Collaboration Looks Good on Paper - But Are We Doing It Well?
Collaboration is one of those ideas in academia that no one really questions. It’s woven into everything… grant proposals, teaching, co-authored papers, cross-institutional initiatives. We’re told it leads to richer research, broader impact, and better results. And to be fair, when it works, it’s brilliant.
But for something we do constantly, we’re often not very good at it.
Too many collaborations start with enthusiasm and end in silence, misalignment, or strongly-worded emails. Expectations aren’t clear. Deadlines float into the distance. Someone disappears. Someone else takes on too much. Resentment simmers. And when/if the paper finally gets published, you’re not even sure you’d work with those people again.
We need to talk more honestly about what academic collaboration really takes, and why we often get it wrong.
We Assume We Know How to Collaborate (We Don’t)
Most of us were never actually taught how to collaborate. We just picked it up. Usually through trial and error, sometimes through bruising experiences. One project goes well and another falls apart, and somewhere in between we develop a vague sense of what works.
The problem is that collaboration isn’t a soft skill. It’s actually quite complex. It involves negotiation, boundaries, planning, and patience. And in academia - where everyone is juggling research, teaching, admin, and often competing pressures - it’s easy for collaboration to become just another thing to fit in.
But a good collaboration doesn’t happen on the side, it happens because people are intentional about it.
Performing Collaboration vs Practising It
Sometimes we perform collaboration. We list co-authors, share the work out, jump on the Zooms. We do just enough to say we’re working together.
But real collaboration is slower. It’s messier. It requires things like:
Actually defining who’s responsible for what (not just assuming it’ll sort itself out)
Being clear about how decisions are made
Having space to disagree without turning it into drama
And understanding that not everyone is working under the same conditions (hello, teaching overload, caregiving, burnout)
It also means acknowledging that respecting someone doesn’t mean you’re automatically aligned. You need to talk about how you’ll work and not just what you’re working on.
Let’s Talk Ego…
Collaboration also brushes up against ego in predictable ways. We’ve all been trained to think in terms of individual contribution: my name, my output, my track record. That mindset doesn’t vanish just because we’re on a team.
So we worry about authorship order. We get attached to our section of the paper. We avoid giving hard feedback. We play nice, even when something needs to be called out. Or, sometimes, we bulldoze because we’ve decided our way is better.
None of this is surprising. But if we don’t name it, we can’t navigate it.
Signs of a Healthy Collaboration
You don’t need to agree on absolutely everything. You don’t need to be best friends. But if a collaboration is working, you’ll usually see a few things:
You’re talking regularly, and not just when something’s gone wrong.
Tasks are clearly divided, and no one is secretly doing triple the work.
Everyone knows why they’re in the project and what they bring.
There’s room to shift roles if someone’s circumstances change.
Credit is given fairly and transparently.
These sound simple. They’re not. But they’re possible and worth aiming for.
So How Do We Do Better?
Start small. Have the conversations early. About authorship, expectations, timelines, and capacity. Don’t assume that because you’ve worked together before, you’re magically aligned now. And don’t wait until there’s tension to bring up the issue of workload.
Be honest about your availability. Be generous when someone’s struggling. Push back if you're being stretched too thin. And remember that good collaboration isn’t just efficient but humane.
Also: write things down. Not because you don’t trust each other, but because memory is unreliable and clarity saves friendships. Shared to-do lists, contribution logs, and meeting notes might sound corporate, but they keep things sane.
Academic collaboration shouldn’t be something we only say we value. It should be something we know how to do well. Not just because it produces better papers, but because it creates better working relationships, healthier teams, and more sustainable careers.
Collaboration doesn’t mean everyone doing the same amount of work at the same time. It means building something together, on purpose, with care. And if we get better at it, the whole sector benefits. Not only our publication list.
Let’s stop performing collaboration and start practising it properly.
