The conversation is exciting. You and a colleague see a question neither could answer as well alone, and a shared project seems like the obvious next step. Then the first draft is due, and you discover you imagined different responsibilities.
The handbook encourages genuine intellectual partnerships. Give that partnership a clearer beginning by discussing the work before enthusiasm becomes an open-ended commitment.
Explain the question each person wants to pursue
Make sure you're agreeing on the same project. What is the central question, why does it matter, and what would count as a useful contribution? Related interests don't always produce the same priorities.
Write a short project summary together. A difference you can see early is easier to address.
Identify the expertise and tasks
Discuss what each person brings and what they can realistically do. Include design, access, data preparation, analysis, writing, coordination, and other necessary work. Important tasks shouldn't disappear because they don't have a prestigious label.
If a method or resource is missing, decide how you'll obtain it rather than assuming someone will work it out later.
Discuss credit and responsibility
Agree on an approach to authorship and acknowledgement consistent with relevant standards. Explain how you'll revisit it if the work changes. Clarify who reviews which materials and how the team will take responsibility for the final output.
An early conversation is a starting agreement, not permission to ignore later contributions.
Set a workable pace
Compare calendars and identify the next deliverable, its owner, and a realistic date. Explain constraints honestly. 'I can review a design this month, but can't lead the analysis' helps the team plan.
Decide how you'll communicate delays and make decisions when availability changes.
Start with a bounded piece of work
A small shared task can reveal whether your working styles fit. You might develop a question, review a design, or outline a feasible study. Follow the necessary permissions and processes before handling data or beginning research activities.
Agree on what happens when the plan stops fitting
A collaborator's availability can change, access can be delayed, or the analysis can reveal a task no one anticipated. Discuss how you'll revisit responsibilities rather than assuming the original arrangement will survive every change. Keep the conversation about the work that needs doing and the capacity each person actually has.
A short check-in can identify the next deliverable, its owner, and any dependency blocking it. If a deadline moves, update the shared plan so people aren't quietly working from different expectations. Revisit credit and responsibility when contributions change rather than letting an old assumption settle the question.
It's also useful to identify a stopping point for an exploratory collaboration. After an initial task, will you decide together whether to continue, narrow the question, or pause? A clear checkpoint gives the team permission to assess the fit. Enthusiasm starts a project; a workable agreement helps people carry it through.
Before committing to the whole project, write down the question, roles, next milestone, and unresolved issues. Share that note with your colleague. A collaboration has a better foundation when the practical agreement is as clear as the intellectual excitement.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 86-87.
