Guidelines for authorship credit, order, and co-inquirer learning in collaborative faculty-student SoTL projects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.9Keywords:
authorship credit, authorship order, faculty-student collaboration, students as co-inquirersAbstract
Determining authorship credit and order in collaborative research projects can be difficult, can introduce or increase conflict in the research environment, and can exacerbate existing inequalities and affect power dynamics between team members. As a result, much disciplinary scholarship has been written to develop potential guidelines for authorship credit and order. However, the collaborative interdisciplinary nature of much SoTL work, along with the increasing focus of SoTL on students as co-inquirers into SoTL research, creates unique issues and challenges in ethically assigning authorship credit on SoTL projects. Informed by seminal disciplinary papers on authorship issues and best practices in undergraduate research, this paper proposes a new model to identify the relative contributions of student collaborators and explicitly incorporate a process-focused approach to collaborative faculty-student SoTL projects.
Metrics
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bartle, S. A., Fink, A. A., & Hayes, B. C. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding authorship issues in psychological publications. Psychological Reports, 86, 771-788.
Bass, R. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: What’s the problem? Inventio, 1(1).
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.
Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., & Felten, P. (2011). Students as co-creators of teaching approaches, course design, and curricula: Implications for academic developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 16, 133-145.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brew, A. (2006). Research and teaching: Beyond the divide. Palgave Macmillan: New York, NY.
Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education, 66, 603-618.
Chick, N. L. (2013). Difference, privilege and power in the scholarship of teaching and learning: The value of the humanities in SoTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in and across disciplines (pp. 15-33). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Childress, H. (2015). The outcomes are the outcomes: Making sure we assess what we actually care about. CUR Quarterly, 35 (3), 6-8.
Cook-Sather, A., & Alter, Z. (2011). What is and what can be: How a liminal position can change learning and teaching in higher education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42, 37-53.
Davidoff, F. (2000). Who’s the author? Problems with biomedical authorship, and some possible solutions. Science Editor, 23(4), 111-119.
Delpish, A., Darby, A., Holmes, A., Knight-McKenna, M., Mihans, R., King, C., & Felten, P. (2010). Equalizing voices: Student-faculty partnership in course design. In C. Werder & M. M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 96-114). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
DiGiusto, E. (1994). Equity in authorship: a strategy for assigning credit when publishing. Social Science and Medicine, 38, 55-8.
Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121-125.
Felten, P., Bagg, J., Bumbry, M., Hill, J., Hornsby, H., Pratt, M., & Weller, S. (2013). A call for expanding inclusive student engagement in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 63-74.
Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141-1147.
Garbati, J., & Samuels, B. (2013). Publishing in educational research journals: Are graduate students participating? Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44, 355-372. doi: 10.3138/jsp.44-4-004
Gilpin, L. (2009). Reflective, reflexive, and recursive: The praxis of SoTL. MountainRise, 5.
Gurung, R. A. R. (2014). Getting foxy: Invoking different magesteria in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 2(2), 109-114.
Healey, M. (2005). Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnett, R. (Ed.) Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 30-42). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Healey, M., Flint, A., & Harrington, K. (2014, July). Engagement through partnership: Students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. York, United Kingdom: The Higher Education Academy.
Healey, M., & Jenkins, A. (2009, June) Developing undergraduate research and inquiry. York, United Kingdom: The Higher Education Academy.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (n.d.). Defining the role of authors and contributors.
Kinkead, J. (2010). Advancing undergraduate research: Marketing, communications, and fundraising. Washington, D.C.: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Levy, P., Little, S., & Whelan, N. (2011). Perspectives on staff-student partnership in learning, research and educational enhancement. In S. Little (Ed.), Staff-student partnerships in higher education (pp. 1-15). London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Maher, M. A., Timmerman, B. C., Feldon, D. F., & Strickland, D. (2013). Factors affecting the occurrence of faculty-doctoral student coauthorship. The Journal of Higher Education, 84,121-143.
Malachowski, M. R. (2012). Living in parallel universes: The great faculty divide between product-oriented and process-oriented scholarship. In N. H. Hensel & E. L. Paul (Eds.), Faculty support and undergraduate research: Innovations in faculty role definition, workload, and reward (pp. 7-18). Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Manor, C., Bloch-Shulman, S., Flannery, K., & Felten, P. (2010). Foundations of student-faculty partnerships in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Theoretical and developmental considerations. In C. Werder & M.
M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 3-15). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L., & Jeroncic, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE, 6 (9): e23477.
Matheson, A. (2011). How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship—And how they should be revised. PLoS Med, 8 (8): e1001072.
McGlynn, T. (2015, February 27). The credit system in science is outdated. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A32.
McKinney, K. (2006). Attitudinal and structural factors contributing to challenges in the work of the scholarship of teaching and learning. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Analyzing faculty work and rewards: Using Boyer’s four domains of scholarship—New directions in institutional research, #129, (pp. 37-50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McKinney, K. (2003). What is the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) in higher education? Teaching/Learning Matters, 33(1), 6-7.
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McKinney, K., Jarvis, P., Creasey, G., & Herrmann, D. (2010). A range of student voices in the scholarship of teaching and learning. In C. Werder & M. M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 81-95). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Metcalfe, D., Gibson, C., & Lambert, C. (2011). A collaborative foray into undergraduate publishing. In S. Little (Ed.), Staff-student partnerships in higher education (pp. 167-184). London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Moffatt, B. (2011). How authorship guidelines in Bioethics can ensure fairness and accountability. The American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 26-27.
Nguyen, T., & Nguyen, T. D. (2006). Authorship ethics: Issues and suggested guidelines for the helping professions. Counseling and Values, 50, 208-216.
Oberlander, S. E., & Spencer, R. J. (2006). Graduate students and the culture of authorship. Ethics & Behavior, 16, 217-232.
Otis, M. M., & Hammond, J. D. (2010). Participatory action research as a rationale for student voices in the scholarship of teaching and learning. In C. Werder & M. M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 32-48). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Perrier, M. (2006). Reflections on practicing student-staff collaboration in academic research: A transformative strategy for change? M/C Journal, 9(2).
Potter, M. K., & Kustra, E. D. H. (2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions, and clarifications. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), Article 23.
Prosser, M, & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching: The experience in Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.
Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 65-80.
Seipel, M. (2003). Assessing publication for tenure. Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 79-88.
Shaw, D. (2011). The ICMJE’s definition of authorship is unethical. British Medical Journal, 343, 999.
Spronken-Smith, R. Brodeur, J., Kajaks, T., Luck, M., Myatt, P., Verburg, A., Walkington, H., & Wuethrick, B. (2013). Completing the research cycle: A framework for promoting dissemination of undergraduate research and inquiry. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(2), 105-118.
Stith, S. M., Barasch Jester, S., & Linn, J. L. (1992). Student-faculty collaborative research. Family Relations, 41, 470-474.
Sublett, M. D., Walsh, J. A., McKinney, K., & Faigao, D. (2010). Student voices through researching and promoting learner autonomy. In C. Werder & M. M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 146-161). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Temple, L., Sibley, T. Q., & Orr, A. J. (2010). How to mentor undergraduate researchers. Washington, DC: Council on Undergraduate Research.
Thompson, B. (1994). The big picture(s) in deciding authorship order. American Psychologist, 49, 1095.
Werder, C., Thibou, S., & Kaufer, B. (2012). Students as co-inquirers: A requisite threshold concept in educational development? Journal of Faculty Development, 26(3) 34-38.
Werder, C., Ware, L., Thomas, C., & Skogsberg, E. (2010). Students in parlor talk on teaching and learning: Conversational scholarship. In C. Werder & M. M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 16-31). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship: The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 216-217.
Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2006/2013). Researcher Skill Development Framework.
Willison, J., & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: A framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research & Development, 26, 393-409.
Winston, R. B., Jr. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. Journal of Counseling & Development, 63, 515-518.
Wray, K. B. (2006). Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 505-514.
Zare, R. N. (2014). Scientific authorship: Giving credit where credit is due. Current Science, 106, 1171-1172.
