<commit_before>---
title: [First] Lessons learned as a patient PI
author_profile: true
author: <NAME>
layout: single
permalink: /first-lessons-learned-as-patient-PI
comments: true
---
I am the Principal Investigator for the Opening Pathways project, which means I’m responsible for guiding the science of this work to ensure we can translate it into valuable, long-term insights. My team - and my grant officer - have learned that I’m probably the least patient PI - even though I am a patient PI. It’s an ironic play on words where I am a person living with a health conditions (e.g. a “patient”), but I’m one of those who has said #WeAreNotWaiting and looks for efficient solutions to solve the problems of today, not just focusing on the long term problems. 

Play on words aside, I’m finally sitting down to write up some of my lessons learned in the first few months of being a PI. Some of these are probably not unique to being a patient in this role, and are similar to other first-time PI learnings, but in either case, I think they are worth documenting and discussing.

As a reminder, the Opening Pathways project is about a concrete body of work (data science work; gathering expertise from traditional and non-traditional perspectives to document barriers; and developing tools to help people who want to overcome those barriers to innovate and research), and also a meta-examination of the process of how we’re doing this work. 

## Here is some of what I’ve learned about the experience of being a PI:

### **1. Paperwork (ugh)**

*What I thought*: being a PI is about leading the team and directing (and doing) the science.
*Reality check*: “Being a PI is about doing paperwork” - (quote by <NAME>, which has stuck in my head about my biggest frustrations)

There is a lot of paperwork involved in doing research & having a grant, and it’s complicated even further by the way this grant is set up. Part of it surfaced out of a good intention that I had. I had to decide how I wanted to be funded. I could join as staff at ASU, and ASU become the grantee; or I could create my own organization and do all the admin and finance stuff, with ASU becoming a subcontract; etc. But I know it’s relatively ‘easy’ to be absorbed into an organization, and that’s typically been what people do; but I wanted to explore other options, including what it would take to remain independent. And that’s the route I chose, which meant that ASU became the grantee and I would be a subcontractor. 

*The benefits of this situation*: ASU has staff and a lot of experience administering grants. I would get to explore the challenges that come with being independent, rather than employed by an organization while doing this work. And I wouldn’t have to do grant management/spin up an organization. 

*The challenges of this situation*: Hoops, paperwork, and more paperwork hoops. 

* When we were awarded the grant from RWJF, one stipulation was that RWJF required reviewing my contract with ASU before it could be signed. (Smart, and I’m glad they did that, as it helped protect me as an individual). I worked like crazy to make sure that my contract would get reviewed and approved by all parties (including me) by the start date of the grant. I thought that was all that needed to be done, but nope. It turns out there’s a bunch of other traditional subcontractor paperwork and processes that also had to be jumped through, and it took a long time after the grant started before I was officially completed in the ASU system.<commit_msg>Add social preview image<commit_after>---
title: [First] Lessons learned as a patient PI
author_profile: true
author: <NAME>
layout: single
permalink: /first-lessons-learned-as-patient-PI
comments: true
---
I am the Principal Investigator for the Opening Pathways project, which means I’m responsible for guiding the science of this work to ensure we can translate it into valuable, long-term insights. My team - and my grant officer - have learned that I’m probably the least patient PI - even though I am a patient PI. It’s an ironic play on words where I am a person living with a health conditions (e.g. a “patient”), but I’m one of those who has said #WeAreNotWaiting and looks for efficient solutions to solve the problems of today, not just focusing on the long term problems. 

Play on words aside, I’m finally sitting down to write up some of my lessons learned in the first few months of being a PI. Some of these are probably not unique to being a patient in this role, and are similar to other first-time PI learnings, but in either case, I think they are worth documenting and discussing.

<img src="/assets/img/Lessons_learned_DanaMLewis.jpg" width="506" height="253" align="center" hspace="20" alt="@DanaMLewis first lessons learned as an impatient, patient PI"> 

As a reminder, the Opening Pathways project is about a concrete body of work (data science work; gathering expertise from traditional and non-traditional perspectives to document barriers; and developing tools to help people who want to overcome those barriers to innovate and research), and also a meta-examination of the process of how we’re doing this work. 

## Here is some of what I’ve learned about the experience of being a PI:

### **1. Paperwork (ugh)**

*What I thought*: being a PI is about leading the team and directing (and doing) the science.
*Reality check*: “Being a PI is about doing paperwork” - (quote by <NAME>, which has stuck in my head about my biggest frustrations)

There is a lot of paperwork involved in doing research & having a grant, and it’s complicated even further by the way this grant is set up. Part of it surfaced out of a good intention that I had. I had to decide how I wanted to be funded. I could join as staff at ASU, and ASU become the grantee; or I could create my own organization and do all the admin and finance stuff, with ASU becoming a subcontract; etc. But I know it’s relatively ‘easy’ to be absorbed into an organization, and that’s typically been what people do; but I wanted to explore other options, including what it would take to remain independent. And that’s the route I chose, which meant that ASU became the grantee and I would be a subcontractor. 

*The benefits of this situation*: ASU has staff and a lot of experience administering grants. I would get to explore the challenges that come with being independent, rather than employed by an organization while doing this work. And I wouldn’t have to do grant management/spin up an organization. 

*The challenges of this situation*: Hoops, paperwork, and more paperwork hoops. 

* When we were awarded the grant from RWJF, one stipulation was that RWJF required reviewing my contract with ASU before it could be signed. (Smart, and I’m glad they did that, as it helped protect me as an individual). I worked like crazy to make sure that my contract would get reviewed and approved by all parties (including me) by the start date of the grant. I thought that was all that needed to be done, but nope. It turns out there’s a bunch of other traditional subcontractor paperwork and processes that also had to be jumped through, and it took a long time after the grant started before I was officially completed in the ASU system.
{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04495311638168781, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013789299503585218, 'mean_word_length': 4.329169728141073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 8, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 8, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
{'dir': 'git-commits-cleaned', 'id': '1213995', 'n_tokens_mistral': 1791, 'n_tokens_neox': 1712, 'n_words': 1217}