The Profession Managing a Multiauthor Research Project in Comparative Politics Kent Weaver, Brookings Institution T. J. Pempel, University of Wisconsin-Madison Nancy N. Davidson, Brookings Institution Sidney Verba, Harvard University Keith G. Banting, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario All of the potential participants approached about appearing on an APSA panel on managing multi- author research projects in compara- tive politics had the same first reac- tion: they laughed. A second reac- tion, voiced by T. J. Pempel, was fear—that if we told the truth, no one would ever do one of these projects again. A third reaction came from Sid Verba: fear that complete honesty on this topic would mean that none of his former collaborators would ever speak to him again. (He finally agreed, with the proviso that he would tell only the "varnished" truth.) Each of these reactions is appro- priate. Collaborative research proj- ects do have a high potential for creating frustration and straining friendships. They pose managerial challenges that political scientists, whether they are used to doing solo research or commanding battalions of research assistants, might not have encountered before. And they often result in edited volumes with little thematic or stylistic coherence. When they work well, however, collaborative projects can be intellec- tually exciting to work on, and ter- rific for generating new ideas. They can also be personally rewarding in bringing together smart people with whom you will work for a lifetime. Indeed, you can learn more about comparative politics by working with other people than from doing the study itself. And, in some cases, there is no alternative to collabora- tion: a project demands a broader body of knowledge than any single scholar is likely to muster in a reasonable period of time. Moreover, funding sources like these projects— especially projects that bring together people from various countries. How can you make sure that col- laborative research projects work well instead of collapsing under the weight of conflicting egos and agen- das? Alas, there are no sure-fire recipes for success. Our experience in working on these projects suggests that it helps to practice what we teach: basic principles relating to incentive structures, free rider prob- lems, relations between principals and agents, credit-claiming and dif- ferences in cultures—keeping in mind some unexpected twists that come with application to academics rather than politicians and bureaucrats. But it also suggests the existence of a number of trade-offs for which there is no single best choice. These prin- ciples and trade-offs can be divided into several categories reflecting the managerial tasks required in collab- orative projects. Scope and Format Several initial design issues will fundamentally shape the dynamics of the project. Is it intended to be a single-volume work, or do you instead want to commission a set of monographs, one or more of which may be synthetic? If you choose a single volume, do you want it to be jointly authored or to incorporate a number of distinct essays with one or more synthetic essays (the classic "conference volume")? Each of these choices poses risks as well as opportunities. With regard to edited volumes, the bad news is that most publishers are not very interested in publishing these books. Far too many of them are simply stapled-together essays of uneven quality linked only marginally to one another and hence lacking a coherent focus or voice. They often do not sell well; they are expensive and time consuming to produce. If you are planning to compile such a book, you should find out first if anyone wants to publish it and what their requirements are. The most impor- tant thing you can do to enhance your project's attractiveness and value is to shape the disparate pieces into a well-focused whole. Another potential downside to edited volumes is that project man- agers are unlikely to get professional credit for the volume commensurate with the work they put into it. The profession values single-authored work rather than administrative expertise, and you will get no credit for the ideas you pass on to col- laborators in shaping their chapters. As T. J. Pempel wittily noted at our panel, no matter how much work you put into shaping your own con- tributions and those of other authors into a coherent whole, the book reviews for edited volumes almost invariably begin, "Here is another edited volume, highly uneven in quality, that would have been far better if it had included my favorite country, my favorite topic, or me." All of these problems escalate with jointly authored volumes or multi- volume series. Jointly authored volumes have the greatest need for uniformity in theory, purpose, and style. Even authors who see eye-to- eye at the outset are likely to find themselves clashing on details as a project unfolds. The risks rise exponentially with the number of coauthors. Multivolume projects pose a dif- ferent set of challenges. The authors of individual volumes will feel, understandably, that the book is their responsibility and they should march to their own drummer rather than to yours. Maintaining coherence through a series of volumes, while 784 PS: Political Science & Politics