The issues are: the work is ongoing and not much if anything is coming from the partners and if the work is completed, they would have to be listed as co-authors.
You either talk with them and agree on a time table or accept that they are slower than you. Perhaps they have lost their interest in the project. Do not worry about them getting their name on the paper. Later on you may get your name on their paper when they do more than you. We differ in temperament. It is not unethical to be slower than faster.
What is the nature of the collaboration? Proposal writing, laboratory work, survey development and/or distribution, data analysis, data interpretation, theoretical development of findings?
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Beatrice, thanks, your recommendations are options I never considered. I felt I was in a bind having started the working relationship with them but reviewing the relationship and their readiness to continue with the job should be options.
You should always agree the nature of the relationship before you start any collaborative work: who agrees to do what? How will 'credit' be apportioned? Who is 'first author' on publications and so on. It does not need a lawyer to write the contract - but it is 'contractual' so the best way is to write something that specifies roles, contributions and credit that all agree on before the work starts.
Before you begin any project, whether written or technical, there should be defined roles of those to embark on the project. A lead researcher should be appointed if there is none. If a partner is unable to carry out his or her assigned task, a meeting ought to be called to know why, and if possible assign new responsibility to him or her. It means that there must be monitoring of each other’s progress to ensure success in the end.
Victor, thanks, all you outlined were done but partners have not.sustained their interest in the project but they kept showing up for review meetings with no productivity. I am torn between taking them off the project/research and generating.ill feelings and leaving them on, getting the job done and just retaining their names on the job.
Dear Sir, In my little understanding of collaborative work, it means there are identified skills or contributions to make from such collaborators to achieve some desired objectives. In such situations, areas of input should have been mapped out and roles apportioned and probably time line set. In a situation where collaborators are not forthcoming, there is need to set up a meeting where such people are free to express their view on the reason why things are not working as expected and why they are not forthcoming, then the next step to take will be clearer. In any collaborative work, communication is key. No need to assume, which we do most times.
If I may ask, what was the consideration before this collaboration was made? Like I know, some people would just want to be on the job just for its sake and not necessarily because of what they want to offer. If that's the case, may I suggest a review, that competent hands willing to make useful contributions should be brought on board. And that teaches a lesson, be more careful next time.
CONSIDERATION WAS AREAS OF COMPETENCE AND WHAT EACH PARTY WOULD BRING TO THE TABLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES WERE ALLOCATED IN THAT REGARD AND CLEAR TIMELINES SET.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics