Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dear Doc: advice for collaborators

  • Essay/Opinion Piece
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

ABSTRACT

Years ago, when Doc was a junior faculty member she became aware of a situation that changed her life. An extremely well-known senior scientist in her department took the data of a graduate student and published it in a very significant, oft-cited paper without crediting the student in any way. That this action had the tacit approval of the department chair was confusing. Dismayed by this violation of trust and feeling powerless to intervene, she decided to become the Dear Abby of Science. Working in the lab during the day she was becoming a world-renowned researcher as well as a highly revered mentor to younger scientists. At night, disguised as Dr. Doc she began advising other researchers who were looking for help with their sticky situations. As word of mouth spread about Doc more and more researchers sought out her advice about a wide range of problems in their labs and in their collaborations. She is currently entertaining a proposal from a collaborative group of editors from high-impact journals to develop a web presence that would offer insightful advice to struggling scientific collaborators around the world. The following is a selection of letters from Doc’s files focused on collaboration. The names and details in the letters have been changed to protect confidentiality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. Team science and collaboration: a field guide. In: DHHS, ed. Bethesda; 2010.

  2. Berndt AE. Developing collaborative research agreements. J Emerg Nurs. 2011;37(5):497-498.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med. 2012;60(5):768-775.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewicki RJ. Trust and Distrust. In: Schneider AK, Honeyman C, eds. The negotiator's fieldbook. Washington, DC: American Bar Association; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thomas KW, Killman R. Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument. CPP; 2002.

  6. French JJ, Raven B. The Bases of Social Power. In: Cartwright D, ed. Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hill L. Power dynamics in organizations. Harv Bus Sch Note. 1994;9-494-083:1-13.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kahneman D. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol. 2003;58(9):697-720.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nobelprize.org. Daneil Kahneman—Autobiography. 2002; http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahneman.html. Accessed September 26, 2011.

  10. Bennett L, Gadlin H. Tenure track offer template. 2011; http://teamscience.nih.gov. Accessed May 18, 2012.

  11. Gray B. Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2):S124-S132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. O'Connell D, Hickerson K, Pillutla A. Organizational visioning: an integrative review. Group Organ Manag. 2011;36:102-125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley C, Stevenson F. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 1999;9(1):26-44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tuckman B. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63(6):384-399.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ang S, Van Dyne L. Handbook of cultural intelligence: theory measurement and application. Armonk, NY: Sharpe; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill; 2010.

  17. Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organization as across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was funded, in part, by the NIH Intramural Research Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Cooperative Resolution, OD, NIH, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Howard Gadlin PhD

  2. Division of Intramural Research, NHLBI, NIH, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Michelle Bennett PhD

Authors
  1. Howard Gadlin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Bennett PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Bennett PhD.

Additional information

Implications

Researchers: Attending to trust, vision and setting expectations will enable a collaborative team to focus more on the science and less on conflict

Practitioners: Establishing collaborative and pre-tenure agreements provides a scaffold for interpersonal and organizational trust

Policymakers: Institutional messages and communications must align with review and reward structure

About this article

Cite this article

Gadlin, H., Bennett, M. Dear Doc: advice for collaborators. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 2, 495–503 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0156-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-012-0156-1

KEYWORDS

Search

Navigation