anything. Forms should be arriving at the centre but they don't and nothing ever seems to happen. Forms should not go astray but they do, and one very rarely sees the same reason twice running. This can happen even when the preliminary trial went off without any difficulties. There are subtle problems of rank which need thinking about. Research workers are always volunteers and not conscripts, even when they have signed contracts and are under obligation to carry them out. The leader of the team can have absolute powers, but only if they are granted to him by the members. For this reason the role of the leader of the team is not easy either to define or to carry out. Even more difficult is the problem of proper allotment of responsibility and above all of credit in publication. There are, roughly speaking, two different ways of dealing with this. The first is what might be called the "continental system", sometimes referred to as daylight robbery. The second is the method of "fair shares" which the British regard as peculiarly characteristic of their own way of doing things. Obviously the head ofthe department who puts his name at the top of every paper that comes out of his laboratory will quickly find that he is heading a group of disgruntled juniors and within a short while is likely to find that he is heading nobody at all. But this is only one aspect of the problem. When a paper is published, it is not only a contribution to knowledge and to science, but it is also a contribution to the career of the investigators. When a young man at the beginning of his career publishes a paper, then he may find that however good it is, it may pass unnoticed and be ignored. The more unusual and the more radical the technique and findings, the less likely is any notice to be taken of it. When the head of the department adds his name to it, he also adds his reputation to it, and this gives a sort of guarantee as to the value of what has been done. Thus the junior gains as well as loses. The losses and gains range between two extremes and there is no simple rule for making a decision about them. Open discussion is not really practicable in these circumstances since the two persons concerned do not have equal status. One can only
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH
advise the junior not to be too jealous and recommend that the senior should be generous; the latter is more important. It is very rare indeed for a researcher to work literally on his own, for usually he has a good deal of help from a variety of technicians and assistants. A single principal researcher should have no difficulty in obtaining the willing co-operation of his staff, but the situation is very different when there are a number of principals. It is then necessary to make it quite clear who gives what orders and who is responsible for what. It is a very difficult situation for a technician when he finds himself being asked to do jobs by many different people. Of course, he can always speak up and complain but it is better that he should not be put into this situation. Instructions given by one person should not be countermanded by another, even if there has been agreement about the change. It is desirable, though not always practicable, for arrangements to be made that all instructions be channelled through one person. In multi-centred research the problems become even more difficult. The normal interchange of discussion and conversation, which plays such an important part in smoothing out difficulties, is not then possible. It is therefore necessary for the team to organize meetings for the various auxiliaries, to take them into their confidence and explain precisely what is being done and asked of them. They should be encouraged to express their difficulties and apprehensions and to ask questions freely. Each auxiliary should be quite clear about his role in the work of the team. This should be done not only during the preliminary stages but also again before the main work starts. Such discussions should be held again during the course of the research work, not less often than the meetings of the principal research workers. Finally, the question of appropriate credit and thanks to the auxiliaries should be considered very carefully. Auxiliaries should never be treated as routine "g till 5" workers and, in the long run, few things will contribute more to a happy and fruitful productivity than due consideration to their services.
Organisation des projets d'investigation pour Ies equipes de recherche (Ha:nillton) ResUD1e. L'organisation des projets d'investigation pour les equipes de recherche a ete traitee de deux points de vue: !'organisation du travail et celle des relations humaines. 11 ne s'agit pas de deux problemes differents mais simplement de deux aspects differents d'un meme probleme. 11 est facile d 'organiser le travail pour faire faire quelque chose mais il est egalement important de prevoir les difficultes et complications qui peuvent surgir et de les prevenir.
Arbeitsplannng einer Forschnngsgruppe (Ha:nillton) Zusan:unenfassnng. Zwei Standpunkte, die bei Planung von Gruppenforschung berticksichtigt werden miissen, sind Arbeitsorganisierung und menschliche Beziehungen, die nicht
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9 zwei verschiedene Probleme, sondern verschiedene Aspekte desselben Problemes sind. Obwohl es verhaltnismiissig Ieicht ist einen bestimmten Plan durchzuftihren, ist es genau so wichtig und schwieriger an die Schwierigkeiten und Komplikationen zu denken und sie zu verhindern.
El planteaxnento de proyectos de investigacion para los equipos de pesquisas (Hamilton) Reswn.en. El planteamento de proyectos de investigaci6n para los equipos de pesquisas se ha tratado bajo dos puntos de vista: Ia organizaci6n del trabajo y el problema de las relaci6nes humanas. No se trata de dos problemas diferentes; se trata simplemente de dos aspectos diferentes de un mismo problema. Es facil organizar el trabajo par obtenir resultados pero es igualmente importante y mas dificil prever las dificuldades y complicaci6nes que pueden surgir y prevenirlas.
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH* BY MAx HAMILTON
Nuffield Professor of Psychiatry, University of Leeds SUMMARY
The planning of team research has been dealt with here from two points of view: the organization of the work and the problem of human relationships. These are not two different problems but simply different aspects of the same problem. It is easy to organize work to get something done but it is just as important and more difficult to think of the difficulties and complications that may arise and to prevent them. The planning of team research is not a subject on which there is a great body of organized knowledge. What follows therefore is based partly on my personal experience and partly on the experience of friends and colleagues. I cannot say, therefore, whether it has much bearing on the problems that others may have met or are likely to meet. Research teams may be regarded from a number of different view points and it is necessary to be clear about these. In the first place there are those teams that are all located at one research centre as contrasted with those located in m any different centres. Teams may consist either of a number of individuals working in different disciplines but attacking the same problem from different directions and considering different aspects of it, or they may be constituted of a number of individuals working in the same field and collaborating together for their own convenience. For example, it may be that the investigation proposed is one which has to be completed quickly, and it is necessary therefore to get as much material as possible in the shortest possible time. This provides a very good reason for organizing a team working in different centres. Another good reason is that it may be necessary to study the effects of locality on the problem concerned. In the field of veterinary medicine it may be necessary to know to what extent such matters as differences of climate, soil, diet and even modes of husbandry may affect the problem under investigation. Many of the problems of team research are precisely those that any one investigator may experience. Others may be very much the same but just a little more difficult, and finally there are problems which are completely new. By and large it may be said that the fundamental differences between team and individual research are those of organization and planning. As these are most difficult for teams working in a number of centres I shall discuss them first. Incidentally, "different centres" covers much more than one normally thinks • Based on a paper given on the 12 April 1967 at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Veterinary Teachers and Research Workers at Scarborough.
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9
of. If two research workers are located in laboratories or units more than about a t mile from each other they are for most purposes in two different centres. In practice, the problem of getting from one office or laboratory to the other is so great with such a distance that they might just as well be 40 miles away. The essential problem is that of maintaining uniformity despite the differences between centres. The first type of uniformity is that of material. In veterinary research what is required is that the animal subjects should be uniform and the uniformity should be defined in a standard way. If the animals used are a cross-breed then this should be appropriately defined. Other definitions may include such things as the size and nutritional characteristics of the animal, the weight, and even the size of the litter from which the animals are obtained. As far as possible it is desirable that the criteria used to define the material for investigation should be based on objective data, but it is very often necessary to use criteria which are based on subjective judgements. If it were required that the state of health or vitality of the animals should be uniform, the criteria involved might be difficult to objectify. It would then be necessary to make operational definitions and to ensure that they were comprehensible and uniformly applicable. The second type of uniformity required is that of techniques, which includes also apparatus. It is surprising how often apparatus used for measuring various physiological and chemical processes can differ in the results they produce. This is true not only for apparatus made by different manufacturers, but even for different models made by the same manufacturer. It is necessary to test them and to make them match. In some cases it may be necessary not only to ensure that the zero and end points are matched, but even intermediate ones. The third type of uniformity required is that of procedure and this covers a number of many different things which are not included in techniques and apparatus. For example, it may be very important to decide that blood samples should be taken at the same time of day. This is necessary not only because blood samples may change during the course of the day, but also because they will be kept for a different length of time before they are finally analysed. Even if this is to some extent standardized it is important to check on this and ensure that all is well. Samples of blood or other biological material may be kept in a refrigerator and its temperature may range anywhere from 50 below zero to 10 0 above even though the thermometer in the refrigerator reads the same figure all the time. Similar problems may arise with bacterial cultures; there may be great differences in the findings obtained if the cultures have been kept say for I day or for 2 days, and there may be just as great differences between I week and 2 weeks. These problems are trivial for the individual research worker who can attend to them without any difficulty, but if there are a number collaborating it is very necessary to discuss all these points in detail and to ensure that agreement has been obtained on them. Even this is not sufficient and it is neceassry to ensure that agreement which has been obtained at the beginning is maintained throughout the investigation, and this will probably require repeated checking.
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH
377
The problem is only partially solved by treating each centre as a replication of the experiment and the data to be analysed by the method of analysis of variance which will take out differences between centres. There may in fact be interaction between centres and other factors already mentioned, such as material, techniques and procedure, and information about such interactions may be of particular importance. They will not necessarily be discovered by the usual method of analysis ofvariance. For this reason, it may be worthwhile for the individual workers involved in the project to spend some time during the course of the research at centres other than their own, to ensure that they see what is going on and observe any differences between their own techniques and those of others, and do something to eliminate them. The next point that needs careful planning concerns the construction and layout of forms and the information to be put on them. The lone researcher also has to do this, but he doesn't have to argue with others and make compromises. In addition, it is very important to try and obtain agreed and defined techniques for completing the forms and filling in the data. It is quite extraordinary how varied are the methods of filling in forms on what apparently are quite simple items on which uniformity could be expected. It is a matter of practical experience that no matter how carefully the forms are planned and however much agreement has been obtained on what is to be put on them, sooner or later somebody will want to add additional information or wish to modify some of the points filled in. Unless this is anticipated these additional items will be inserted in the form as it stands, and this will mean only trouble in the end. An investigation is planned to collect data in order to answer specific questions. The data to be collected is that which will be used for analysis and for answering that question. Obviously, any oddments of information additional to what has been considered necessary are, in fact, completely useless for this particular investigation. At best it will provide hypotheses for another experiment or it may indicate a serious fault which requires a new start. Nevertheless, investigators always feel that it is necessary to put in various qualifying statements and additional items. For this reason it is a very useful trick to ensure that the forms on which data are filled in have a special area allocated for comments or additional material and so on. Whether this material is used or not, it will at least have the effect of making sure that no body feels he is being muzzled and that his opinions are not allowed expression. When the first drafts have been prepared it is very useful to try and fill the forms in, as a sort of "dry run", either with hypothetical material, or better, by copying out previous case records onto these forms. In this way it will be possible to detect difficulties which are not easy to think of beforehand. This discussion of forms for recording of data may seem unnecessary, but it is a general rule, with rare exceptions, that the use of routine record forms for the purposes of a given research should be avoided at all costs. In the overwhelming majority of cases routine forms will contain a good deal of material which is irrelevant to the investigation and they will often lack space for items which are necessary. The construction and layout of forms is an art in itself but it cannot be dealt with here.
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9
Once the forms have been completed and attempts have been made to try them out, it is then desirable to make a trial run of the investigation. The investigators return to their centres and then collect a certain amount of material to try out the various procedures and record it on the forms. Mter this they get together and discuss the problems and difficulties that have arisen. In practice, they will often find many difficulties which had not been thought of before. Insofar as the material gathered is reasonably good, it is then worthwhile trying out the analysis of the data on the little that is available. Some difficulties may arise in the statistical analysis and this may require modification ofthe methods of recording or even of the data required. Transformations of data may have to be used, and so on. Organizational problems are the least of the difficulties that a research team may experience. Their nature is easily recognized, and in general people are willing to do what is necessary to deal with them. Interpersonal relationships are much more difficult because they represent a clash of interests and these can not be solved, but only reconcileq. These problems should, therefore, be tackled vigorously from the outset. The two most important are the division of work and the allocation of credit. When a team is first assembled to tackle a particular project these are the first two things that should be discussed immediately after the problems of organization, and probably better still, before dealing with them. It is obvious that the work should be divided evenly as much as possible and in a way that is recognized as fair by the members of the team. In order to do this it is first necessary to prepare an outline of what is likely to be involved in the carrying out of the project, and make a preliminary distribution of the work. Mter further details have been settled on the problems of organization and so on, this can then be revised and again allotted as fairly as possible. Attention should be given equally to the qualitative as well as the quantitative aspects of the division of work. It is obvious that everybody should do roughly about the same amount of work and have roughly about the same amount of responsibility, but it makes it much easier if it is recognized from the beginning that some individuals have special abilities or special interests and an effort is made to deal with them. There are three aspects of a research project over which difficulties may arise in this respect. They are the search through the literature and the preparation of appropriate notes, the writing up of the paper and the calculation of the results. Special care must be taken about deciding who is to do the writing up and who is to help. This of course is generally the last stage of a research project and if it is given to somebody who appears to be congenitally incapable of putting pen to paper, then the whole work is held up to the great frustration of everybody else. If an attempt is made to pass this on to somebody else he will then complain that he is being given an excess amount of work and that the other one is dodging. Provided that everybody has had a fair share of the work and responsibility, there is usually no difficulty in allocation of credit. The matter should be gone into very carefully and agreement reached and recorded on this point. Provided all goes well, there is never any difficulty at all, but if there is any query, if the
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH
379
matter has not been properly settled at the beginning, then the question of credit comes up during the middle of the investigation and may destroy collaboration in the team. If it comes at the end it can lead to quarrels and disgruntlement, ending in a break-up of the team and the impossibility of carrying on with the development of the project. Discussion and even full argument should be continued until the team reaches not only agreement, but willing agreement. Members of the team must be convinced that a wise decision has been made in respect of every point. If there has been much disagreement at the outset, it is useful to record the agreement that has been reached and, if it comes to that, it is worth also recording the original disagreements. In case there is any doubt or query afterwards, it is possible to check the records and demonstrate what actually was decided. This however is by no means sufficient. It is true that agreement may have been reached by further discussion but this is no guarantee that decisions will be kept. Promises can be broken, not because the individual person wishes to be spiteful or has lied, or wishes to make difficulties, but simply because sometimes a promise made is difficult to carry out and the individual may not be aware of the changes. For example, it may be that a compromise has been reached on some procedure which is different from that which the person normally carries out. It may well be that despite his good intentions he insensibly tends to slip back into his normal procedure which, after all, is the one which he has worked out and which suits him best. V\1hen there are many investigators in the team concerned with a project it will pay to break it up into a number of separate parts, each of which will be published as a separate paper. Each paper will be ascribed to two or three authors in different combinations (or permutations!) and the others will be acknowledged in the "thanks". In this way it is possible to give adequate credit to all concerned. The greater the number of collaborators, the more important this becomes. Above all, one wishes to avoid a situation where there are more investigators than subjects! To make such subdivision easier it will often be helpful at the beginning of the investigation to add a few extra problems onto it. Of course, when the investigators come from different disciplines, this is made very easy because each paper will be concerned with that particular aspect of the whole project. One of the more subtle problems of planning and carrying out team research is that concerned with the adjustments of individual standards. Different people will have different ways of doing the same sort of job, or similar ones, and for the purpose of the investigation it is necessary to arrange that all this should be done uniformly. Even where there is the utmost willingness the fact remains that often one of the persons will have to modifY his particular way of doing things in order to conform with the others. In the group such modifications will always favour one or another individual and the others are therefore at a disadvantage. It is worthwhile remembering that some concession should be made as far as possible to make things easy for the members of the team. In other words, if one person gives up his particular way of doing something to conform with the others, then the others should make some effort to give up
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9
their particular way in some other aspects of the investigation to help him. In this way the difficulties and the problems are spread evenly and this should be done even when everybody is quite willing to be helpfuL In order to ensure that everything goes smoothly and that errors can be corrected quickly and in time, it is necessary to appoint, from the very outset, one of the members of the team to be a co-ordinator or supervisor. The job of the co-ordinator is not so much to act as boss or give orders, but to see if anything has gone wrong, to keep a check on what might have gone wrong and to help solve the difficulties. He need not be the most senior member of the team and it is better that he should not be. Otherwise people will begin to feel that someone is always looking over their shoulder. If he is one of the more junior members, it is better that he should not be the most junior, lest he be too diffident, not to say inexperienced. Only those who have any experience of working in multi-centred teams have any idea of the sort of peculiar things that go wrong. Everybody meets, discusses matters, comes to an agreement and then goes off and gets to work. All is well except that most people seem to be under the impression that they are the only ones who are doing anything. Forms should be arriving at the centre but they don't and nothing ever seems to happen. Forms should not go astray but they do, and one very rarely sees the same reason twice running. This can happen even when the preliminary trial went off without any difficulties. There are subtle problems of rank which need thinking about. Research workers are always volunteers and not conscripts, even when they have signed contracts and are under obligation to carry them out. The leader of the team can have absolute powers, but only if they are granted to him by the members. For this reason the role of the leader of the team is not easy either to define or to carry out. Even more difficult is the problem of proper allotment of responsibility and above all of credit in publication. There are, roughly speaking, two different ways of dealing with this. The first is what might be called the "continental system", sometimes referred to as daylight robbery. The second is the method of "fair shares" which the British regard as peculiarly characteristic of their own way of doing things. Obviously the head ofthe department who puts his name at the top of every paper that comes out of his laboratory will quickly find that he is heading a group of disgruntled juniors and within a short while is likely to find that he is heading nobody at all. But this is only one aspect of the problem. When a paper is published, it is not only a contribution to knowledge and to science, but it is also a contribution to the career of the investigators. When a young man at the beginning of his career publishes a paper, then he may find that however good it is, it may pass unnoticed and be ignored. The more unusual and the more radical the technique and findings, the less likely is any notice to be taken of it. When the head of the department adds his name to it, he also adds his reputation to it, and this gives a sort of guarantee as to the value of what has been done. Thus the junior gains as well as loses. The losses and gains range between two extremes and there is no simple rule for making a decision about them. Open discussion is not really practicable in these circumstances since the two persons concerned do not have equal status. One can only
PLANNING OF TEAM RESEARCH
advise the junior not to be too jealous and recommend that the senior should be generous; the latter is more important. It is very rare indeed for a researcher to work literally on his own, for usually he has a good deal of help from a variety of technicians and assistants. A single principal researcher should have no difficulty in obtaining the willing co-operation of his staff, but the situation is very different when there are a number of principals. It is then necessary to make it quite clear who gives what orders and who is responsible for what. It is a very difficult situation for a technician when he finds himself being asked to do jobs by many different people. Of course, he can always speak up and complain but it is better that he should not be put into this situation. Instructions given by one person should not be countermanded by another, even if there has been agreement about the change. It is desirable, though not always practicable, for arrangements to be made that all instructions be channelled through one person. In multi-centred research the problems become even more difficult. The normal interchange of discussion and conversation, which plays such an important part in smoothing out difficulties, is not then possible. It is therefore necessary for the team to organize meetings for the various auxiliaries, to take them into their confidence and explain precisely what is being done and asked of them. They should be encouraged to express their difficulties and apprehensions and to ask questions freely. Each auxiliary should be quite clear about his role in the work of the team. This should be done not only during the preliminary stages but also again before the main work starts. Such discussions should be held again during the course of the research work, not less often than the meetings of the principal research workers. Finally, the question of appropriate credit and thanks to the auxiliaries should be considered very carefully. Auxiliaries should never be treated as routine "g till 5" workers and, in the long run, few things will contribute more to a happy and fruitful productivity than due consideration to their services.
Organisation des projets d'investigation pour Ies equipes de recherche (Ha:nillton) ResUD1e. L'organisation des projets d'investigation pour les equipes de recherche a ete traitee de deux points de vue: !'organisation du travail et celle des relations humaines. 11 ne s'agit pas de deux problemes differents mais simplement de deux aspects differents d'un meme probleme. 11 est facile d 'organiser le travail pour faire faire quelque chose mais il est egalement important de prevoir les difficultes et complications qui peuvent surgir et de les prevenir.
Arbeitsplannng einer Forschnngsgruppe (Ha:nillton) Zusan:unenfassnng. Zwei Standpunkte, die bei Planung von Gruppenforschung berticksichtigt werden miissen, sind Arbeitsorganisierung und menschliche Beziehungen, die nicht
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 123, 9 zwei verschiedene Probleme, sondern verschiedene Aspekte desselben Problemes sind. Obwohl es verhaltnismiissig Ieicht ist einen bestimmten Plan durchzuftihren, ist es genau so wichtig und schwieriger an die Schwierigkeiten und Komplikationen zu denken und sie zu verhindern.
El planteaxnento de proyectos de investigacion para los equipos de pesquisas (Hamilton) Reswn.en. El planteamento de proyectos de investigaci6n para los equipos de pesquisas se ha tratado bajo dos puntos de vista: Ia organizaci6n del trabajo y el problema de las relaci6nes humanas. No se trata de dos problemas diferentes; se trata simplemente de dos aspectos diferentes de un mismo problema. Es facil organizar el trabajo par obtenir resultados pero es igualmente importante y mas dificil prever las dificuldades y complicaci6nes que pueden surgir y prevenirlas.