Does Physics Need Diversity
|
|
|
|
A quick review of physics journal articles indicates that the single-authored paper is becoming uncommon. In fact studies on the authorship of science journal articles have shown that multiple authored papers attract more citations and are usually of higher quality [1]. This also reflects the movement over the last few generations of physics research being performed by teams rather than by individuals. Furthermore these teams are getting larger and more complex with the surge of multiorganisational research programs such as CRCs, Centres of Excellence and CSIRO Flagships which are important components of the Australian innovation process. Research over the years has moved away from an expectation that, when a researcher undertakes a project, the project was considered complete when the scientific journal article was written and published. Science research teams are now required to deliver a level of impact with the expectation that an idea or concept is experimentally proven and then commercialised or implemented.
Even though the expectations of research programs have broadened, we still tend to expect all scientists to demonstrate a single approach to their research. We expect that research teams will form naturally to achieve the task at hand. However with our society wanting excellent science as determined by science metrics while undertaking research that has impact for commercialization and public benefit, we have not given much thought to the more detailed attributes needed by scientists to achieve the various stages of the innovation process from idea to product or solution. What are the best teams that are needed to achieve these multi-facetted requirements? Should all research scientists be the same?
Let's look at the individual scientist and their contribution. Over the years I have come to understand that there are three stages of a science project which require three different approaches for the project goal to be achieved. A science project is initiated to solve a problem or to test a hypothesis or idea. It is in this early stage that the creative thinkers are in their element. They are often the scientists who come up with more ideas than many of us could ever consider. These creative scientists provide the ideas and directions that great science projects use as the basis for their research. Unfortunately these scientists are working at their best creating new ideas and usually find it quite difficult to follow through beyond the initial experiments or theory before they are coming up with their next great idea. These ideas come at such a rate, they often feel they have no time to write up their work for publication and consequently have poor publication records and can feel that their input goes unacknowledged or unrecognised. They can become increasing protective of their ideas to the point where it could become an impediment for their career development.
The second type of scientist is the one who methodically takes the terrific idea and makes it into solid science by undertaking more detailed theory and modelling development or experiments. They are usually not great ideas people but are very effective at transforming the initial creative idea into a successful research effort. They are usually good at writing up their work and have lots of publications (hopefully with their creative colleague as a co-author). They usually find that they have all the attributes that make promotion in the science system easier for them as their output is of a more traditional nature that can be measured for scientific success.
The third type of scientist is the entrepreneur who can see the benefits of the creative idea progressed to solid science. They can see where an idea can be used and can design applications and develop prototypes or opportunities to capitalise on the creative idea that has been solidly researched and is now ready to transition to an application. This type of scientist is not that common but is increasingly needed to help research projects achieve the impact expected by our stakeholders (community, research organisations, industry and government).
Each of these scientific roles is necessary to achieve all the components expected of a successful science project to achieve the transition of an idea to impact and yet we are often expecting the same person to do all three roles. Recognising this diverse approach to the science process should make a difference in project effectiveness and the needed respect between scientists who play the different roles but who often hold their colleagues in contempt.
Another important requirement of successful and effective research teams is the need for a balance in the constitution of the personality types that make up the team. There are several different ways to study the different personality types such as the Team Management Index [2]. This index shows the need for a balance in the group roles from creative/innovators, explorer/promoters, thruster/organisers, inspector/controllers, upholder/maintainers, reporter/adviser and concluder/finishers. People have a natural preference to adopt one of these roles in their major work style and display two other roles with less dominance. For example, I am a dominantly a creative/innovator but with explorer/promoter and reporter/adviser secondary preferences. However my role at work has required me develop concluder/finisher and thruster/organiser behaviours.
This method of analysing a team has found that a successful team requires its different team members to demonstrate the range of roles with different people assuming roles based on their work preference. For example, a team of only concluder/finishers will get all the work done but usually not have many new ideas and a team of creative/innovators have lots of ideas but never finish anything. The method of analysis can also help team leaders manage their teams effectively by preventing frustration resulting from a team member being required to undertake a role or responsibility that is completely outside their natural work preference. Understanding these work preferences can help teams to be more effective and also develop a respect for the different and crucial role each member plays in the team.
Research into cross functional teams needed to solve complex problems has been the subject of research in management and psychology theory [3]. This research has identified three characteristics of productive teams that are strongly related to individual differences that appear to dominate: effective leadership, intra-team communication, and group cohesion. However a fourth characteristic has been more recently identified: that of heterogeneity or diversity.
These four dominant individual different characteristics of productive teams can form an evaluative model of the impact of personality type on team performance. That is, diversity in skills and knowledge combined with a balance of personality types is desirable for effective teams. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) [4], which is based on Jungian psychological type theory, is one proposed framework that can be used to discuss personality types and their potential influence on team effectiveness:
How a person is energised – designated by extrovert (E) versus introvert (I),
What information a person perceives – designated by sensing (S) versus intuition (N),
How a person decides – thinking (T) versus feeling (F), and
The life-style a person adopts – judging (J) versus perceiving (P)
Details of these personality types are given in references [4-5]. According to personality type theory, individuals are predisposed to one of each of these four preference alternatives in their behaviour. Myers [6] and Kroeger and Thuesen [7] suggest that presence of diversity of these psychological types in a team results in greater successful group performance. They suggest that a diverse team may take longer to accomplish a project, but the end result will always be better. Some examples of how opposing types help the group process are as follows: extroverts (Es) help open up lines of communication between group members, while introverts (Is) provide internal reflection of group discussions. Sensing (S) types bring up pertinent facts and "what is", while intuitive (Ns) types bring up new possibilities and provide ideas of "what might be". Thinking (Ts) types present a logical analysis of the decision-making situation, while feelers (Fs) offer insights into how feelings of other group members and customers might affect the situation. Judgers (Js) help keep the team on schedule, while perceivers (P) help the team consider other alternatives in the decision-making process.
It is interesting to note that an article in the Australian Physicist some years ago reported on personality type and careers in physics [8] and indicated that physicists were disproportionately INTJs, one of the 16 combinations of the different personality profiles. (Note that at my work place, we have about 30% INTJ personality types compared to the wider population of 5%.) Physics may benefit from encouraging more diversity in the project team composition.
As it is often easier to work with likeminded people, we naturally tend to create research teams with them. It may be that we would do better to analyse our research team composition to see if we do have diversity and consider ways to improve team diversity if it is lacking. Note that gender difference is an easy way to help increase the diversity of a team. For example, in Australia, women tend to be more often extroverted than men.
So in this era of undertaking science research in teams, we need to consider the team composition and when vacancies arise identify the type of scientist we need (creative ideas scientist, solid researcher that takes the work through the rigor of the scientific process and the entrepreneur who creates the research impact), the personality or team role we need to fill to assist our team to achieve the highest impact both in science quality and community benefit. But most importantly as a professionals and decent human beings, we should be respectful of the differences in the way our colleagues prefer to work and to recognise their value and contribution. v
References
S. Wuchty, B.F. Jones and B. Uzzi, The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge, Science, 316 (2007) 1036-1039
British Psychological Society, Team Management Index (TMI), Review of Personality Assessment Instruments (Level B) For Use in Occupational Settings, (1995), 268-273.
J.H. Bradley and F.J. Herbert, The effect of personality type on team performance, J. Management Development, (1997) 337-353.
I.B. Myers and M.H. McCaulley, Manual: Guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA , (1985)
P. King, What makes teams work?, Psychology Today, Dec (1989) 16-17.
I.B. Myers, Introduction to Type, Consulting Psychology, Press, Palo Alto, CA (1991).
O. Kroeger and J.M. Thuesen, Type Talk at Work, Delacorte Press, New Yourk, N.Y., (1992).
B. Boreham and J. Watts, Who does and does not do physics: personality type, learning style and recruitment of physics students, Australian and New Zealand Physicist, 33 (1996) 89-92.