What I wanna ask is that although competition is required among researchers in the same department, faculty, or in the countrywide and might worldwide to publish in high quality journals; however, do you think a non-cooperation/jealousy among such groups could loose opportunities for serving the research purposes? Thank you for sharing your thought frankly.
Thanks for the excellent and relevant question. Cooperation is influenced by many variables, but there might be two main ones. The requirements of a researcher's university is one. However, the main impact, in my opinion, is the number of publications one has. Someone with many publications might be more willing to cooperate, collaborate and even take a second or third authorship. I encourage my students to publish as soon after graduation as possible. If I co-write an article with them, I always take second authorship (especially when it is their first publication).
Ra'ed,
I believe that cooperative research projects can help to reduce envy and completive anxieties. What is an absolute requirement is maturity among the researchers. Reteach teams should be limited to two persons who share a passion for the same topic. Large research teams will experience the dilemma mentioned by Ahed.
Dear all
Why would there be competition among scientists, i.e. the scinto-technological development unless we nurture control over masses to generate money for us. Take money or profit or power and control out of it and we will see there is no reason left for competition, and the era of cooperation for a common cause would emerge.
Lets start building a society that is made up of us all, by all, for all, and collectively look after each other's welfare. It sounds utopian, but isn't the word utopian our own creation to hide our deficiencies, greed and lack of wisdom?
Regards, starting the work at home doesn't need a new year resolution for us.
With love,
Suresh
This kind of sibling rivalry does exist in work place. The leader should know of these and accordingly process the work flow and give collective responsibility to the vying members so that collaboration happens. In all reality, there will be some differences, that's also healthy.
Hi everyone,
I think the starting point in order to analyse this issue is to separate 'science' from the scientific or 'academic system'.
The objective of science is to ask questions and search for the answers, is to explore and check different explanations for the phenomenons around us. Science is curiosity and passion.
On the other hand, the academic system is an manmade one, with rules, referees and 'points'. It has been designed as a competitive one, but that is just one option between the different ways a system can work.
I am convinced (and there is a lot of research about it), that in the end, competition gets low quality results, and makes cheating more probable. When people compete, they think less about the knowledge, and more about the competence, the 'points' to get.
Best regards to all
A fair game of competition between researchers may be accepted by me but with some reservation. There are places in which a fierce harmful competition is found & this type of rivalry is against the real interests of the department, the university, and the country.
Some persons are self-centered & would like to see themselves as "top of the pops" so they will try hard to obstruct or discourage their colleagues from doing research.
In a 3rd world university & after 20 years of waiting, a senior lecturer was given a research laboratory. Within one month, a chief technician came to his office to take the key of the lab with a "lie" that there would be repairs for electric & water supplies. The keys did not return since 10 years. The head of the lecturer's department was asked about this matter but he was scared to give an answer which meant that some boss ordered that.
Well, this story tells that there are "toxic" environments in which competition in research is aborted before it comes to life.
Thanx Nizar ...and it is true in many places, however, competition word itself has connotations of winnings by whatever means and is basically an unhealthy concept, certainly not for creators, or thinkers, or for any one who is there only for understanding and expressing their understanding of the phenomenon under question.
Happy New Year ...I have (being in NZ) celebrated it already an hour ago ...and you need to wait for some time ...
Suresh
Hello,
I think that there must be a fair competition, but cooperation must prevail. It is necessary to network, using so conscious resources, especially when they are public. Unfortunately, the current competition takes many work alone. This is a mistake!
Cooperation is essential to the progress of science, since it allows the formation of new researchers and increases the productivity of all. The commitment of the researcher should be with the knowledge!
Happy New Year!
Dear Suresh Vatsyayann,Dear All,
Thanks for your wishes & Happy New Year for you and for all RG colleagues. I accept competition when intentions are good but, as you indicated, some will proceed to win by all means to be denoted as fantastic (!). The English famous questions: So What? & Who cares? In my story above, that head of department died some time ago. I don't think that the title assoc. prof. or full prof. is important in the grave.
Thank you dear RG colleagues and Happy New Year for you All and your respected Families. Yours,
"The only way to do great work is to love what you do."
- Steve Jobs
Hi Nizar (and all)
Very cool, all the titles are lost once the holder in life meets the nano-fraction of the matter it came from ...all are equal and all are as important as anybody else, both scientifically and philosophically.
Love you all
Suresh
Cooperation works well only where it is mutually beneficial for the participants. If someone only "stoked", cooperation can not operate.
Competition does matter in each field, but, Cooperation always works better in research. No research is individual. it is always a team work.
- Badges
- Science topic