Making Tenure: A Model for Collaborative Publishing

1. Making Tenure: A Model for Collaborative Publishing Erin Dorris Cassidy & Angela Colmenares ALA 2014 Annual Conference - Saturday, June 28 Program Evaluation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/acrlprogramevaluation2014

2. About the Presenters • Erin Dorris Cassidy • Associate Professor / Web Services Librarian, Sam Houston State University • Joined SHSU faculty in 2007; earned tenure and promotion in 2013 • Nine peer-reviewed journal articles in publications such as Journal of Academic Librarianship ; Eight conference presentations; One funded grant (Nat’l Endowment for the Humanities) • Angela Colmenares • Associate Professor / Reference Librarian, Lone Star College - Montgomery • Joined SHSU faculty in 2012; moved to Lone Star College in 2014 • Two peer-reviewed journal articles in Journal of Academic Librarianship and Reference & User Services Quarterly; Multiple book reviews; Ten conference presentations

3. Some Background on the Literature • Motivations for, advantages of, and costs of collaborative research. • Strahan (1982); Fox & Favor (1984); Wildavsky (1986); Barnett, Ault, & Kaserman (1988); Austin and Baldwin (1991); Crow, Levine, & Nager (1992); Hart (2000) • Higher acceptance rate of multi-author papers. • Presser (1980); Hernon, Smith, and Croxen (1993); Bahr & Zemon (2000) • Co-author contributions and byline order issues. • Wildavsky (1986); Floyd, Schroeder, and Finn (1994); Scott-Lichter (2012) • Case studies or descriptions of models for collaboration. • Austin & Baldwin (1991) --> broad models, few details for implementation • Crow, Levine, & Nager (1992) --> highly specific case study, not easily generalized • Nall & Gustavson (2010) --> good starting point, but not many detailed suggestions

4. Why Research and Write as a Team? Extrinsic or career motivation demands it.

5. Why Research and Write as a Team? Intrinsic motivation inspires us.

6. Why Research and Write as a Team? It is practical.

7. Why Research and Write as a Team? It benefits the final product. Research is stronger when it is informed by others. We can leverage knowledge, skills, and experience from different library departments. Studies show higher rate of article acceptance.

8. Why Research and Write as a Team? Psychological Payoffs abound! • Increase familiarity and respect for our colleagues’ unique skills & insights. • Camaraderie – dispel potential negative/competitive feelings. • Foster an atmosphere of teamwork in all areas of the library. • Sharing increases our engagement in and enjoyment of the research.

9. Why Research and Write as a Team? Mentoring is a major benefit. Support junior librarians’ learningof the research process. Pass on institutional knowledge and“lessons learned” from moreexperienced researchers.

10. The Process: Group Brainstorming Sessions • All librarians invited. • Encouraged to think in advanceabout questions, problems, processes, … • Roundtable format. • Facilitator takes notes and keeps the conversation flowing. Goal = to explore ideas, not find ways to immediately shoot them down.

11. The Process: IRB Application Training • Hands-on workshop to learn and practice IRB research applications. • Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversees research with human subjects. • Librarians less familiar with this project than faculty in many other departments may be. • Application can be confusing and overwhelming.

12. The Process: Team Formation • Diverse representation across library departments. • Mixed levels of experience with research. • Novice researchers feel supported while learning the process.

13. The Process: Team Organization Meetings • Meetings led by “principal investigator” (PI) … • …But are democratic in nature. • Initial goals = define research question; methodology; target journal for publication. • Allteam members participate in the entire planning and construction process.

14. The Process: Data Collection • Research study / process carried out by all team members. • May involve splitting into sub-teams. • Example: a current project combines two methodologies. • Half the team developed survey instrument to collect new data. • Half the team developed process to analyze existing data. • Team reintegrated for the rest of the process.

15. The Process: Writing Responsibilities • Core research paper sections are divided among the team. • Division varies based on the size of the team. • Our common division: • Methodology and Results = 1 person (maybe 2 if quantity of data is significant) • Discussion = 1 to 2 people • Lit Review and Works Cited = 1 to 2 people • Abstract, Intro, Conclusions, Further Research = 1 to 2 people

16. The Process: Writing • Content development is cooperative. • Search for literature review material. • Review of raw data for trends or surprises. • Discussion of implications of Results. • Discussion of overarching conclusions. • Person responsible for each section writes it based on team contributions. • The intro and abstract are generally written last to concisely summarize the paper.

17. The Process: Editing • Editing includes both style and content. • Everyone edits everything individually. • Team also edits as a group. • Editing and feedback solicited from outside the team. • Compilation and polishing, conforming draft to journal style.

18. Lessons Learned • Select team size carefully. • Greater diversity of insight. • More difficult coordination. • Potential resentment of unequal contributions. • We have found 3-4 people to be IDEAL. • We have gone as high as 6, but it can be unwieldy.

19. Lessons Learned • Be realistic about your timeframe. • Multiple people’s schedules and commitments. • Slower process. • Be flexible and remain calm. • Our average turn-around time has been approximately 3-5 months.

20. Lessons Learned • Don’t allow other commitments to permanently stall the project. • PI should plan regular deadlines. • Deadlines can always be renegotiated, but they keep everyone moving forward. • Slow and steady is ok, but don't stop!

21. Lessons Learned • Communicate.REGULARLY. • Work on separate steps; waiting on someone to complete a step. • PI should send regular status updates. • Keep the project fresh in everyone’s minds. • Motivates individuals and reinforces accountability.

22. Lessons Learned • Require fair and equal contributions. • No individual should benefit from the team’s accomplishment without contributing fairly. • Happily, no problems with this in 5+ years. • Clear expectations for both team and individual. • Deadlines. • Delegation of responsibility.

23. Lessons Learned • Mix it up! • Teams: Don’t form the same team every time. • Variation maximizes benefits of new insights. • Size of faculty group may present a challenge.

24. Lessons Learned • Mix it up! • Roles: Don’t manage the same responsibility every time. • Increased personal and professional development. • Learn all areas of the research & publication process. • Not just paper sections, but also who leads the team.

25. Lessons Learned • Reach a clear consensus about authorship credit. • Assumptions regarding byline order vary by discipline, journal, and individual reader. • Order of contribution? Alphabetical? Mixture? • Unfair assumptions can negatively affect an author. • Contributorshipmodel: major contributions are listed in a brief manuscript section (Scott-Lichter, 2012).

26. Tools: Scheduling • Microsoft Outlook • Meeting / Appointment requests; Scheduling Assistant for comparing conflicts on team members’ calendars. • Doodle (doodle.com) (FREE) • Scheduling meetings by polling users for to specific date/time combinations. • Take quick votes about how to approach various project aspects. • Meet-O-Matic (meetomatic.com) (FREE) • Schedule meetings, similar to Doodle, but only dates with AM/PM. • TimeToMeet (timetomeet.info) (FREE) • Visual meeting scheduling tool. All participants “paint” their available times onto a calendar, and TimeToMeet shows the overlaps where a meeting could occur.

27. Tools: Document Sharing • Passing infinite iterations of documents through email is cumbersome and too easily creates errors. • Shared space to store documents and allowcollaborative authoring and editing. Possible tools include: • Google Docs (drive.google.com) (FREE) • Dropbox (dropbox.com) (Free to a point) • Microsoft Sharepoint(if your institution provides it)

28. Tools: Citation Management • Shared folder to collaboratively gather and annotate sources for the literature review. Possible tools include: • EndNote / EndNote Web (if your library has it) • RefWorks(if your library has it) • Zotero(FREE) • Mendeley(FREE)

29. Tools: Virtual Conferencing • Virtual conferencing and screen-sharing greatly assists collaboration amongst: • Members from multiple campuses/branches • Collaborators from other institutions • Local team members who happen to be traveling. • Possible tools include: • Microsoft Lync (if your institution provides it) • WebEx • GoToMeeting (Free/3 person max/No download/No Signup) • AnyMeeting • Skype • Collaborate

30. Tools: Project Management • We have not yet experimented with using project management tools to manage the workflow of a collaborative research and writing project, but some people may find it beneficial. Possible tools include: • Microsoft Project (if your institution provides it) • Trello (trello.com) (FREE) • Zoho(FREE)

31. So Many Tools, So Little Time… http://mavericksresearch.lonestar.edu/ALA2014

32. Tools We Use

33. Group Brainstorming Activity • Form a group of about 4 people with those seated near you. Consider the following questions and discuss possible research projects based on your answers: • What is a question you have been asking yourself about an occurrence, experience, patron behavior, observation, or similar in your library? • What is a problem you would like to solve in your library or in your daily tasks? • What is a process or task for which you would like to investigate alternative methods, a way to perhaps make your job faster or more efficient or to obtain better results? • Share group examples with the audience.

34. Selected Sources Austin, A. E., Baldwin, R. G., Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, & George Washington Univ, (1991). Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the Quality of Scholarship and Teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Bahr, A. H., & Zemon, M. (2000). Collaborative authorship in the journal literature: Perspectives for academic librarians who wish to publish. College & Research Libraries, 61(5), 410-419. Barnett, A. H., Ault, R. W., & Kaserman, D. L. (1988). The rising incidence of co-authorship in economics: Further evidence. Review of Economics & Statistics, 70(3), 539-543. Crow, G. M., Levine, L., & Nager, N. (1992). Are three heads better than one? Reflections on doing collaborative interdisciplinary research. American Educational Research Journal, 29(4), 737-753. Floyd, S. W., Schroeder, D. M., & Finn, D. M. (1994). 'Only if I'm first author': Conflict over credit in management scholarship. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 734-747. Fox, M. F., & Faver, C. A. (1984). Independence and cooperation in research: the motivations and costs of collaboration. Journal of Higher Education, 55(3), 347-359. Hart, R. L. (2000). Co-authorship in the academic library literature: a survey of attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(5), 339-345. Hernon, P., Smith, A., & Croxen, M. B. (1993). Publication in College-And-Research-Libraries - Accepted, rejected, and published papers, 1980-1991. College & Research Libraries, 54(4), 303-321. Nall, C., & Gustavson, A. (2010). Surviving the Tenure Process: A Model for Collaborative Research. Endnotes, 1(1), I1-I8. Presser, S. (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science 10(1): 95-101. Scott-Lichter, D. (2012). Authorship disputes: Me first, me equally, me too, not me. Learned Publishing, 25(2), 83-85. Strahan, R. F. (1982). More on JCP publication: Single versus multiple authorship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(4), 430-431. Wildavsky, A. (1986). On collaboration. PS 19(2), 237-248.

35. Questions? • Erin Dorris Cassidy – ecassidy@shsu.edu • Angela Colmenares – Angela.N.Colmenares@lonestar.edu Program Evaluation: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/acrlprogramevaluation2014 Acknowledgements: Thank you to… • Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) for hosting our presentation as part of its 2014 ALA programming. • University Libraries Section (ULS) for joint sponsorship of this session.

36. Image Credits for Tools We Use • http://www.doodle.com • http://endnote.com • http://www.google.com/docs/about/ • http://products.office.com/en-us/lync/ • http://www.pbworks.com/