Why co-investigators are crucial and how to be an effective one
This is the first in a two-part series about the role and importance of co-investigators on grant applications. This first article is written for individual researchers considering co-investigator roles, and the second is for institutions, which often overlook or undercount the contribution of co-Is.
What is a co-investigator, or co-I? Someone who’s not the principal investigator (PI)—not the project leader in other words, but still someone who has a significant role in the intellectual leadership of the project. They are not a research associate, working primarily to the direction of one of the investigators. They are also not a collaborator, who provides specific expertise important for the successful delivery of one narrow aspect of the project.
The distinctions between these roles are not fixed, and different funders draw them differently. Some also recognise a hybrid role of researcher-co-I. Some want to minimise the number of co-applicants to only a core team and relegate others to collaborator roles. Others reserve ‘collaborator’ roles for industry, civil society, or other impact partners.
As we move to larger and more ambitious projects requiring multidisciplinary teams, the co-I role is going to become ever more important. It’s much underrated, and I’ll say more about that in part two of this series.
Models of project leadership
The picture is further confused because there’s no one model of academic leadership for research projects. There are auteur PIs where the PI is the undisputed star of the show, with the co-Is as supporting actors playing very specific roles. There are first-among-equals PIs who work on partnership or team projects where responsibility is shared fairly evenly, where it’s a truly collaborative effort and the PI is only listed as such because someone needs to be. PI-mus inter pares, if you will.
There’s the executive PI who provides leadership and direction and coordination, but whose actual time commitment is relatively limited. Contrast this with the chief-operating PI—not always the most experienced or eminent of the investigators, but the one who’s providing the intellectual leadership (supported by colleagues) and putting in the hard yards to make it happen.
Grant application forms should provide space to explain the team structure and the various roles and responsibilities. Avoid the temptation just to list areas of academic expertise and work package responsibility—you should also explain how leadership responsibility is structured and the roles of each team member.
There is another model, but it’s one to be avoided: the boilerplate PI. The project isn’t really their idea, but they’re the highest profile team member, so their name gets bolted on top. Unless they’re really an executive PI—which can work—don’t do this. It rarely convinces reviewers. If there are concerns about the level of experience of the real PI, it’s better to think about support structures involving more experienced co-Is and the mentoring pr professional development that could be put in place. Or apply for a smaller grant.
A similar setup to avoid is the ‘salami project’, where an impressive cast of co-investigators has been assembled but their time allocations are sliced so thinly that it’s hard to see how any actual work will get done. Two hours every second Tuesday isn’t going to be enough. Reviewers are right to be suspicious when they see this.
The correct model of project leadership will depend on the nature of the project and the relative contributions of each of the investigators. Who should be PI, and what model of academic leadership the project will follow should emerge organically from the work package, team and the funder’s requirements. The project should define the structure, not the other way around.
Cooperative co-investigators
In my standard presentation on applying for research funding, I tell everyone that the best and most straightforward way to get research funding is to be co-I on someone else’s project. And that’s true. The PI will likely have to do the bulk of the writing, but the co-Is will share in the success. As a career move, positioning yourself as an attractive collaborator—who is credible and has a certain collegiate attitude—is an excellent move.
However, there’s no excuse for freeriding on the PI’s blood, sweat, and tears. Being named as a co-I on a grant application ought to be seen as an honour, but over the years I’ve witnessed some poor behaviour, sometimes so poor that it’s collapsed the whole project. As a result I’ve come up with seven golden rules for a successful co-I.
1. Do or do not… there is no ‘try’. If you’re approached to be co-I, you have a decision to make. You’re either in, or you’re out. The bid doesn’t have to be your top priority, but you must be able to make a priority. If you can’t, you shouldn’t accept the invitation.
2. Accept and respect the PI’s leadership. By agreeing that a colleague should be PI, you are accepting their leadership. That doesn’t mean that what they say must always go, but if you’re not prepared to (broadly) follow their lead, you shouldn’t accept co-I status. If there’s a deadline, the chances are that the PI needs something of a free hand to make decisions quickly to get the proposal in on time.
3. Complete all admin on time. You’ll need to provide a CV to a specified format and/or enter similar information into an online form. Failing to complete it can prevent proposals from being submitted. The PI is juggling every other aspect of the proposal.
It’s stressful, and the greatest stressors are always the things that are outside the PI’s direct control… such as your parts of the application. If you do your bit early, quickly, and accurately, that’s one less thing for her to worry about. Would you rather she spent her time polishing the application, or chasing you for your CV for the twelfth time?
4. Inform your costings team straight away and introduce them to the PI and the PI’s costing team. When administrator speaks unto administrator, everything goes smoother. If you’re the PI, this should be your top priority once you’ve finalised the team: introduce your co-Is to your research development manager, and they can approach her, not you, with administrative and technical queries.
5. Provide quality content at the right scale for the proposal. You’ll be asked to draft or amend sections of the proposal related to your expertise. You should do so in the context of the available space. Don’t send four pages on the details of your cutting-edge methods if there’s only six pages for the whole case for support.
Yes, it’s easier to edit down than to edit up, but it’s lazy and selfish to expect the PI to do it when the person in the best position to do that editing is you.
6. If asked, be a critical friend for your colleagues. Likely the PI will ask you to read and comment on multiple drafts of the application. Unless you’ve been specifically directed otherwise, you should read and comment on the whole draft, not just on ‘your bits’. If there are parts of the application that you don’t understand or that aren’t convincing or are inconsistent, you should (gently) point this out.
This article on giving better feedback on grant applications might help. There’s a delicate balance to be struck between being supportive beyond your immediate role and trying to interfere with everything. What’s less helpful is asking for more on your sections/specialism when there really isn’t the space. Your PI should be giving you clear instructions about what feedback is required and by when.
7. Start as you mean to go on. The relationships, norms and working practices established or reinforced at grant application stage set the tone for the whole project. If you’ve created good first impressions and positive working relationships at application stage, there’s every chance this will continue into the project proper. If funded, you’re stuck with these people for the duration.
Adam Golberg is research development manager (charities) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets @Cash4Questions and blogs at socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk.