Go back

The importance of the co-investigator (part 2)

Image: UC Davis College of Engineering [CC BY 2.0], via Flickr

Why universities undervalue co-investigators, why they shouldn’t—and what to do about it

In the first part of this series, I talked about being a co-investigator (co-I) from the perspective of the individual researcher. I discussed models of academic project leadership and offered some advice on how to be a supportive co-I during an application.

I mentioned in passing that co-I roles tend to be undervalued by universities. I’m now going to attempt to venture an explanation as to why, why it’s a mistake, and some steps that researchers, teams and institutions themselves can take to correct this. I’m talking mainly about co-Is who are at a different institution to the principal investigator (PI), but much of this applies (in a weaker sense) to cross-faculty collaboration in a single institution.

Except for the small—and arguably shrinking—number of academic disciplines where the ‘lone scholar’ model is still dominant, most projects, except fellowships, will require co-Is. The larger and more complicated grants will very definitely have co-Is, and likely quite a large team. There are a lot more co-Is than PIs, and the most pressing research challenges of our age are going to require an interdisciplinary, team-oriented approach to address. That means co-Is. Lots of co-Is.

The need to lead

Universities can sometimes fall into the trap of fetishising ‘leading’ on major bids, and it’s undoubtedly true that there’s a lot more prestige from leading. You get to be in the first line of the press release, not an afterthought in the final paragraph. That’s good for prestige, which is good for student recruitment and starting virtuous circles of reputational enhancement. From an individual point of view, ‘PI’ (no matter what kind of PI) just has a cache that ‘co-I’ lacks.

The ideal position for any university responding to a major call is to keep as much of the research work and research funding for itself. The dream scenario is for University X to have sufficient interdisciplinary expertise within its own schools and faculties to do everything. For each participating team or group to be at the absolute cutting edge of what they do, and to have all the people and kit they need.

Of course, in the words of Gabrielle, dreams can come true. And there are valid project reasons for keeping everything in house—reduced admin, existing working relationships, no travelling for project meetings, closer collaboration and so on. Indeed, some funders prefer this. 

But it’s worth considering at the application stage what the odds are that the best possible team—or near enough—all happen to be employed at the same institution. Probably quite low, I’d say. In addition, forcing ‘the best of University X on this topic’ into a bid rarely works out. Instead, a Frankenstein’s monster is created which collapses under scrutiny from reviewers (I’ve written about this phenomenon before).

Value for money

The relative value of research income brought in as PI and as co-I should be if everything is allocated fairly, identical. Sure, the PI and lead institution will probably get a larger share of the funding, but for successful bids this will be because it makes sense for the project. Along with the prestige of leading comes the additional burden that comes from shepherding the bid through its pre- and post-award stages.

One possible reason why many institutions underrate co-I funding is that it can be much harder to count in terms of internal benchmarking, measuring income, and so on. The data sources aren’t always great on this, and sometimes the funding is funnelled through the lead institution in ways that make it harder to separate out. 

Yet Co-Is on major bids, especially if they’re the lead for their institution, can be responsible for six- or seven-figure budgets. This can be much larger than PIs on smaller projects.

Perfect positioning

If universities are to put greater value on co-Is—as they should—how can they, and the researchers in them, position themselves to best fulfil that role where appropriate? To answer that question we need to first admit how bid responses work in existing academia.

Often when a call comes out there’s something of a scramble. The big beasts will gather intelligence on who else is planning a bid and will move quickly to secure the services of key collaborators at institutions that either won’t lead their own competitor bid or can be persuaded not to compete by the right offer. 

From an institutional or individual point of view, that’s a brilliant position to be in—to be in demand, and to choose whether to lead or not, and if not, which team(s) to join and in what capacity.

But by the time a call has come out, it’s too late to do much except horse-trade as best you can. It’s too late for a cold approach to a team you don’t know well, and it’s too late to be carrying out internal scoping exercises. The time to do that is well in advance.

As such, there are a several steps that individuals, academic units, and whole institutions can take to improve their visibility and to make themselves a more attractive co-investigator partner.

Be easy to work with. By doing all the things I mentioned in part 1.

Be clear about what you can offer, and what you need. What do you have that other universities might lack? Niche specialists? Critical mass in a certain area? A big reputation in a specific area? Rare or unique facilities? International or industrial or government connections? 

Don’t assume that others know about all this, especially when it comes to new investments, appointments, and kit. Others are thinking about us – individually, institutionally – less often and paying less attention than we think. See the ‘spotlight effect’.

Assess what you lack that other universities have. Pair this up with information on which universities need what you have to offer and you will get an indication of which of them is most likely to want to talk. And then talk to all of them. Networking only works if there’s something in it for every partner.

Spread the word. Keep your website up to date. Follow potential collaborators on Twitter: engage, retweet their quality research content. Write about your own research in both public-facing and academic-facing publications.

Make strategic use of conferences, visits and exchanges. In the before times, these were great ways to build relationships and links with other institutions and might become so again. When finances are tight, conference budgets and entertainment budgets for visiting speakers might seem an easy and tempting target for cuts, but it can be a false economy. 

Still, you need to think strategically. Don’t just invite your old friends, invite potential new ones too and think carefully about the programme for the visit.

Handle staff mobility well. Keep in touch with colleagues who move on to other institutions, especially if you’d rather they’d stayed.  Encourage your new appointees to maintain their previous networks too, and to be generous with their links.

Use existing infrastructure. Many geographical regions of the UK now have regional consortia – Midlands Innovation; White Rose; Eastern Arc, N8 and others. These can be a good starting point for introductions, collaborative mechanisms, and perhaps even seed-corn funding.

Work top down and bottom up. Whether it’s an alliance with another institution as partner of choice, whether it’s a research group, or whether it’s a single academic wanting to work more closely with colleagues at another institution. Everyone at any level can start to build links that will make co-I roles more likely to come their way.

Adam Golberg is research development manager (charities) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk.