Today we will dive into the pitfalls of bureaucracy, specifically focusing on the damage caused when we adhere strictly to the letter of the law rather than its spirit. Allow me to share a story from my lab at Duke to illustrate this point.
We have two research groups working on different projects. One day, Group A encountered a statistical issue and sought help from an expert in Group B. When Group A approached her for advice, she reminded them of our rules: she needed to be listed on their IRB (Institutional Review Board) to access their data.
So, we initiated an IRB amendment, submitted the necessary forms, and waited for approval. Once approved, we faced another hurdle: the grants office informed us that since she was not listed on Group A's grant but was fully funded by Group B's grant, she couldn't assist without reallocating her hours.
We estimated it would take her two hours to help. The process then required us to move her time allocation from Grant B to Grant A for those two hours before she could provide assistance. After completing this bureaucratic shuffle, she offered her expertise. Then, we had to revert her time back to Grant B.
This whole ordeal delayed our progress significantly and incurred substantial time costs. Submitting amendments, waiting for approvals, coordinating with legal teams, and reallocating time—all these steps could potentially be streamlined but currently remain cumbersome and complex.
I established the research lab with the belief in fostering collaboration and mutual assistance among researchers. However, if every interaction requires moving someone’s funding allocation, spontaneous collaboration becomes impractical. Universities thrive on collaboration; labs are designed for it. Yet, rigid accounting codes hinder this essential aspect.
In earlier times, there was a pragmatic understanding: brief assistance didn’t warrant formal reallocation of funds. If the involvement grew significant, then adjustments were made. But now, strict adherence to bureaucratic minutiae undermines the very purpose of collaborative labs.
How do we address this? I’m uncertain. Balancing consistent procedural compliance with fostering collaborative environments is challenging under current bureaucratic constraints. Can we revert to common sense practices where minor help doesn’t trigger extensive bureaucratic processes? I hope so.
Universities are poised for significant changes—potentially less funding for bureaucracy and overheads might drive positive shifts toward common sense and trust-based practices. Perhaps we’ll see a return to trusting people’s judgment for minor collaborative efforts without extensive procedural burdens.
Let’s remain hopeful that external pressures will usher in more sensible practices—less bureaucracy, more trust, and greater reliance on common sense in academia.
