Every profession has jargon that can be difficult for new members or outsiders to understand.
We use jargon as shorthand to convey complicated or domain-specific ideas to other academics.
When teaching my students about writing, I take care to encourage them not to use jargon & to explain ideas in simple, clear, lucid terms.
SO.
It is not without some chagrin, that I was caught using jargon by an early career scholar, who asked: what is a research pipeline?
According to Matt Lebo, a researcher's “pipeline” refers to the progression of papers from the idea stage to the publication stage. (https://lnkd.in/eRUfXmHR).
The key ideas of a pipeline is that (a) you have more than one paper in the process, (b) that you actively manage their progress, & (c) that it maps to your carer goals.
There are several pipeline models.
Model One: Focus only on papers.
As a junior person, I was counseled to use the 2+2+2 model.
Two papers in preparation, two papers in review, & two papers in revision at any given point in time.
The logic was that tenure required "n", so you keep multiple papers in play at top journals so that you could meet "n+1".
It was good advice.
However, it isn't necessarily the only model for thinking about a pipeline.
Model Two: Focus on research streams.
As a mid-career faculty member, I was counseled to have at least two, perhaps 3, active research streams in progress.
The idea was to have two or more synergistic #researchstreams.
One stream should be something that you've actively worked in for some time.
One stream should be something that you started more recently & demonstrates independence from your advisor.
This was also good advice - as it helped you learn to be an independent scholar & tick the "independence box" required by many uni's to become a #FullProfessor.
Model Three: Focus on sets of papers.
As a senior scholar, I have developed this model - mostly by accident.
The idea is to have three or more synergistic papers that tackle different parts of a research problem.
For example, Paper A could tackle the method, Paper B could be a lit review, Paper C could tackle a measurement problem, & Paper D would draw insight from the other together to promote a new concept or model.
By breaking down difficult problems into smaller components, it makes it easier to juggle the disparate ideas & learning needed to solve a grand problem.
Usually, I have three or more sets of papers in play.
When I use this approach, I feel like I have mastered a topic more thoroughly + shared lessons learned about how to study a research problem more effectively.
Whether you use Model One, Two, or Three, what is important is that you actively manage papers & are cognizant of the status of #papers.
This will help you navigate #tenure and beyond.
Best of luck!
P.S. Matt Lebo offers several great tips & tricks for how to manage a #pipeline.
Comments