Establishing ownership when you work in a team

robyn.owens — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:27:00 GMT

Many research students receive their research training in a team environment. This is particularly common in the sciences, but becoming increasingly common across all disciplines as funding agencies strive to encourage collaboration and critical mass within research groups in order to achieve international competitiveness.

When a student works within a research team the common practice is to publish research results with team members. This is natural as the research itself is based on a team effort and it is unlikely that the student has done everything from problem conceptualisation through to solution. Moreover, the other team members will expect to contribute to the publications arising from their joint work with the student as their own careers rely on a record of research and research training outcomes.

The advantages of collaborative work are manyfold, but certainly include the benefits of a strong research culture and a fertile publication opportunity. Nevertheless, when the student submits a thesis for examination for the award of a PhD, there is a very clear need to establish precisely what the student has achieved within the research effort and to know that those achievements display independence and a professional level of communication standards.

The following examiner's report highlights this issue from an examiner's perspective:

"First, the work presented in this thesis forms part of a long-standing programme at UWA, which allows a PhD candidate to take advantage of a significant body of knowledge in their own research. There is also a close relationship between the work presented in this thesis and other concurrent projects in the same group, which allows for a productive interchange of ideas, techniques and equipment. Both of these factors make it especially important for Mr X to delineate as clearly as possible his personal contribution to the work. This is necessary to allow an accurate assessment of the depth and originality of the research presented, and is also a clear requirement of the formal regulations for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy."

And from another examiner:

"It is unfortunate that the number of authors in the candidate's publications spans from 5 to 9. This may reflect the actual contribution of the candidate, or be the result of a team policy. Nonetheless, the absence of a single name, or at least a 2-3 author publication in which the candidate is the first author, seems to indicate a limited autonomy."

See also What work actually belongs to the candidate.

What work actually belongs to the candidate?

robyn.owens — Thu, 29 Jun 2006 01:49:00 GMT

Examiners often worry about who did what in a thesis, especially when the research has resulted in joint publications with the supervisor and possibly others. The UWA Style and Formatting Guidelines do make clear that a statement addressing the candidate's contribution should form part of the thesis, however this is often missing and can result in examiners' comments along the lines of the following:

"At times, it was not clear exactly what contribution was made by the author in performing the work reported here. For example, on page 97 it is stated that "... a novel algorithm was developed in conjunction with XXX". It would be helpful to know exactly what the author contributed to this and other developments described in the thesis. Specifically, what percentage of this development is due to the author and what was Dr XXX responsible for? This is a pertinent question, given that it is the author's PhD research that is being examined here. This examiner would like to see a statement somewhere in the thesis that summarizes the author's contributions to the work described herein."

theEzone : Teamwork

Establishing ownership when you work in a team

What work actually belongs to the candidate?