4.2 Article

Simple heuristics to run a research group

Journal

PSYCH JOURNAL
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages 275-280

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pchj.533

Keywords

heuristics; leadership; Max Planck institutes; research culture; research group; trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Collaboration between researchers is crucial for discovery and innovation. To establish and maintain a successful collaborative environment, it is important to have a common topic and multiple disciplines, an open culture, and spatial and temporal proximity. By setting collective goals, including contrasting opinions, distributing responsibility, taking risks, following the cake rule, and practicing side-by-side writing, an open culture can be maintained and scientific progress can be achieved.
Collaboration between researchers has become increasingly common, enabling a level of discovery and innovation that is difficult if not impossible to achieve by a single person. But how can one establish and maintain an environment that fosters successful collaboration within a research group? In this case study, I use my own experience when directing the ABC Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin. I first describe the heuristic principles for setting up a research group, including (i) common topic and multiple disciplines, (ii) open culture, (iii) spatial proximity, and (iv) temporal proximity. Then I describe heuristics for maintaining the open culture, such as setting collective goals, including contrarians, distributing responsibility, making bets, the cake rule, and side-by-side writing. These heuristics form an adaptive toolbox that shapes the intellectual and social climate. They create a culture of friendly but rigorous discussion, embedded in a family-like climate of trust where everyone is willing to expose their ignorance and learn from the other members. Feeling accepted and trusted encourages taking the necessary risks to achieve progress in science.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available