Cultivating Growth and Balance: Strategies for Supervising Graduate Assistants Effectively

Kai Zhuang Shum, Ph.D., University of Tennessee-Knoxville, and Hailey Ripple, Ph.D., Mississippi State University

Graduate assistants (GAs) are the lifeblood of many university programs, particularly in applied settings such as school psychology clinics, research labs, and community partnerships. When managed thoughtfully, GAs not only help sustain program operations but also develop professional competencies, leadership skills, and a stronger sense of belonging in their training environment. Drawing on our experiences mentoring graduate assistants across a variety of settings, including research, teaching, and clinical settings, we compiled a list of practical strategies to promote GAs’ productivity and growth. 

Understanding Different Types of GAs

Not all GA positions are alike. Within most programs, GAs may serve in several distinct capacities—each with unique expectations and learning opportunities.

Teaching Assistants (TAs)

• Support instruction in undergraduate or graduate courses. 
• Responsibilities often include grading, holding office hours, lecturing, and leading student activities. 
• TAs benefit from mentorship in pedagogy, classroom management, and professional communication with students.

Research Assistants (RAs)

• Contribute to ongoing faculty or grant-funded projects.
• Tasks may include conducting literature reviews, collecting and coding data, analyzing data, and preparing manuscripts.
• Internal department awards fund some RAs, while others are supported through external grants. This distinction can affect expectations and funding structures.

Clinical GAs

• Typically, advanced students (third- or fourth-year students) who carry a clinical caseload manage specialized administrative tasks, such as scheduling, supervising undergraduate volunteers, or maintaining waitlists.

Administrative GAs

• Provide essential operational support to programs or clinics.
• Typical responsibilities include answering phones, managing intake processes, assisting with communications, and coordinating logistics.

Mentoring, Not Just Managing

Supervision shouldn’t be limited to task oversight. A good relationship with your GAs helps them build confidence, independence, and professional identity.

Develop a mentoring plan that includes both professional development and job expectations. Encourage GAs to identify learning goals and revisit them throughout the semester. If you are supervising online GAs, here is a remote mentoring plan.

You can also use tools such as the Mentoring Competency Assessment to self-assess your ability to communicate effectively, align expectations, assess understanding, address diversity, and foster independence. 

Consider meta-supervision models, such as having a lead GA or structured peer supervision. If a student holds relevant licensure or certification (e.g., BCBA, educator license), involve them in training peers—with appropriate faculty oversight. This not only lightens your load but builds leadership capacity among advanced trainees.

Clinical Setting Example: 

• As faculty, assign a 4th-year doctoral student who currently holds a BCBA credential to supervise one or two 2nd- or 3rd-year students.
  • Be mindful of the students you assign to the 4th year student and potentially cater to the 4th year student’s strengths (e.g., if the 4th year student has ample experience in providing academic interventions, assign them students with similar caseloads). 
  • The peer-to-peer supervisory activities can vary (e.g., completing direct observations of sessions, meeting for individual supervision, training them on new intervention procedures, editing treatment plans, etc.). 
• Meet weekly with the 4th-year student to discuss the supervisory relationship, explore various supervision methods, and address any challenges. 
• Meet weekly with a 2nd- or 3rd-year student for supplemental supervision and check-in. 
• Ultimately, through this model, the workload associated with the faculty member's direct supervision of practicum activities is reduced, while providing meaningful supervisory experiences for the advanced student. 

Setting Clear Expectations and Boundaries

Transparency at the beginning prevents misunderstandings later.

• Outline roles and responsibilities clearly, acknowledging that tasks may ebb and flow during the semester.
• Discuss workload expectations, including how you expect students to juggle assistantship tasks, practicum, and coursework.
• Clarify time-off policies and expectations during university breaks, which can vary by supervisor or department/college/university. 
• When possible, put these expectations in writing—a formal agreement can go a long way.

Creating Structure: Systemic GA Management

A consistent system helps maintain fairness, accountability, and efficiency.

• Manualize operations. Create a GA handbook for each position type. Include step-by-step task analyses for everyday duties.
• Define mastery. Clearly state when GAs can complete tasks independently (e.g., after meeting mastery upon observation or treatment integrity checks).
• Track progress. Use tools like Notion, Teams, or Gantt charts to document task completion and progress toward goals.

Promoting Fairness and Preventing Burnout

Even the most motivated GAs can overextend themselves—especially when balancing coursework, practicum, and personal responsibilities.

• Check in regularly about workload and boundaries. 
• Request brief documentation of hours or activities throughout the semester. 
• If a GA seems overwhelmed, advocate for them and connect with administrators to recalibrate expectations.

Be mindful of perceived inequities among GA roles. Some positions, like grant-funded or research-based GAs, naturally offer greater visibility and professional opportunities (e.g., the chance to present at conferences or publish). 

• Address these differences openly and affirm that all roles contribute meaningfully to the program’s mission. 
• Use program-wide spaces, such as group supervision or colloquia, to highlight different GA roles. Encourage GAs to present case examples or research updates to showcase their work. 

Building a Sense of Community

A culture of shared learning helps everyone feel connected and appreciated.

• Facilitate cross-role collaboration, such as pairing research and clinical GAs to co-create materials or troubleshoot systems issues. These connections help students see their role within a larger ecosystem.

Final Reflections

Managing GAs is one of the most rewarding aspects of faculty life. Done thoughtfully, it’s not just about getting work done; it’s about mentoring emerging professionals, strengthening program culture, and creating systems that make everyone’s work more sustainable. 

Mentorship, Collaboration, and Growth: The School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC)

Dr. Kai Zhuang Shum, 2026 SPRCC Planning Committee Member

Starting your research career can feel overwhelming, but you don’t have to navigate it alone. Building strong professional connections early on is crucial for long-term success, and opportunities to collaborate with peers and receive guidance from experienced mentors can make all the difference. The School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC) offers early career scholars a unique space to engage with like-minded researchers, develop meaningful partnerships, and gain insights from advanced scholars who have walked this path. By surrounding yourself with a supportive academic network, you not only enhance your research but also open doors to new opportunities that can shape your career for years to come.

Sponsored by the Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP), SPRCC is a mechanism to actively support the efforts of early career researchers who conduct psychological research relevant to education and the practice of psychology in schools. In 2022 and 2024, SPRCC was revisioned and transformed to better support early career scholars in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the persistent, systemic, and relational inequities for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) scholars. 

The SPRCC planning committee is currently accepting applications for the 2026 conference, which will maintain its emphasis on promoting equity and social justice and creating an inclusive space for participants with marginalized identities. To showcase the impacts of SPRCC, members of the planning committee, who are all past participants of SPRCC, share their experiences.

Dr. Michelle Demaray is a professor at Northern Illinois University. Her research interests focus on social support and bullying and victimization in schools. She participated in the 2003 SPRCC, one of the earliest conferences!

Dr. Tai Collins is a professor and associate dean of the Graduate College at the University of Cincinnati. He is primarily interested in developing time—and resource-efficient behavioral interventions to support Black students in urban schools with limited resources. He participated in the 2015 SPRCC as an early career scholar and as a catalyst scholar in 2022.

Dr. Chunyan Yang is an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her research interests focus on understanding how school members interact with their ecological contexts to find their resilience individually and collectively when facing risks and adversities, such as bullying, teacher-targeted violence, and mental health challenges. She participated in SPRCC in 2017 as an early career scholar. 

Dr. Stephaine D’Costa is an assistant professor at St. Mary’s College. She is passionate about community-based research that empowers culturally and linguistically minoritized children and families. She participated in the 2022 SPRCC.

Dr. Lora Henderson Smith is an assistant professor at the University of Virginia. Her work focuses on making schools more equitable, supportive, and culturally responsive for students from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds. She participated in the 2024 SPRCC, the most recent SPRCC!

Why did you decide to join SPRCC?

MD: I thought SPRCC would really benefit my research program by meeting other early career scholars that had similar research interests as mine.  I also looked forward to learning from advanced scholars. I also wanted to learn more about SSSP – the organization that funds SPRCC.

TC: Mentors encouraged me to apply to SPRCC early in my career. I was excited to connect with other scholars and find opportunities to collaborate on research. I benefited greatly as an early career scholar, so I was excited to participate as a catalyst scholar later on in my career.

CY: My mentors all highly recommended this opportunity. Their enthusiasm for SPRCC and its positive impact on early career scholars made me realize the immense value of joining such a dynamic and supportive community. What further drew me to SPRCC was its emphasis on meaningful collaboration. Engaging in research that has both theoretical depth and applied impact requires strong partnerships, and SPRCC provides the perfect platform for building those connections. 

SD: It sounded like a good opportunity to get additional mentorship as an early career faculty member. I didn't have a strong advisor and so many of the things I had learned about being a faculty member came from my peers. As a woman of color it was particularly hard to navigate higher education as there were many aspects I didn't understand. 

LHS: I participated in 2024 at the recommendation of a colleague in my department. He had not participated in SPRCC, but he shared how he had heard very positive things about it. As a faculty member in a combined Clinical & School Psychology program, I was excited to join to make more intentional connections on the school psychology side of things.

How have you benefited from joining SPRCC (short and long-term)?

MD: I benefited significantly from SPRCC. In the short term, my group all went to visit our catalyst’s scholar’s university and continued our work. We published two papers quite early on from these collaborations. Over the years, I continued to collaborate with several members of my SPRCC group. I just co-authored a book with one of the members of my group who I haven’t collaborated with in a while. 

TC: Beth Doll served as the catalyst scholar for my group of three early career scholars (including myself, Evan Dart, and Prerna Arora). Beth has continued to be an amazing mentor a decade later, as she provides opportunities and advocates for my career development. My group met regularly after SRCC 2015. We published multiple papers together, co-edited a special issue on school mental health, and were awarded grants to support our work.

CY: SPRCC played an important role in shaping my research and professional trajectory. The mentoring and collaborations of our 2017 SPRCC group led to a series of studies on teacher-targeted violence, which became a core focus of my research agenda. These projects laid the groundwork for other early career mentoring and training grant opportunities that further expanded my mentorship network within and beyond school psychology. My involvement continued through SPRCC’s planning committee to help foster opportunities for new early career scholars.

SD: I was matched with a phenomenal mentor (Dr. Janine Jones) who modeled a different way of engaging in mentorship that resonated with my cultural background. She met with our team monthly for almost three years and supported not only a project (qualitative paper) but offered space to be humans and discussed the hidden curriculum of academia. I also gained colleagues that I am excited to collaborate with in the future. I also learned so much from the different presentations at the conference (grant funding, starting a research team, etc.) I left feeling inspired that even though I was at a teaching institution, I had the tools to engage in meaningful research. 

LHS: I have made strong professional connections including collaborating on an article with one of the members of my SPRCC group. I have other papers and projects in the pipeline with my SPRCC group. I truly appreciate how SPRCC builds professional connections while also helping to advance your productivity as an early career scholar.

What are some meaningful memories you had about SPRCC?

MD: My best memories are traveling to visit my catalyst scholar’s university. We all got to know each other really well and worked on developing some projects together. We became good colleagues and friends from this trip.

TC: I enjoyed attending SPRCC in Orlando in 2015. I remember having a couple days of working time with my group, as well as panels of other scholars. I also enjoyed serving as a catalyst scholar, as supporting a group of early career scholars has been a great experience. My group has continued to work together following SPRCC, as they have co-edited a special issue in the Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation.

CY: There are many memorable moments from SPRCC, but one that stands out is the mentorship and support received from our catalyst scholar and mentor Dr. Amanda Nickerson. She has always been so invested in us as a group—not just as a researcher but as a mentor who genuinely cared about our growth, both professionally and personally. To this day, we continue to collaborate, and I have frequently sought her guidance and support throughout my academic journey. 

SD: I enjoyed the space/time of the actual conference. It was nice to put up an away message and focus specifically on the work that I love doing. I enjoyed informal time with other early career scholars and now have a face behind the names I read on publications. I also enjoyed the small group work I did with my group-- we explored racially minoritized early career experiences of faculty in the field of psychology. It was great to present and publish with that team. 

LHS: Some of my most memorable experiences include the discussion in the affinity group and individual and small group mentoring conversations with the catalyst scholars.

Why should other early career folks consider applying for SPRCC?

MD: SPRCC is an excellent way to connect with other early career scholars and helps foster collaboration in the immediate future and long-term future. I highly recommend the experience!

TC: Early career scholars should absolutely consider applying for SPRCC. SPRCC can truly catalyze research agendas and provide opportunities to grow your professional network. The SPRCC planning committee has been intentional about centering social justice in our research and ensuring that the conference is both welcoming and beneficial for minoritized scholars. 

CY: SPRCC is a unique opportunity to connect with both mentors and peers who are deeply invested in supporting your research and professional growth. The structured mentorship, collaborative projects, and networking opportunities are invaluable in establishing a strong foundation for an academic career. Beyond the research aspect, it also cultivates a supportive community. Academia can sometimes feel isolating, especially in the early career stage, but SPRCC fosters a sense of belonging and encourages long-term professional relationships. It is particularly impactful for scholars from marginalized backgrounds, as it creates a space where  diverse voices are heard, valued, and uplifted.

SD: It's an amazing opportunity to continue to grow as a scholar in our field. You also have opportunities to network and connect with new people. As someone from a teaching college it also allows you opportunities to collaborate with folks in R1s and put out strong research. Lastly, the ever deepening social justice focus can help you build an authentic community with scholars who are asking the hard but necessary questions of how to push our field forward towards equity.

LHS: Other early career folks should apply to make connections in the field, receive strong mentorship, and advance their scholarship in a collaborative and social justice-informed way!

Thank you to Drs. Demaray, Collins, Yang, D’Costa, and Henderson Smith for sharing their experiences and providing insights into what SPRCC is all about! If you are interested in applying for the 2026 SPRCC, please submit the application by completing the Google Form (available at this link: 2026 SPRCC Application Form) and attaching your most recent curriculum vitae and a cover letter (< 3 pages). You can preview the full list of questions in the 2026 SPRCC Application Form at this link: Application Form Questions. The deadline for application is 5PM PST on Monday, March 17, 2025. Late submissions cannot be accepted due to planning timelines.

Please direct questions regarding the conference, eligibility, or application to the 2026 SPRCC Planning Committee at sssp.sprcc@gmail.com. 

Personal (First-Author) and Student-Led Scholarship: A Balancing Act

Heather E. Ormiston, Ph.D. (Indiana University Bloomington)

Jackie Caemmerer, Ph.D. (University of Connecticut)

Panelists: Matt Burns, Ph.D. (University of Florida), Robin Codding, Ph.D. (Northeastern University), and Amanda Sullivan, Ph.D. (University of Minnesota)

Mentoring students’ research projects is often an essential role in the life of a professor. Theses, programmatic milestone projects, and dissertations can demand a lot of your time. Managing your own personal research demands while balancing the needs and opportunities of your students can be a delicate balancing act. Indeed, in a recent survey early career school psychology faculty reported a strong interest in professional development related to research management and providing students’ with research mentorship (Grapin et al., 2021). Thus, we sought the guidance of three tenured professors on the best ways to balance student-led scholarship with your own first-author scholarship. Dr. Matt Burns, Dr. Robin Codding, and Dr. Amanda Sullivan graciously shared their valuable insights.

What are some effective strategies you have found for balancing personal (e.g., first-author) scholarship with student-led scholarship (e.g., theses, programmatic milestone projects, dissertations)?

Burns: Hopefully, there is little difference between personal and student-led scholarship. My most effective strategy is to use a research-team model in which we all work together on our research. My students (everyone I advise or who works for me, plus other interested) and I meet every week or every other week for 1.5 hours with a standing agenda – 1) Check In (Roses and Thorns), 2) Quick Advising Questions, 3) Check in on Papers and Projects, and 4) Talk Research Topic. There have been very few articles in my career that didn’t involve students. I work with students to find a niche in each study that addresses their interest or to add a component to the research to forward their own interests.

Codding: I tend to organize my work around an established research agenda and set of “next questions” that I can be prepared to answer when the occasion arises. I also aim to balance works in submission, data collection, and preparation. I see my mentoring of student work as parallel to my own agenda. If there are a lot of student works in the data collection phase – I may focus more on writing up previously collected data.

Moreover, the topics of student-led scholarship inform my own research agenda so the projects can work in tandem. Rarely is it the case that a student project is in a topic area that is far outside of my own area of expertise. The match between my expertise and student interest is important as a starting point for mentorship when a student enters graduate school but also can be facilitated during the mentoring process. Students usually enter our mentoring relationship with interests that are similar, and, in the first semester of brainstorming, I meet with students every other week to provide guidance and shape their projects into areas that I am most familiar with. Student-led ideas drive the process and I contribute knowledge on what questions might not be answered in their related area of interest and help them locate existing research as a jumping off point.

There is not always a balance within or even across years; rather, sometimes student-led scholarship takes precedence and I adjust my future priorities accordingly.

Sullivan: To me, a program’s related policies and procedures provide important context to any decisions about this, particularly as they pertain to admission, advising culture, and expectations for students’ research requirements. To the extent that these allow for admissions informed by advisor match, support appropriate boundaries, and set expectations for quality of work, it can help reduce burdens on faculty.  We don’t have a program culture or policy that requires students do their advisors’ scholarship, so student have autonomy in what they choose for student-led projects to meet their degree requirements. This means I try to admit when there’s clear overlap topically or methodologically between my scholarship and a student’s interests so that I can provide the necessary advising of their work. 

I also have to be mindful of what time I set aside for advising, both in terms of meetings and providing feedback, so that it doesn’t eclipse my other responsibilities within the context of a reasonable workload and working hours (I recognize that there’s a certain level of tenure privilege in this). I know I have a tendency to let other people’s projects overshadow my own, so being intentional with how I allocate time for different roles and protecting time for my personal scholarship is crucial.

As a tenured professor, I tend only to engage as a coauthor on student-led scholarship when they express a clear desire for me to do so, I am willing to put in the time and effort to get it to a state where I feel comfortable signing off on it as coauthor, and it fits within my research agenda. I don’t assume that I am entitled to authorship on their projects by virtue of being their advisor. Instead, I try to differentiate for students how my engagement with their projects differs when I am functioning as their advisor versus collaborator.

This occurs within the broader context of research advising where I have conversations with students early in our advising relationship about their goals and preferences. Some people have no interest in publishing, others want to maintain their voice and personal style while completing projects that meet our department and grad school requirements, some just want to get the projects done within the minimum requirements which likely means I would need to be more heavy handed with the process of preparing for submitting to a peer-reviewed journal and that might not be something they or I want. Depending on a students’ goals and interests, I adjust my input accordingly because to me, there’s a difference in advising, for instance on (a) defensible ways to address a particular element of a project within the context of degree requirements and their likely implications for project completion versus dissemination and potential influence within the scholarly community versus (b) what I might suggest as a co-author collaborator. I try to be consistent in being explicit about this with students so that they can make informed decisions. Where students have autonomy in conceptualizing and designing their own work, it’s really important to have conversations about relative contributions and authorship as early as possible so that’s often a feature of my advising conversations early on in projects and throughout to the extent its germane to the decisions students make about their work.

Regardless of the model in place, having conversations about roles, authorship, and ethics are important. I have the APA manual bookmarked on the page defining authorship, something I observed by a former colleague (Thank you, Marley.), and prioritize those conversations with students early and as often as needed. Particularly where students are more independent in conceptualization and design, we’ll have conversations about my potential role as a coauthor as they progress through the project and particularly if they get to a stage of wanting to publish. I find this helpful to minimize misunderstandings and any perceived coercion or exploitation, which I am sensitive to from my own experience as a graduate student. More than once I had to navigate difficult situations with senior scholars making decisions or demanding credit in ways that did not reflect publication standards or professional ethics, and that’s not something I ever want to reproduce with students or other early career scholars I might work with.

How do you make decisions about which student theses or dissertations to submit to peer-reviewed journals?

Burns: It is actually easier to turn a thesis into a manuscript submission. I ask students to format their master’s thesis like a manuscript. When it is finished, we simply revise it and submit it. I encourage students to do a 2-study dissertation, which also makes it easier to submit papers. The question is not “which dissertations should you submit,” but “to what journal should this be submitted?” The only time that I haven’t submitted dissertations was when it was not focused enough to find any specific submissions out of it. Cutting a traditional dissertation to make a manuscript submission is among the most difficult things to do in research. The only times I have not been successful was when we couldn’t find on what the resulting paper should focus.

Codding: My goal is to submit nearly all student-led theses or dissertations for peer-review. My experience has been that sometimes, as a student completes their graduate training and moves into their own professional career, they do not have time to engage in the effort required of peer-reviewed submissions or they do not have workload allocated to such endeavors. That reality is the biggest driver for a thesis or dissertation to not be submitted.

Sullivan: Often, the decision comes down to the likelihood of publication; how much time I anticipate needing for writing/editing and verifying data, analyses, and interpretations; and my likelihood of having the bandwidth to give it the time and attention I’ll feel okay about without having to hold up the timeline for them. I’ll happily advise through the publication process without being a coauthor but my feedback and contributions depend on my agreed upon role.

For early career scholars, their decisions might look very different from mine depending on the expectations and requirements of their positions, as well as their short- and long-term goals. For example, in a position where quantity of pubs is valued, early career scholars might orient their advising and time on personal projects and student-led papers towards whatever gets good enough papers submitted to journals as quickly as possible. Some programs or units also have cultures and policies that require students to use their advisors’ scholarship for their degree requirements, which effectively puts them in more of a supportive/second author role on those projects while advisors provide primary intellectual leadership (e.g., specifying research questions, project conceptualization, methods, etc.). Others might be in positions where supporting students’ scholarship is highly valued, so carving out time to create processes and supports that allow for student-led projects to be easily transitioned to publications would be worthwhile. In general, I encourage folks to consider how scholarship and performance are evaluated in their position and unit because there’s considerable variability in expectations and policy across institutions and roles within them.

Any other comments or suggestions you have regarding navigating your own and students' publications and scholarly products?

Burns: No student should earn a Ph.D. without publishing research along the way. In my opinion, I’d like to see at least one conceptual paper and one study for each Ph.D. student, even if they are interested in working in an applied setting. I don’t think that I’ve ever had a student graduate with only two publications and I think these are the reasons why-

1. The research-team model which makes research more feasible, personally applicable, and the basis for a strong sense of community.
2. I try to build a culture of research from Day 1. I tell my students, “if you are getting all As, then you are not doing enough research.” Every activity in which they engage, I ask them to find the research question. Finally, we do social events around research. For example, in school psychology we have SPR at the Bar – every time the new SPR issue comes out, we go to a family-friendly bar, I buy them appetizers (they buy their own drinks), and we talk about the issue. Each student comes prepared to talk about 1 article from the issue – first year students just tell us which article they picked and why, and maybe the IV and DVs. However, second and third-year students should be more critical and more advanced students should present more in depth critical analyses. The entire conversation is casual, low-stress, and fun. I am also a big believer in other social events and organized activities around research such as future-faculty clubs.  
3. I rely heavily on developmentally appropriate scaffolding. Every study has a student lead, which is usually an advanced student who organizes data collection, helps analyze the data, and shepherds the writing process. First year students will help collect data and might write an abstract, but will be part of the process every step of the way. Second- and third-year students are somewhere in between. They take a little more leadership in studies and write specific sections, but always with support from a more advanced student. Finally, I expect first-year students to present a poster at a national conference in Year 1. Right away, I get students presenting at NASP, APA, or CEC. Year 2, students do a symposium with me. It is a short presentation that is part of a panel and I’m right there to help. Year 3, students present a paper with me or a more advanced student. Finally, Years 4 and beyond they do whatever they want. Students can accelerate this pace if they want and feel comfortable doing so, but they have to at least stay on this progression.

It is all about culture, community, support, and scaffolding.

Codding: I often provide recent personal publications to new students as summer reading, before they enter our doctoral program in the fall as my advisee, which connects their interests to my scholarship area. I don’t spend much time developing non-peer-refereed written products or giving extensive numbers of presentations, both of which may take time away from writing my own or supporting student-led peer-refereed submissions. In addition to participating in idea generation and data collection, I also include students in dissemination activities associated with my personal scholarship - all of which facilitates their own interest in related topics.

When it comes to authorship contributions, which is indirectly related to this conversation, our research team uses a scorecard for determining authorship (https://tipec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Scorecard-for-Determining-Authorship_APA.pdf) but there are other ways to make this determination as well (https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/giving-credit). Engaging in this exercise helps organize the project along with roles and contributions of research team members.

Sullivan: Don’t shy away from conversations about authorship and ethics. Make them a priority throughout any research process while being cognizant of the vulnerabilities of graduate students, particularly those from minoritized backgrounds, implicit norms and expectations that should be made explicit to early career scholars, and the potential influence toxic norms and behaviors common in higher education that can make trust more challenging to earn.

What has or has not worked for you? Do you have any other questions about this delicate scholarship balance? Please comment below.

Developing Productive and Meaningful Collaborative Research Partnerships Within and Outside of Your Institution

By Katie Maki, University of Florida, and Bryn Harris, University of Colorado Denver

For many of us, graduate school was filled with ups and downs – there was the excitement of learning and being engaged in content and ideas about which we were extremely interested and passionate. There was also the hard work, long hours, and days when it seemed like we would never get to the real world of faculty positions. (Rumor has it there may have been times when some referred to the PhD as a “Pretty horrible Decision.”) But, perseverance paid off; you graduated! Now what? 

On my (KM) first day in my first academic job, I was welcomed – I was handed my office keys and shown around, but no one told me how I should actually do my job, especially my research. As an early career scholar, you often have the flexibility to engage in the work you want to do and about which you really care. But, how do you decide where to start? Although scholarship expectations vary across different types of faculty roles and universities, you will likely be expected to engage in some form of scholarship in your position, and it is up to you to determine what and how you do it. Whatever approach to your research you take, don’t try to do it all on your own.

In graduate school, partnerships are often already established and integrated into your research projects but as an early career scholar, you likely will also establish new research partnerships. Most commonly, graduate students are collaborating on research with their advisor and/or mentor, other graduate students, and other faculty in their university. As a result, during graduate school, partnerships typically develop relatively naturally or are inherent to existing systems (e.g., assistantships, coursework). Thus, for many of us, we have not observed the development of new research partnerships or had specific training in this area. Moreover, as a graduate student, you work within a system of research mentorship and support between advisors and students so when graduate students experience difficulties with research, they have other researchers with whom to problem-solve or seek support. As an early career scholar, you need to develop independence in your research. That is, early career scholars often need to demonstrate that they are engaged in their own work. But don’t think of independence as isolation in research. Independence in research includes collaborative research. To develop and maintain a productive, meaningful, and sustainable research agenda, establishing meaningful research partnerships is key.

New Partnerships within A New Institution

As you embark on your new position as an early career scholar, you will likely have opportunities for research at your new institution. There may be colleagues in your program or department who engage in similar or related work with whom you could partner on a project. However, don’t limit yourself to collaborating with faculty in your program or department. There may be researchers within your college or across the university who would be great research collaborators. In fact, collaborating with faculty in other academic departments often brings a unique and different perspective to your work that can enhance your thinking and the project.

When starting at your new institution, take a proactive approach to finding new research partners.

1. Ask colleagues in your program or department if they know anyone in your college or university who engages in work related to yours. Chances are, they will think of someone, and often, multiple people. Depending on your colleague’s relationship with the other faculty member, you may ask them to reach out to the faculty member to connect the two of you.
2. Search faculty profiles in your department, college, and university. Read about their work, and read the work, in which faculty at your university are engaged to explore whose work might complement yours.
3. Reach out to colleagues. Ask them to get coffee or meet to discuss research. Share with your new colleague about the kind of research in which you engage and where you see connections between your work and their work.
4. Look for research networking opportunities at your university. Some universities host events about research topics, funding opportunities, etc. that could provide opportunities to connect with other researchers at your university.
5. Some universities create research profiles for faculty that can be searched in various ways. For example, at my university (BH), early career scholars can request searches through the Office of Research Services for faculty within the institution that have been awarded certain types of grants or by research topic area.
6. Keep in mind that overlapping areas of research isn’t always enough for a successful research partnership. It’s also important that you will be able to effectively (and enjoyably) work with your new colleague.
7. Be judicious in developing research partnerships and don’t feel the pressure to say yes to every opportunity to collaborate that comes your way. Be proactive to push your research agenda forward, but in the way that best serves you.

Although these suggestions may sound intimidating, we have found that researchers are generally open to talking with colleagues about research, particularly early career scholars. As an example, I, (KM) wanted to apply for an internal competitive university grant that required a multidisciplinary team. To identify potential colleagues for the project, I asked colleagues in my program if they knew anyone focused on my project’s variables of interest. After identifying a colleague within my college, I sent him an email (never having met him before), asking him if he’d be willing to meet to talk about my idea for the grant. He responded quickly with an enthusiastic yes and later signed on to the grant. The grant was funded, we collected initial data, and we submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation. These positive outcomes, and moreover, my new enjoyable collaboration, were well worth the very momentary slight awkwardness of sending a cold email to a new colleague.

Research Partnerships Across Institutions

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, our use of Zoom and other virtual technologies has greatly increased, inspiring cultural changes in higher education that have facilitated easier collaboration across institutions. At the same time, during the pandemic, academics have likely attended fewer in-person conferences and networking events, reducing the opportunity to promote such collaborations. Initiation and successful collaboration with scholars across institutions requires intentionality, follow-through, and collaborative purpose. 

Sargent and Waters (2004) further described successful collaboration across institutions as needing two main components: context and interpersonal collaborative processes. Context refers to the resources, environment, support, and climate while interpersonal collaborative processes refers to communication, trust, and attraction among collaborators. It is important to critically reflect on these components prior to engaging in research partnerships. For example, early career scholars may interpret a strong potential research partner as a colleague with similar research aims while mutual content expertise is one aspect to consider from a wider scope of potential needs. Sargent and Waters (2004) further expanded on the needs for cross-institution collaborations as having three dimensions: (1) objective outcomes (e.g. publications, presentations), (2) subjective outcomes (satisfaction with the collaborative relationship, enhanced self-confidence), and (3) learning from the other collaborators. Early career scholars can seek out and evaluate cross-institution collaborations for these components.

Multiple methods can be employed to initiate cross-institution collaborations. For example, when reading an article of interest, you may consider contacting the author to express your appreciation of their work or pose questions about aspects of the research. Depending on the interaction, you may consider asking them to collaborate in various ways (e.g., meet about a particular challenge where they may have expertise, collaborate on a presentation, propose a more substantial collaborative research project). Early career scholars can also network at conferences in an effort to develop collaboration across institutions. For example, you may consider emailing a potential collaborator to ask them if they can meet following a presentation to discuss a particular topic. It is always helpful for a potential collaborator to know that you are an early career scholar and are seeking particular types of mentorship or collaboration. One of my most successful international collaborations (BH) started with an email from a colleague about a recent article I published. This communication resulted in various collaborative research projects, and most importantly, the work is highly meaningful to both of us.

It is important to note that there are multiple other collaborations that can be pursued (e.g., agencies and organizations, community and school partnerships, professional associations,

foundations), yet are not the focus of this post. If you’re interested in learning more about developing research partnerships with schools and community organizations, read ECF’s post from May 2022.

Final Considerations

One of the most common reasons why collaborative research partners may not be successful is a lack of common understanding regarding the roles and responsibilities of the team. The team should be grounded in an understanding of the motivations for being part of a collaborative effort, the nature and type of the research project, the roles of the individuals, and an evaluation of the collaborative outcomes following the conclusion of the task (Sargent and Waters, 2002). Strong collaborative relationships across institutions must be built on communication and clarity – where all members understand authorship responsibilities. It is possible that the original plans for the research project are not effective, and the team needs to revisit them to improve success. It is also common and should be normalized that collaborative research partnerships across institutions are not always effective. Although early career scholars may interpret these as failed relationships, we encourage you to reframe these experiences as guiding you towards more successful collaborative research experiences in the future.

What has led you to develop strong research partnerships? What advice would you provide to fellow early career scholars?

Developing Research Partnerships as an Early Career Scholar

By Kathrin Maki, Assistant Professor, University of FloridaDeveloping research partnerships with schools, communities, and other organizations can be an exciting yet challenging endeavor, particularly for early career scholars. Most often, academic positions require moving to a new community, often away from professional and social networks, thus requiring scholars to develop new relationships with community organizations to engage in their work. We asked three scholars engaging in research in schools and communities to discuss how they approach, expand, and sustain their research partnerships.Lisa N. Aguilar is an assistant professor in the School Psychology Program at Indiana University. Dr. Aguilar’s work centers Indigenous youth, families, and communities with the aim to Indigenize and decolonize educational spaces.Katie Eklund is an associate professor and co-director of the school psychology program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research focuses on school mental health, including early detection and intervention for children who have behavioral and social-emotional concerns, culturally-responsive mental health interventions, social emotional learning, and school safety.Stacy-Ann January is an assistant professor in the school psychology program at the University of South Florida. Her research primarily focuses on data-based decision making and academic interventions in school settings.What big picture ideas do you think early career scholars should keep in mind when establishing research partnerships?Lisa: Early career scholars should ask themselves: How will I sustain this relationship in a meaningful way? Partnerships should be developed with the intention that the relationship between the researcher and the organization will be ongoing and reciprocal. This advice is targeted toward those of us who do research with marginalized communities or schools that have a high population of marginalized students. I don’t believe that a relationship can be meaningful if it is not sustained through reciprocal action. We are simply contributing to the problem that researchers have created of entering a community, taking what they need, leaving, and not giving anything back to the community if we don’t plan for HOW we will engage and WHY we want to engage. If you enter a partnership solely for the benefit of what it will bring you as a researcher, then it is important to be transparent about that with the organization. I don’t doubt that some organizations will be okay with that but there are also organizations that would not be.Katie: Before establishing a research partnership, it is important to discern if you are hoping to engage in a fully-formed research-practice partnership or if this is more of a traditional research relationship where you are seeking to gather data from a local school district for a particular project. There is a clear difference between the two. Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) are defined as “a long-term, mutualistic collaboration between practitioners and researchers that are intentionally organized to investigate problems of practice and solutions for improving district outcomes” (Coburn et al., 2013; p. 2). RPPs represent dedicated, ongoing relationships that often include multiple projects that are beneficial to both partners in the relationship. For example, those working in the schools offer an expertise around problems of practice and can spark new directions for future research. For practitioners, much of their time is already accounted for by their primary job responsibilities and they may not be able to engage in their own research. Partnerships can act as a research branch to this work, supporting valuable, independent, third-party evaluations of practitioner-driven practices.Within an RPP, it is important for the work to be mutually beneficial. In this manner, research questions of practice should be developed jointly between researchers and practitioners. This ensures that they are directly relevant to practitioners and increases the likelihood that research will get used in practice. Engaging in RPPs is also an excellent way for researchers to stay attuned to what is happening within the larger world of education and certainly within the field of school psychology.Stacy-Ann: Think about and decide what your framework for research partnerships will be. The things that you value will inform how you approach partnerships. It is also important to think of the organizations with which you’re attempting to engage. Consider the extent to which you have shared values and goals. Engage in work to understand your biases and how you can promote equity and social justice in your research partnerships.I’ll also say that knowing that building research partnerships takes time and there will be bumps along the way. It also helps to be persistent, to reflect on how it’s going, and adjust as necessary.What specific actions or activities have you engaged in to form successful research relationships with schools or other organizations?Lisa: First, be present. Attend organizational events, get to know people, volunteer, put away your agenda, and engage with the organization and its people as a person. Being present and volunteering your time addresses the idea of reciprocity. This is particularly important when developing relationships with Tribal schools. Indigenous communities have been mined for data for centuries. We must think differently about how to be in relation with communities that have been harmed by research practices. So, a large part of this must be you showing how you can be of service to the organization. Why should they allow you into their space? What benefit do you bring to the community? Second, assess the needs of the community. This is something that I plan to do when I switch institutions to get to know the Indigenous communities near my new institution. However, this is not just a survey that I will send out via email. This needs assessment will take place in a community space, with food and childcare provided through research funds. I plan to introduce myself, my positionality, and the research that I am passionate about. I will invite children, adults, and elders and incorporate culturally relevant pieces like starting with a prayer, smudging, and making an offering to the community members.Katie: When I came to UW-Madison almost four years ago, I was fortunate to be invited to co-direct a newly formed Madison Education Partnership (MEP), an RPP between our campus and Madison Metropolitan School District (MMSD). MEP is designed to improve experiences and outcomes for all MMSD students and reduce gaps in opportunity and achievement. It is co-led by three directors; two of us are faculty at UW-Madison and our third director oversees the Research and Innovation Office in MMSD. MEP is designed to intentionally disrupt the power relations between educators and researchers. Our partnership deliberately opens up spaces where educators can center everyday problems that they confront in the classroom, problems to which researchers can apply their scientific and methodological expertise to solve.MEP has provided a wonderful opportunity to build relationships not only with district leaders in our local schools, but to understand problems of practice that are pervasive throughout the system. It has allowed us to connect faculty interested in educational research with building principals or teachers who want to do more to help their kids. The formal relationship between the university and the district has helped to establish trust and to ensure both groups can support one another. It goes much further than researchers simply “pitching” a project that a school may or may not be interested in, but rather centers the larger needs of the district to solve questions of practice.Stacy-Ann: I try to take a multifaceted approach to forming research partnerships and some strategies have been successful. For example, I have asked researchers with extant partnerships to facilitate introductions with key stakeholders. If the researcher has similar and complementary research interests, then it may be possible to collaborate with them on a project that is ongoing/beginning. When the researcher has not had similar interests, I follow up those introductions with offers to meet and discuss the potential for a partnership. Many universities have offices of community engagement. It may be useful to reach out to individuals in those offices to learn more about how they can connect you with organizations in the community that may be interested in a partnership. Finally, I have reached out to schools and districts directly to initiate conversations about a potential partnership. Although not every contact led to a partnership, some have.How have you navigated the hidden or implicit rules and cultures that are often evident in schools and other organizations?Katie: I think it’s important to develop relationships with the individuals who are the closest to the actual work. For example, if you are examining the impact of a social-emotional learning intervention in an early childhood classroom, spend time with the preschool teachers to better understand their classroom norms, personal values, and the challenges they are facing with implementation. Talk more with the director of the early childhood center to understand the systemic supports and barriers to implementation and to gain a deeper understanding the role of the center in the larger community.As I quickly learned as a school psychologist: if you have been in one school, you have been in one school. Just because you successfully implemented a research project in a middle school in one district does not mean that it will be equally successful in its partner school down the road. The culture and climate of each school can make or break even the best laid plans for research. Build relationships not only with the school administrators who are often gatekeepers to your research; spend time learning from children, parents, and those in the larger community about how your research will intertwine or complement their existing practices. And don’t forget that when the project is done to share your findings and determine how it might most be useful to those it is intended to serve.Stacy-Ann: Fortunately, my background as an elementary teacher has helped with this some. But I’ve also asked faculty who have formed research partnerships with schools in that district/area about what hidden rules may exist and how they’ve navigated them. I’ve also found it helps to be open and collaborative while building relationships with educators. As you become immersed into the culture of the school, you may be seen less like an outsider and more like a partner.What barriers have you faced in forming relationships with organizations and how have you overcome them?Katie: Be prepared for individuals to say no to your proposed work. Just because you spend time establishing a working relationship with a local school or district does not mean that they will always say yes to every project that you propose. When describing a new project to a potential partner, I always leave room for them to decline or say no. If the project is not aligned with their core values, mission, or interests, they should not be persuaded to say yes. Better yet, work with your school partners to co-develop research questions that will directly impact problems of practice. This will ensure there is buy-in to the project while increasing the likelihood that your collaborative work will have a direct impact on practice.Stacy-Ann: There are several potential barriers to forming relationships with stakeholders in schools. One of the biggest factors is time. Educators are quite busy with many and sometimes competing demands for their time and energy. That said, people make time for things they value and that they find beneficial. To help mitigate this barrier, I have tried to match schools’ goals with my goals. I also maximize the time with stakeholders, by being organized, responsive, and efficient. Another factor is the possibilities of being viewed as an outsider and/or not being trusted. This could be due to individuals’ or organizations’ history with researchers in this past, as well as structural and systemic issues like racism. I approach partnerships from a strengths-based perspective and with the goal of building mutually beneficial partnerships. I recognize that stakeholders are the experts in what they do and their schools/community. There are many strengths that they have, and those strengths should be prominent in our work together. Also, regardless of what their goals for improvement are, it is not my job to come in and “fix” them, their students, or their caregivers.How do you balance your research agenda and goals with organizational needs? What steps have you taken to ensure your research was mutually beneficial (e.g., pro bono professional development)?Lisa: My research agenda is grounded in my lived experiences as an Indigenous person who has had to navigate predominantly white institutions. I am clear when I describe my research that I am doing research WITH Tribal communities, schools, and peoples and not ON them. Therefore, I do not have to try very hard to find balance between my goals and Tribal goals because they match fairly well. Now when it comes to schools, this has been more difficult because schools are very hesitant to engage in Indigenization and decolonization efforts. But all that to say I don’t compromise my research agenda to align with a watered down version of what public school administrators and educators would like to see.Katie: Within MEP, our local RPP, every project must be specific to an important problem of practice for our school partner and involves commitment from both district and university experts. In this manner, the project must have (1) buy-in from the district administration, (2) a lead in the district with authority to either make or effectively advocate for changes based on research, and (3) a UW investigator with the expertise and interest necessary to ensure success. This framework ensures that the work may not only help a researcher with a specified project but shows direct benefit to our local schools. Obviously, this framework is used for multiple projects beyond my own research, so I can offer a few thoughts regarding what steps I have personally taken.In my own research, I first try to ensure that the school has a specific need that will be met by a proposed project. For example, they may be interested in a new Tier 2 intervention or want to learn new strategies for progress monitoring for student behavioral concerns. Data gathered from their school may not only answer our research questions, but more importantly help the school in addressing needs of students and educators. Second, if you have funds, talk to the school about how to best support the participants in your studies. Some schools will allow you to pay teachers directly while others have rules about only allowing payments to schools or to teachers outside contract time. Identifying these needs early on in the project can help ensure individuals are adequately compensated for their time.Stacy-Ann: I am always up front about the goal of having a mutually beneficial partnership. I talk about these during my initial and ongoing contacts/meetings with relevant stakeholders. This helps to set the stage early in the partnership. In my initial meetings with school partners, I try to learn as much as I can about their needs and offer pro bono professional development aligned with my expertise around these needs. This has sometimes happened before the school participated in any research project. For me that’s okay, because my aim is to build long-term partnerships. I tend to lean on the side of giving more, for better or worse. When I have had research projects in mind that are consistent with the school’s goals and I have built a relationship with them, then I talk with them about the project. I also try to have discussions about their topics of interest that are consistent with my expertise. We have these discussions with the goal that together we can develop ideas for studies.What actions have you taken to successfully recruit participants? How have you gained administrator, teacher, and other leaders’ buy-in to conduct your research?Lisa: Pay them! I believe it is super important to pay research participants or create ways that they can get some other material benefit. Can the student get high school credit for participating in a yearlong project? Can they get extra credit for a shorter project? Can we pay them a small stipend? Provide food? Tangible benefits are one successful way to recruit participants and I also think the methodology used is important. For example, I am beginning to explore Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) methodology, and I anticipate that lots of students will want to engage in this type of research because it centers their voices and experiences in a way that mainstream public schools don’t.Katie: We have a small group of school psychology faculty at UW-Madison who meet monthly with district school mental health leaders from our local school district. This ongoing partnership has been wonderful in terms of developing trust, rapport, and a better understanding of each group’s priorities. We really just spent time learning more about one another for the first 6-9 months that we met. This included better understanding the roles and functions of school psychologists, social workers, and counselors in the district, as well as our current and future plans for research as faculty. This time together established a wonderful foundational relationship for exploring future research projects together.Our partnership is now in its third year, and I consistently look forward to our monthly time together. Our relationship has been critical to understanding when research projects may or may not be a good fit within the district. The central district team is able to suggest schools who might be interested in particular projects and to help introduce us to building principals or school mental health principals who might be interested in our work. When we have this “warm hand off” and introduction to potential participants, it goes a long way in quickly establishing trust and allowing us to better meet the needs of the school.Stacy-Ann: I usually gain administrator buy-in for the project first. Strong relationships with administrators have been key to any project that I have led in schools. It is also important that the project aligns with topics of interest to them as well. I have had success with projects that have a clear and direct benefit to the school. Ideally, not just for the students who participate, but potentially other students as well. Another factors that has helped is having research with minimal involvement from teachers or administrators at the school. Educators have so much on their plate, I try not to add any more.Once I have administrator buy-in, I meet with teachers about the project. Some of the same reasons why administrators become interested in the project are the ones that draw in teachers. They especially appreciate projects that don’t ask them to do much and that don’t disrupt their schedules. As a result, I’ve conducted research outside of core instructional time (e.g., before school) and during intervention blocks (when conducting intervention studies). I have successfully been able to have teachers help recruit participants by sending informed consent forms home with students who may meet eligibility criteria for the study.How have you navigated the challenges associated with conducting research in applied settings during COVID?Lisa: I have actively chosen not to conduct research in applied settings during the pandemic. Communities like mine have been hit HARD and I didn’t think it was right to ask more of them so that my research agenda could benefit. Instead, I have focused on other papers like theoretical papers, commentaries, meta-analyses, etc.Katie: I have tried to provide grace and space for myself, my colleagues, our students, and our school teams around engaging in research during the pandemic. My larger school community (where most of my research was taking place) was fully virtual from March 2020 until May 2021. Unless we had projects where it made sense to pivot to a virtual platform (only one of our projects fit this description), active data collection on the remaining projects were placed on hold. It was more important to our team to be respectful of the challenges associated with virtual learning during the pandemic, than to push forward research projects with impending deadlines. Thankfully, my academic home has offered support for that to happen, and no-cost extensions were granted by many funding agencies.As a research team, we worked to evaluate how extant data could address our new and existing research questions. This led to a few unexpected manuscripts and projects that might not have happened otherwise. Our team was also able to spend more time evaluating qualitative data we had gathered from stakeholder focus groups for a new intervention we were evaluating, and quickly learned that this work was actually thriving during the pandemic. Many educators and parents had more time to participate in a virtual focus group during the first year of the pandemic than they may have otherwise.What approaches have worked well for you for engaging in research partnerships? Comment below.

Making the Most of Student Research Teams

By Lindsay Fallon, University of Massachusetts BostonContributors: Drs. Bridget Dever (Lehigh University), Bridget Hier (University of Buffalo), Shane Jimerson (University of California – Santa Barbara), and Faith Miller (University of Minnesota – Twin Cities)Early career faculty may enter into an academic position excited to have student support to assist with research activities. Yet, as the semester begins, questions may surface -- including what projects to tackle, how to divide tasks, and what level of supervision is needed. As a result, early career faculty may wonder how to make the most of their research team experience. I asked four faculty members who have found success in this area to share their tips. Overall, their message was simple: a productive, efficient student research team is often the result of organization, effort, and time.Specifically, our experts suggested that early career faculty might

• Build students’ research skills strategically. Teach concrete tasks initially (e.g., how to conduct a literature search) and strive to mentor students to engage in more complex processes (e.g., conceptualizing a research study) when ready and appropriate.
• Invest time in organizing and planning research team systems (e.g., regular meeting time, structure, agenda, shared cloud space) to maximize productivity.
• Have clear team/lab goals that can be tracked with data.
• Be explicit about expectations and lead by example.
• Train students to engage in vertical mentorship across cohorts as it can be mutually beneficial. Consider opportunities for leadership on the team, too.
• Find interested student collaborators by spreading the word about your work. If you are without funded research assistants, seek student volunteers by visiting classes and talking with students about your projects.
• Celebrate successes and show appreciation! Enjoy and acknowledge the team’s collaborative efforts.

Below are the panel’s complete thoughts. (Also, a pro tip from Dr. Dever is to start at the end of this post and work your way backwards. She reminds us that building a research team is indeed a deliberate, comprehensive process!)

1. How would you describe your research team or lab? How many students are involved, how frequently do you meet, and what is your focus?

BD: My research team is large and vibrant, including nine doctoral students and two undergraduate students. This semester we have a new and substantial data collection project, so we have been meeting weekly for an hour as a team.  During [our weekly] meetings, we focus on issues related to [the] new project for the most part, but I also try to leave 10-15 minutes at the end for students to raise questions or concerns “for the good of the group.”  I feel that this has been helpful for group advising, as students will typically bring up questions that are useful to discuss as a group in order to get other students’ perspectives.BH: My research team currently consists of three Ph.D. students, eight master’s students, and 14 undergraduate research assistants (RAs). We meet weekly so that I can review what was completed the prior week, discuss what needs to be completed in the upcoming week, provide direct training on new tasks when needed, provide feedback and reminders, and answer questions.SJ: I would describe my / our research team as a group of vibrant, passionate, curious problem solvers who are committed to applied scholarship that advances science and informs practice to promote the social, cognitive, and academic development of all children (with a particular focus on students from disadvantaged backgrounds). Team members include graduate students, undergraduate students, and often includes visiting scholars and collaborations with other colleagues.Our research team motto is -- Show Me the Data. Some of our guiding principles include Data over Dogma, Reality over Rhetoric, and What's next? We meet at least once a week (have met almost every Friday for the past 22 years, and I had met for research team meeting every Friday in graduate school for the preceding 5 years), and typically have subgroups of the team who also meet separately each week.In addition, I meet individually with research team members each week, typically more meetings with the graduate students. The focus of each of our meetings addresses contemporary topics related to each of the projects. For instance, depending upon the particular project, we may discuss theoretical foundations, relevant research, literature review, methods, institutional review procedures, data collection procedures, measures, collaboration with administrators/teachers, key questions, hypotheses, data collection, data management, analyses, interpretation of findings, preparation of posters and paper presentations, and preparation of manuscripts. Often our weekly meetings will include several of these topics across multiple projects.FM: My lab, the School Mental Health AIMS (Assessment and Intervention in Multi-tiered Systems of Support) Lab, focuses on advancing evidence-based practices in early identification and intervention for social-emotional and behavioral difficulties in schools. My group typically consists of four to nine graduate students, and we have a standing meeting throughout the academic year that occurs bi-weekly for two hours. The purpose of my lab is twofold: 1) to support students’ independent research and 2) to provide scaffolded opportunities for students to gain research experience with my projects. To this end, my team engages in all stages of the research production process – from conceptualization to dissemination.

2. Tell us a little about the type of research students conduct and/or coordinate.

BD: This answer depends on the students’ experiences and also the source of the students’ funding. Students coordinate projects [from which funding is derived] and supervise data collection and entry efforts, which are largely already in place from work done in previous years.In terms of independent research projects for students, this very much depends on student experience/years in the program. Keep in mind that for graduate students, most of Year 1 is spent learning the basics – yes of research, but also of [my] research team, mentoring style, the program, the University, and in many cases a new area. By the end of Year 1, my hope is that doctoral students have started to develop their own independent research question(s) using one of my datasets, so that we can work together to draft a NASP proposal early that summer. This looks similar for Ed.S. students who are involved with my research as well. In Year 2, students flesh their ideas out further, and if all goes well, they present their research project at NASP. For doctoral students, the goal is to have a compete manuscript written late in Year 2 or early in Year 3, as an independent research paper is one of the requirements of our program. That manuscript then gets revised in Year 3, and I work with my students to aim for publication in Year 4. That is typically simultaneous with thinking about their own dissertations, for which the students really “take the wheel.”  All of these are rough estimates of course, but I think having a roadmap in mind helps to keep both you and the student on track.Usually once students have their first NASP experience, they also work on smaller projects along the way to get more conference opportunities, and often these are collaborative efforts on posters and papers that are led by myself or another student. The goal is to scaffold research experiences so that each student is developing the skills that match with his/her own level of expertise with data management, analysis, technical writing, and research goals during any given year. For doctoral students, the expectation is that by the time they begin their dissertation they will have the skillset to work on their research fairly independently, with guidance and feedback from me as needed along the way.BH: The students’ research responsibilities vary as a function of training and experience.  Generally, the graduate students are trained to implement the intervention protocols in the schools, and the undergraduate students are trained to conduct fidelity assessments.  Everyone is trained to score our dependent measures, and a subset of the research team is trained to enter the data.SJ: Students participate in all aspects of the research initiatives. Each of these are field-based, applied, developmental science initiatives focused on promoting the social, cognitive, behavioral, and academic development of children. Granted, their participation and contributions vary by their level of development and previous experiences. For some, specific content is way beyond their zone of proximal development, however, I believe that being involved in the discussions and then subsequent tutorials / collaboration with more advanced students provides the necessary scaffolding to facilitate their development of the skills.When discussing topics with team members, I expect that those with knowledge and understanding of the specifics will be highly engaged during the group discussions and that they will also spend additional time with other team members outside of the team meeting to help further develop relevant skills and knowledge. Each member of the team brings specific skills, knowledge and experiences. Each of the graduate students typically have many more research related skills compared to the undergraduate students, however, this is not always the case for specific skills. The emphasis of our research team is to embrace the strengths that each team member brings to the table, and engage all in activities that will further develop their knowledge and skills.FM: Within my lab, we use diverse research methodologies ranging from single-case design intervention studies, to meta-analyses, to large N assessment studies. Consequently, students are exposed to a variety of different research methods and approaches, as well as the strengths and difficulties associated with them. I think this exposure is really important from the time students start attending graduate school. When it comes time for them to conduct their first original independent research project (their thesis), they will have a better understanding of the kinds of research questions that can be answered using different methods. This exposure is also beneficial in helping to train well-rounded scholars who can advance the science and practice of school psychology. In addition to exposure to diverse research methodologies, I aim to tailor student research experiences based on their current developmental level and training. Given the scaffolded and vertical mentoring structure of my research team, experiences are appropriately matched to the student’s developmental level. For example, first year graduate students often complete relatively concrete activities, such as conducting literature searches, creating annotated bibliographies, reviewing psychometric properties of assessments, and building tables and figures, while advanced students complete more complex and abstract activities.

3. How is mentorship built in to your research team structure?

BD: Mentorship is the thing that holds the team together, and keeps us moving forward both individually and as a system. I work to provide students with opportunities to not only assist with tasks such as data collection and entry, but also to include them in conference presentations and as coauthors on manuscripts. I take a mentorship role in my students’ independent research, which includes encouraging them to take on their own projects or pieces of projects, setting clear and meaningful deadlines, and holding myself accountable to students for timely feedback. Of course, it is also important to provide opportunities for face-to-face mentorship as well. Some students meet with me individually as often as twice a month, depending on their own needs and projects. I also rely on my more experienced students to provide mentorship as appropriate to newer students on the team.In addition, as needed, I provide opportunities for students to practice presenting to the group before conferences or proposal meetings so that they can get feedback on their research and presentation skills from me and their peers in a non-evaluative setting. Finally, I try to meet with my research team off-campus once a semester both as a celebration and as an opportunity for cross-cohort advising and mentorship. Sometimes I think we all get so wrapped up in our work during the semester, so it’s nice to take some time socially away from the classroom setting to get to know each other and connect as human beings. The cross-cohort connections are especially critical. Students earlier in their trajectories benefit from hearing about how others made it through their classes, milestones, etc. (and relatively unscathed, we hope!) in order to demystify the process of grad school. I also host a similar social event for my research team at NASP -- it’s a huge accomplishment for students to present their work to a national audience, and I think it’s important to celebrate that success as a team.BH: Graduate students, and even undergraduate RAs, who perform strongly in terms of their accuracy and reliability with research tasks are selected for leadership roles within the team. Those individuals gain experience training the other RAs, monitoring accuracy of the research tasks, and holding feedback meetings.Students also gain mentoring experience with conference presentations.  The doctoral students are expected to present our research at NASP as well as local conferences.  Through that experience, they mentor master’s students in how to conceptualize a research question, conduct analyses, and prepare for a presentation.Aside from mentorship around research tasks, we also provide undergraduate RAs with mentorship around applying to graduate school.  Each year, I conduct a seminar during one of our research team meetings on considerations for graduate school, how to apply, and what to expect.  The graduate students edit the undergraduate students’ CVs and personal statements, and they conduct mock interviews to help the RAs prepare.SJ: Mentoring on my / our research team is characterized by being both sensitive and responsive to the individual strengths and needs of each of the students. Mentorship is the core of all our collaborative activities. Those with more experience, skills, and knowledge with particular activities/topics are expected to provide leadership. This includes active participation during team meetings, arranging for additional sessions with others who are ready to engage in further learning to build their knowledge of particular skills and knowledge. As a faculty member, I intend to mentor each of the graduate and undergraduate students in both personal and professional development. It is also expected that the graduate students will mentor each other as related to specific tasks, skills, and knowledge throughout graduate school. In addition, graduate students are expected to mentor undergraduate students collaborating with us on various projects. Also, experienced undergraduate research assistants are expected to mentor incoming undergraduate research assistants. Mentoring and support is emphasized throughout all team activities. I provide specific direction and support for graduate students and undergraduate students regarding mentoring other students, and I am also sensitive and responsive to their mentoring challenges and needs to help support them in this process.FM: In addition to the mentorship that I provide to students directly, I have found that a vertical team structure is helpful. Within this structure, more advanced students in the program serve as mentors to students who are newer to the program. I have found this vertical peer mentoring structure beneficial in numerous ways: in enhancing the capacity of our team, in building a sense of camaraderie as opposed to competitiveness, in reducing anxiety surrounding conducting independent research, and in learning vicariously from others’ experience. Vertical mentoring occurs in a few different ways in my lab, including: (a) in advanced students sharing their progress, successes, and challenges with the group, (b) in novice students asking process-oriented questions to advanced students, (c) in viewing my role as facilitator to these interactions and in building these connections through our group discussions, and (d) encouraging students to support each other in their work, including peer-review of written products and assisting with data collection efforts. Essentially, the giving and receiving of mentorship has become a group norm in my lab.

4. How do you maximize efficiency and productivity with your team?

BD: Full disclosure – I think we are all constantly trying to improve our efficiency and productivity, and I’m not sure that ever goes away. I’m excited to see what others say about this, because I feel like there’s still a lot for me to learn as well. That being said, here are some strategies that have helped me to feel somewhat more efficient and productive as a mentor. First, meet only when you need to meet. Just as faculty members get frustrated with service commitments that just check a box, our students’ time is valuable and should be respected. Sometimes this means canceling a team meeting or just meeting with a small subset of team members. Second, when you do meet, take the time to draft an agenda or list of goals for the meeting in advance. Having even an informal agenda in mind helps make efficient and productive use of everyone’s time in each meeting. Third, have mechanisms in place for students to transfer knowledge to one another; once you have an advanced student or two on the team, allow them to take more responsibility for training and mentoring the others. Finally, envision each students’ independent research projects as publications, and keep that vision in mind every step of the way. Treating those posters, presentations, qualifying projects, etc. as future publications from the beginning will help everyone’s productivity, as well as structure your mentoring of students through the entire process from research idea to seeing their work in print. From day one, I ask my students to consider what they want to be “the expert in” when they graduate. Of course that may change along the way, but I think helping students to see that their posters, papers, projects, presentations, and other research activities should tell a story about them as a researcher empowers students to see how these experiences are linked and map onto a larger goal (rather than being isolated events/experiences).BH: I typically prefer to have roughly six undergraduate RAs on my team at a time to maximize efficiency, as more RAs equals more training, more supervision, and more double-checking of accuracy. However, I currently have more than double that amount due to the nature of a large, labor-intensive longitudinal RCT I am completing. To be able to manage that amount of people, I created three sub-teams, which each have specific tasks and are each managed by two graduate students. The Scoring Team is responsible for scoring our research participants’ weekly CBM-writing progress monitoring data. Once that is complete, they give the data to the Data Entry team for initial entry and double-checking. The Dissemination Team is then responsible for graphing the student participants’ progress monitoring data so I can share those data with our school partners for instructional decision-making (which is cleared by the IRB in advance). The graduate students who lead each of those teams are responsible for training their teams, monitoring task accuracy, conducting feedback meetings with the RAs, and holding weekly meetings to review upcoming tasks. I meet weekly with the graduate students to supervise their supervision of the RAs.SJ: Excellence is expected -- anything worth doing is worth doing well. There are 86,400 seconds each day, therefore, we establish clear timelines and objectives and communicate frequently. It is expected that tasks will be completed on-time, and when needed, additional support and scaffolding is provided to actualize each objective in a timely manner. The weekly meetings and mid-week meetings between individuals is helpful to establish clear timelines and being certain that activities are completed in advance of the upcoming team meeting.FM: Building a structure to support these efforts is really important. So, for example, we always start lab meetings with student updates on independent research projects, which includes discussion of progress, successes and challenges, and an opportunity for group problem-solving. Next, we move to lab projects currently in progress, with a point-person assigned to each project who is responsible for updating the team and developing action items regarding next steps to move the project forward. Organization is also key to facilitate efficiency and productivity: we have a Google Team Drive for our lab with all materials readily accessible, we keep detailed meeting minutes, and review action items at the end of every lab meeting.

5. What is important for early career faculty to consider when starting their research team or lab?

BD: As an Early Career faculty member, you may only have one or two students and you will be the sole mentor on the team. I think a trap a lot of us fall into (myself included) is doing a short-term cost-benefit analysis and deciding that rather than delegate to students, “it’ll be quicker to just do it myself.” This is particularly true when beginning a research team, as you are likely trying to develop your own research agenda and may feel like you don’t have the time to invest in training a student from the ground up. In the short-term, you may be right – in fact, you may be able to crank out the output you need much more quickly than it would take to both train the student and then have the student do the task independently. However, I strongly recommend shifting your perspective to the long game, as you’re likely going to be at this whole research thing for a while. In the long-term, it will be much more efficient and productive to sit with your students and involve them in every step of the research process early on. Not only will they appreciate the experiences and learn so much from you, later on down the road they will be able to share their expertise with other students, lightening your load as a mentor. As you are getting started, it would be ideal if you could choose an incoming student or two to work with you based on matched research interests – but that doesn’t always work out. If your program does provide a graduate assistant, often Early Career faculty think that requesting a more advanced student would be best in order to get someone on board who has already developed some research skills. Again, I’m going to encourage you to play the long game, and to see your new graduate assistant as someone who ideally would be with you for four or five years. So if you’re given the opportunity, request a student who is at the beginning of his/her training, and really spend the time training that student and encouraging him/her to get excited about research. This will require an investment of your time now, but in two or three years you will be in a great position to delegate and expand your research team.I know that not all early career faculty members are in the position of having a funded graduate assistant. Don’t let that derail you from starting your research team! In my first year, the majority of my research team included graduate students who were volunteering their time to work on my project. As you’re starting out, talk to current students about your research.  Make shameless plugs about volunteer opportunities in your classes or larger program meetings that include students. Invite students to come talk with you about your work and how they might be able to connect and contribute to it. Keep in mind that while you are somewhat of an “unknown” among students when you are starting out, they are excited about a new faculty member joining the program. Making yourself approachable and giving students opportunities to work with you will go a long way in developing your reputation as a collaborator, which will encourage more students to want to work with you in the future.BH: I find that the assistance of undergraduate RAs is imperative for getting my research completed. Oftentimes psychology majors are looking for research experience, and you may be able to send an email blast through the Psychology Department at your institution to recruit RAs. Most universities allow you to offer course credits for their work. I often try to recruit sophomores because once they are trained, they typically remain on the research team for three years and then are set up to enter graduate school with a fantastic skill set.SJ: Be thoughtful and intentional about your infrastructure and expectations. Meet with your team members at least once a week as a group. Establish smaller group or individual meetings with team members each week, as there are some activities that are more efficient to address in a smaller group / individual context. Expect and scaffold more advanced research team members in mentoring and supervising activities of other team members. Be sensitive and response to individual strengths and needs. Maintain and encourage frequent communications among team members. Clearly delineate weekly / monthly objectives and monitor progress on each of these activities. Celebrate successes (e.g., data collected, highlighting findings, conference proposals accepted / presented, manuscripts submitted / accepted, defenses, orals passed). Start small and build from a strong foundation. Ultimately you are responsible for the well-being of every team member, therefore, do not expect that more team members will necessarily be better. Add undergraduate research assistants who are highly motivated, skilled, and can be responsive to supervision from the graduate students (and transition team members who are not contributing to the team dynamic and productivity). Develop a series of questions that you will ask of any undergraduate students who are interested in applying to work with your research team. If you teach an undergraduate course, you can highlight the opportunities for students to apply to become a team member. Including questions about their future education / career aspirations is very important, as those students seeking to attend graduate school and careers related to the research are often the most highly motivated and highly engaged in all team activities.FM: I think that research labs are really critical in socializing students to the research production process. That is, they provide a “behind the scenes” look at just how difficult it can be to conduct high-quality original research. To me, that modeling of best practices, instilling of passion for conducting research, normalization of challenges and difficulties, and work-shopping of ideas is time very well-spent. For me personally, as a first-generation college graduate, I realized how important it is to demystify the process and make conducting rigorous research approachable to everyone, regardless of prior opportunities that students may or may not have had access to.

6. Do you have any other advice about making the most of student research teams that may benefit early career faculty?

BD: Mentorship is not easy, but it’s incredibly rewarding.  Please know that it is worth the effort to scaffold meaningful research experiences that meet each student where he/she is. Always remember that as a mentor, you are given the opportunity to shape your future colleague, your future coauthor, or your future ambassador in the field.BH: It is crucial to provide student research teams with adequate support to be successful. For undergraduate RAs, one of the most common strategies I use is to review behavioral expectations early and frequently. Even when I am initially interviewing undergraduate RA candidates, I review the basic behaviors that I expect of my team members should they be selected for the position. I then explicitly teach those behavioral expectations to all RAs who newly join the team, and I ask them to sign a behavioral contract agreeing to those expectations. With both my undergraduate and graduate team members, I find that simply providing pre-corrections is a small but powerful tool to prompt successful completion of the research tasks.SJ: Be the change and lead by example. Providing a positive experience is important to further engage and motivate research team members. Through your collaborative activities and leadership, aim to prepare team members to be the best possible faculty colleagues and graduate students that you can imagine.  The team’s success is dependent upon your leadership. Embrace the skills, competencies, and knowledge of each team members, and aim to maximize the participation and contributions of each. Be prepared to take care of any and all tasks that any research assistant is not fulfilling. In some instances, still requiring the team member to complete the task and providing scaffolding, but, getting things completed so that all moves forward. Be an inspiration to team members, highlighting the contributions that emerge from the research to help benefit children, families, schools and expressing gratitude for individual and collective efforts.FM: The time and effort spent in setting up your lab up front is well worth it! Take the time at the beginning of each year to map out a general plan for the year, keeping in mind that it will be a bit of a moving target as the year progresses. By having several projects going and at different stages of development, adjustments can be made to prioritize tasks as needed and keep the work moving forward.--My thanks to the contributors of this post. I’ll conclude with a few comments. In a 2013 Gallup report on workplace productivity, the main message was to build structure that can stretch, and to remember four “needs” as a leader. That is, individuals need (a) to know what’s expected, (b) the right materials and tools, (c) the skills to achieve, and (d) recognition for accomplishments. Build on successes and, as Dr. Dever advised, play the long game!To make the most of your research team, take advantage of other resources the ECF has made available, including blog posts such as a 2014 entry titled, “Developing a Research Agenda” as well as conference materials, such as handouts from a NASP 2019 presentation titled, “Hitting the Ground Running: Maximizing Your Early Years in Academia”.Have you had experience leading or participating in a research team? If so, what facilitated or hindered the success of that team? 

Capitalizing on Technology to Facilitate Writing Partnerships

August 3, 2015

By Anisa N. Goforth, University of Montana and Natasha K. Segool, University of HartfordHere’s the challenge: Get two highly motivated research partners and friends to work together on research studies and manuscript writing, while one is working at a young doctoral program that is focused on APA-accreditation in frontier Montana and the other is balancing different priorities in a teaching-focused specialist program across in Connecticut. It’s no small feat, and one with which that we have grappled with for four years. Yet, we have been very successful in developing two large-scale studies and data collection efforts, producing three peer-reviewed articles, two peer-reviewed conference papers, and three peer-reviewed conference posters, with more scholarship underway.The BackstoryWe met in graduate school at Michigan State University’s school psychology program. Currently, Natasha is an assistant professor at the University of Hartford in West Hartford, Connecticut and Anisa is an assistant professor at the University of Montana in Missoula, Montana. Natasha was able to provide some support and advice to Anisa during her academic job hunt and during her transition into her academic position, which followed a year after Natasha’s own career started at the University of Hartford. Given our distance from one another, our friendship has mostly occurred through phone conversations and visits during academic conferences.As early career faculty, we often talked about the challenges of academic life, particularly developing and growing a research agenda amid multiple competing demands for our time. During one of our discussions, we talked about our mutual concerns and questions about the use of social media among our graduate students, some of whom did not appear to have a sense of professional etiquette online.  It was our big “Aha!” moment and we encourage everyone to look out for theirs—it is easy to miss. Prior to this, we had discussed doing research together, but those plans never took shape. We had tried to brainstorm research ideas, often forcing projects in which we had some shared experience. Yet, without passion and genuine interest, these ideas perished tragically in our shared Dropbox with documents that went unedited, and frankly unseen, for months at a time.The key to our success has been capitalizing on our shared questions and curiosity. Once we realized that we were both having similar conversations in our classrooms about professional behavior and etiquette online, we wanted to examine these issues further. However, we were traversing an area of professional psychology that had limited research to turn to related to the ethical and legal ramifications of social networking use. Thus, with little fanfare, we launched into a new phase of our relationship. From friendship alone, we added “collaborative researchers” to our identity. Technology helped with this immensely.The LogisticsOver the past two years, we have designed and conducted two studies related to social media in school psychology. Both projects have led to peer-reviewed journal articles (one article in the Trainer’s Forum, one articleled by our colleague and another MSU alum Andy Pham, and another one currently under review) and conference presentations. All of these projects have been developed and written collaboratively using various technologies. Through these projects, we problem-solved through trial and error to develop working habits that were efficient and effective.Creating accountability.We set up bi-weekly meetings to ensure accountability and keep our projects moving forward. Like many of us who are early career faculty (or mid- or later-career!), competing responsibilities seep in, and consequently, our work often occurred just prior to the upcoming meeting, knowing that our colleague was relying on the other to complete tasks. Our meetings were held using Google Hangouts, which allowed us to use the video call feature from our computers. After our meetings, the project leader sent an email with assigned tasks discussed during the meeting.To organize the meetings, we often used Doodlebecause our schedules were already busy and our two time zones made it difficult to find overlapping work hours. Although it was only a two-hour difference (EST and MST), we had to balance meetings around students, teaching, writing times, and truthfully, our personal lives! Between other responsibilities and our desire to not schedule meetings after 5pm, we were left with a single hour from noon to 1pm on Fridays.  Protecting this time for our meetings was essential, and by prioritizing it, we believe this resulted in our success.Although we did not always have significant progress to report, by meeting face-to-face every two weeks, we held each other accountable. In addition, we were able to consistently discuss our project, our expectations of ourselves and each other, and we were able to problem-solve before major barriers arose and derailed our vision. By seeing each other, we maintained a close working relationship together and communicated effectively.  In retrospect, in the rare circumstances when we canceled our meetings, our emails to one another were indications of being side-tracked or caught up with other competing responsibilities. It was our face-to-face meetings, however, that got us back on track and moving forward.Writing and research materials. In order to collectively work on our project, we primarily used DropBoxto share research documents (e.g., IRB documents, research questionnaires, manuscript drafts, etc.). The key advantages to DropBox were that 1) we were both already using it for our other professional responsibilities, 2) we could easily use it from our work and home computers, 3) it provided notifications to us whenever a document was updated document, and 4) it retained documents in typical formats (e.g., Microsoft Word). At other times, other writing tools have been more helpful. We have used Google Driveand its tools (Docs, Sheets, Slides) while on a Google Hangoutvideo call so that we could work collaboratively on content in real time.Challenges and RecommendationsThere were a number of challenges that we needed to problem-solve, including time zones, accessing files, and troubleshooting technology (e.g., connectivity problems, dropped video call, camera errors). At times, this certainly hampered productivity in addition to causing frustration when we had set aside precious time to work together. In the end, however, we firmly believe that use of video-calling technology and file-sharing technology has facilitated much more productivity and accountability in our work together.  The technology allowed us to meet frequently, feel connected with one another, and have the opportunity to incrementally advance our work. More often than not, we spent our first five to ten minutes checking in with each other about our personal and professional lives before launching into our work, which was important for us to maintain and grow our friendship as well. We see our work together as a win-win!A few other things to consider:

• Some researchers are going to be more adept to technology than others. Expect to provide some on-the-go tech support in addition to developing unique research ideas and empirically rigorous studies.
• Compromise on technology options and choose ones that suit the needs of mostof the researchers. We recommend considering the reliability of the technology, ease of use, and cost effectiveness.
• Be patient when there are technology issues (internet connectivity, video chat drops). Sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders and laugh.
• Designate one person to be the group leader for the meeting (perhaps the PI or another researcher). As with in-person meetings, virtual meetings are more efficient and effective when someone keeps the meeting on track.
• Designate someone to email everyone after the meeting with a summary and specific tasks, including due dates.
• Build in time to socialize. Expect to spend 5 to 10 minutes chatting and updating about each other’s lives. This is a surprisingly important and rich part of research collaboration!

Resources for Interactive Research CollaborationsVideoconferencing and Communication Tools:Google Hangouts·         Advantages: Allows for video calls with up to 10 people; group conversations are easy and video facilitates understanding and quality interactions; allows for screen sharing to discuss specific issues (i.e., data analysis); integrated with the Google platform, facilitating communication across email, documents, and video.·         Disadvantages: User interface is difficult to navigate and can result in delays making initial connection; requires a Google or Gmail account; requires one time download of Google voice and video free plugin.Skype·         Advantages: Allows for video calls with up to 5 people; screen sharing is free.·         Disadvantages: Requires installing a program onto a computer.GoToMeeting·      Advantages: Allows users to share screen; personal “meeting room” for users; users can connect by computer or phone; can set up a schedule of repeated meetings.·      Disadvantages: Costs $24 to $49 per month; must install a program; voice calls often have feedback.FaceTime·      Advantages: Since many people use iPhones, video calls are easy.·      Disadvantages: Inconvenient for those without an iPhone or Mac; does not yet have a group video chat option.File Sharing Tools:DropBox·      Advantages: Allows users to share documents with a group; documents retain formating (e.g., Word, Excel); backups of files are created and files can be recovered for up to 30 days.·      Disadvantages: Editing must be done one person at a time, otherwise conflicted files are created; any change by a collaborator affects everyone else who has the shared file (e.g., it could be deleted).Google Drive·      Advantages: Allows for real-time simultaneous editing; facilitates team writing and collaboration.·      Disadvantages: Formatting between Google Drive files and mainstream Microsoft documents is problematic.Box·      Advantages: Allows for real-time simultaneous editing.·      Disadvantages: Less commonly used among researchers.

Fostering Research Partnerships as New Faculty: Making Inroads with Local Agencies and Communities

April 27, 2015

During the early career faculty meeting at NASP, participants asked for ideas on how to build research partnerships when they are new to a university and the surrounding community. Below, two early career faculty share their experience for doing just that. By Daniel Gadke& Kasee Stratton, Mississippi State UniversityIn November, Milena Keller-Margulis wrote a great post on developing a research agenda. As junior faculty we find ourselves regularly honing our research agendas and determining how to build them from the ground up.  Personally, our broad strokes research agenda involves the exploration of strategies rooted in applied behavior analysis to address behavioral and academic needs in children with disabilities. Depending on which of us you approach, you may find that we spend most of that time targeting children with autism spectrum and related disorders, or children with complex genetic disorders (e.g., CHARGE Syndrome) and children who present as deaf-blind. As new faculty, we recognize that starting up at a new university and getting your agenda to take off can prove difficult.It is our experience that successful research agendas, particularly in school psychology, involve positive partnerships with local agencies (e.g., schools, daycares, hospitals, etc.). Developing these partnerships and getting your name out there may be difficult regardless of your institution; however, we found this to be particularly difficult joining the faculty at a major university in the rural south. The number of local agencies within the town is limited, and other major cities are at least 100 miles away.  We had heard that many academics working with schools and other agencies in the area sometimes offered pro-bono services in hopes that this relationship would lead to a collaborative arrangement allowing the faculty member to engage in research at the location. Some mentors told stories of their efforts taking several years before paying off, and, in some instances, not working out at all.  They were often lost in the service only shuffle without seeing the benefits to their research agenda.  That being said, we took a different approach: we decided to figure out a way to bring as many agencies representatives to us as possible by offering them continuing education units. Our goal was not only to be able to go out to these agencies and conduct research on-site, but to have these agencies send participants to us for our on-campus labs.Capitalizing on Practitioners’ Need for Continuing Education. At one of our alma maters, Illinois State University, the faculty host an annual School Psychology Appreciation Day where professionals from around the state are offered free CEUs at a workshop held at the university every April. For school psychologists in the state, NASP-approved CEUs are provided at no cost, as they are a NASP-approved CEU provider. Additionally, Illinois State Board of Education CEUs were offered at no cost. We took a similar approach by offering a two-day workshop for educators at Mississippi State University in January 2014, which was our second semester as faculty.  In order to recruit additional school personnel and those familiar with autism, we partnered with a speech pathologist colleague who was well known for assistive technology to offer speech pathology CEUs as well.  Our presentations included talks on classroom behavior management, changes to autism criteria in the DSM-V, sleep maintenance, and creating individualized behavioral goals for BIPs.  All of the topics aligned well with our research interests, allowing us to capitalize on sharing our expertise and research outcomes.Participant recruitment.Our college assisted with advertising on the university website and we sent the information to schools, hospitals, and other agencies across the state.  We were also sure to send personalized emails to directors of special education.  When it was all said and done, we ended up with 100 professionals in attendance from all over the state. We had now shared our research endeavors with 100 individuals who showed their excitement by staying after the workshop to ask questions and to inquire about assistance and research for their employer.Seeing results.As new faculty, the payoff was huge. We quickly had folks inviting us into their schools to do additional staff development trainings or to help with individual students. Those 100 attendees also told their other colleagues about how we could collaborate and parents about how we could help. By the end of the semester, our programs of research were positively impacted in a variety of ways. We were able to establish partnerships with schools, which allowed for our students to engage in research on-site and in additional practicum activities.  We also have a waitlist for all service and research activities, which is not a bad problem to have—a built in control group.Unanticipated benefits.We have had so many clients referred to us, we were able to formalize what we now refer to as our School Psychology Service Center on campus. The Service Center allows us to actively engage in research, training, and service to the community.  Additionally, our practicum students have been provided with a wealth of experiences through the Center from difficult psychoeducational evaluations, challenging behavior cases, to first-hand intervention experience with some extremely rare genetic conditions.  More recently, the upper-level students have begun to express what a unique addition the Center has been to the program and their training experience. The clinic has become so active in the areas of research, training, and services that administrators have started to take notice, now considering it an integral part of the college.Making this approach work for you. We hope this simple idea can be particularly useful for junior faculty in establishing collaborative relationships with community agencies.  We leave you with a few tips; some of which we learned along the way and others that we would have changed if we did it all over again.Gain the support of your department head and college.  Do not be shy about your ideas.

• Identify early on a location on campus to host the event (our location was free, but we had to book early!).
• Determine if you are going to offer the CEUs free or charge a fee (we would suggest offering them for free, especially if you are able to avoid any overhead costs with the university). This may vary state by state and university by university.
• Partner with other colleagues on campus whom might enrich the topics you are able to provide or who are well-respected in the community.
• Offer trainings that map directly onto your areas of expertise and research interests and plug your research needs throughout your presentations.
• yourself ample time to market the event throughout your state or region (we had approximately 3 months, but wished we had longer).
• Leave time for lots of questions and answers or offer a post-workshop reception to allow more informal connections while your research is fresh on the attendants’ minds.

How do you see this idea working for you? What other approaches have you taken to foster research partnerships in your community?

Building and Sustaining School Partnerships

November 29, 2013

By Robert J. Volpe and Amy M. BrieschIf you have had the experience of entering an unfamiliar school and performing a well-rehearsed conference room pitch for some study you would like to conduct only to be rebuffed by the school staff, you are not alone. Although one of the more common concerns voiced by school staff is that there is already too much testing going on in the school, you likely have had the sense that the school staff views you as an outsider, of whose intentions they should be somewhat wary. If this is the case, the school has likely had one or more experiences dealing with what we call the slash and burn approach to conducting school-based research. Building research infrastructure is a lot like farming. Just like farming there are sustainable approaches, but there are also unsustainable approaches, which are ineffective for both the researcher and stakeholders. Research partnerships, just like any other relationship, are built on three principal concepts: a) mutual respect, b) mutual benefits and c) trust. Slash and burn farming involves cutting down shrubs and trees on a plot of land, setting the debris on fire and using the resultant ashes to nourish the soil for the purposes of growing food. Because the nutrients in the soil are rapidly depleted, the farmer must find a new plot of land and cannot return to the original plot until the natural vegetation grows back. School-based researchers often follow an analogous approach to partnering with schools because they fail to ensure that they are providing the school with adequate benefits and do not necessarily seek to sustain relationships within the school. Much like the farmer, slash and burn researchers find themselves repeatedly searching for new study sites because they have burned their bridges with former school partners who do not see the “partnership” as mutually beneficial. Alternatively, a key tenant of sustainable farming is developing and maintaining healthy soil, avoiding erosion, and supporting healthy root growth. A sustainable approach requires a greater investment of time, energy, and resources on the part of the farmer; however, it also results in both a more desirable product and long-term environmental benefits. The same can be said of sustainable research: although conducting an isolated study may require less time and effort than building solid partnerships with schools, the latter is likely to result both in a better study in the short term and fertile ground for future research down the road. In the table below we will compare these two approaches along some relevant dimensions. 

	Slash and Burn	Sustainable
Focus	Short-term	Long-term
Principal motivation	How I can get my study run?	How can my expertise serve the school?
Ideas about collaboration	Preconceived/rigid	Open and flexible
Communication	Explaining	Listening
	Abrupt	Proactive and maintained
Follow-up	Minimal	Maximal
Role	Outside consultant	Partner
Engagement	Low	High

 To build research partnerships that are sustainable requires the researcher to plan ahead. As early career scholars it is not a good idea to wait to contact a school until you need them as a site for a study. Early in your career or early in a new location, you have not yet built your “street cred.” By that we mean that you may have not yet demonstrated whether your relationship with a school is an asset to them or a burden. As a well-trained school psychologist (and perhaps a trainer), you know you have much to offer the school, but you will not know how you can best serve them unless you ask. Listening to the needs and developing research questions in this context is an example of participatory action research. We all want to do something to serve troubled schools, but when we listen to our school partners it helps us pursue informed action. Among the services we have provided to our school partners include:

• Benchmarking (e.g., DIBELS) the school, crunching the numbers, and presenting the data to the school staff
• Conducting staff in-service trainings on PBIS and RtI
• Consulting on challenging behavioral cases
• Evaluating programs
• Converting classes to service learning courses where students implement academic interventions
• Serving as a consultant to school leadership teams
• Engaging in problem-solving with teachers and team leaders to identify and assess appropriate interventions

Each of the aforementioned projects was viewed as a win-win for both the school and us. We provided useful resources and services that the school needed and our students benefitted from the experience. In some cases we were able to publish data generated from these activities. Also, when we approached the school regarding a study we wanted to conduct, the study design was informed by what we had learned about the school and the perception across parties was that the project was another win-win situation. Identifying opportunities for dual benefits and building mutual respect and trust take both time and attention, but these investments will likely pay dividends. The mistake too many investigators make is that they wait too long to plant the seeds of partnership and then are surprised to find that their yield is much smaller than what they had hoped. If you keep these considerations in mind, and implement sustainable research practices, we feel confident that both you and your partners will reap incredible benefits!