Recruiting and Retaining Racially and Ethnically Minoritized School Psychology Scholars

Geremy Grant, Ph.D., Taylor Martin del Campo, Ed.S., Aleah Hayes M.S., and Lindsay Fallon, Ph.D.

School psychology scholarship has long-been a predominantly white space (Malone, 2024) with limited research centering the strengths, ideas, lived experiences, cultures, traditions, and values of individuals holding racially and ethnically minoritized identities. With much of school psychology research grounded in positivist principles (Sabnis & Proctor, 2022), there has been little valuing (and subsequently opportunities to publish) research centering epistemologies and methods that veer from this tradition. This has implications for the ability of school psychology scholarship to advance the practice of school psychology meaningfully; put simply, the field’s scholarship represents some but certainly not all.

Creating a more inclusive and welcoming profession for school psychology scientists and practitioners must first come with naming barriers that researchers and trainees with minoritized identities experience in school psychology training programs. Leveraging this knowledge to then implement strategies to support recruiting and retaining racially and ethnically minoritized scholars can promote a stronger, more vibrant workforce. Much of this work starts within training programs and practica sites, and may include actively dismantling long-standing barriers to access and reimagining training spaces to center the needs and experiences of minoritized individuals.

Recently, the Early Career Forum co-hosted a virtual panel on this topic with APA’s Division 16. The authors herein participated on the panel (Panel: Grant, Martin del Campo, Hayes; Moderator: Fallon), and below, challenges and opportunities discussed in this session are presented below.

Challenges

The panelists discussed several challenges, many of which highlight systemic issues in training programs and higher education.

1. Lack of Visibility: The underrepresentation of minoritized school psychologists leads to a general lack of awareness regarding their role and impact, making it difficult for potential students of color to see themselves in the profession. This disconnect can discourage interested individuals from pursuing a career in school psychology.
2. Imposter Syndrome: Minoritized students may struggle with feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt, questioning whether they truly belong in the field. This can be triggered by negative experiences in predominantly white spaces or a lack of representation in fieldwork and academia.
3. Limited Access to Resources: Financial barriers often restrict access to current research and professional development opportunities, making it challenging for individuals to access training in school psychology. This lack of access can hinder their ability to provide effective support to students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.
4. Tokenism: In efforts to increase diversity, minoritized individuals may find themselves only being recognized superficially, without being given real or meaningful opportunities to highlight their individual strengths. This can create frustration and a sense of being exploited instead of being genuinely valued within their institution.
5. Professional Development Gaps: Professional development offerings may not adequately address the unique challenges faced by minoritized school psychologists, leaving them along with other staff members without the tools necessary to navigate their environments effectively. This gap can lead to feelings of disconnect and inadequacy in their roles.
6. Disproportionate Workloads: School psychologists of color may be tasked with additional responsibilities related to diversity initiatives or disciplinary actions, often without proper training, recognition, or compensation. This can create a sense of imbalance and unfairness in the workplace, contributing to burnout.
7. Limited Mentorship: The absence of mentors from similar cultural backgrounds can result in a lack of guidance and support for minoritized students. This can impede their professional growth and decrease their confidence in navigating academic and career pathways.
8. Systemic Barriers: Institutional policies and practices may not consider or support the specific needs of minoritized students, leading to environments that can be unwelcoming or hostile. These systemic barriers may hinder students’ academic success and overall well-being.

Opportunities

The panelists also described opportunities, naming specific action steps to take to address the aforementioned challenges.

1. Enhance Visibility: Programs should actively promote the successes and contributions of minoritized school psychologists through outreach initiatives, social media,  community engagement, and inclusion of their work in coursework/curricula. Highlighting diverse role models in educational settings can inspire prospective students of color to consider a career in school psychology.
2. Mentorship Programs: Establishing formal mentorship programs pairing experienced school psychology researchers and practitioners with students of color can provide valuable support. These programs can help mentees navigate academic challenges, build confidence, and develop a professional network that fosters growth. It is of the utmost importance that all mentors embody the principles of social justice, adopt a stance of cultural humility, and engage in lifelong intentional efforts towards cultural competence.
3. Resource Centers: Campus cultural resource centers should be leveraged to provide tailored support, mentorship, and resources specifically for students of color. Often, these centers facilitate workshops, networking events, and social gatherings to create a sense of community and belonging. School psychology faculty should learn about these opportunities and share resources with prospective and incoming students.
4. Climate Surveys: Regularly conducting climate surveys and facilitating town hall meetings allows institutions to gather feedback from the experiences of program members. This input can help identify areas for improvement, promote transparent discussions between faculty and students, and ensure that the environment of academia is supportive and inclusive for all students. 
5. Community Building: Institutions should prioritize creating safe spaces and forums where students of color can connect with each other. These spaces may include support groups, social events, and online platforms to facilitate ongoing dialogue and relationship-building among peers. Programs should also utilize existing organizations to broaden students’ support networks beyond the institution they are enrolled in (e.g., the Black School Psychologists Network; APA Division 45- Society for the Psychological Study of Culture, Ethnicity and Race; NASP’s Multicultural Affairs Committee and Diversity Communities; Association of Black Psychologists; Society of Indian Psychologists; National Latinx Psychological Association; Asian American Psychological Association; AMENA Psychological Association)
6. Intentional Marketing: Graduate programs must clearly articulate their commitment to belonging and justice in their marketing materials. This includes showcasing faculty work on these topics and actively promoting the program’s inclusive values and action-oriented work to attract prospective students.
7. Celebrate Achievements: Institutions and programs should create celebratory events to acknowledge student and faculty accomplishments, big and small. Recognizing milestones fosters a sense of value and belonging, motivating individuals to continue striving for success.
8. Open Access Resources: Advocacy for open access journals is essential to ensure that all school psychologists, regardless of funding, can access current research. Encouraging institutions to support this model can help bridge the gap in resources available to practitioners.
9. Training and Professional Development: All faculty and staff should receive training in cultural competence and inclusivity to better support minoritized students. This approach ensures that the entire academic community is equipped to create an inclusive environment that recognizes and values diversity.
10. Collaborative Initiatives: Institutions should focus on building coalitions with other organizations to share resources, exchange best practices, and develop unified initiatives aimed at supporting diversity.

Enhancing the field’s scholarship begins with active, meaningful efforts to redesign training environments to welcome and value individuals with racially and ethnically minoritized  identities. Below we share additional resources to continue engaging with this topic and taking action to create such professional spaces.

References and Additional Scholarly Resources

Aguilar, L. N., Mojica, K., Lim, H. S., Ruiz-Montoya, M. D., Palmer, J. T. S., Serratos, C. B., & Soto, J. M. (2024). Surviving and thriving in school psychology through community building and storytelling: A collaborative autoethnography. School Psychology International, 45(3), 280-318.

Graves, S. L., Newell, M., Harrell, F., & Wells, T. (2021). A mixed data analysis of graduate student mentoring for faculty careers in school psychology. Contemporary School Psychology, 25(1), 99-108.

Kim, E. K., Jackson, K., Han, K., & Cummings-Barkley, B. (2024). Recruitment and retention strategies to diversify school psychology graduate programs: A systematic review. School Psychology Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2391731

Malone, C. M. (2024). Moving School Psychology Beyond the Clouds of Injustice: A Blue Sky Discussion. School Psychology Review, 53(3), 324-340.

Parker, J. S., Haskins, N., Coleman-Chatman, T., Duru, C., Ramirez, D., Chae, N., … Nortey, A. (2023). Dismantling the imposter syndrome: A case study of early career women of color in school mental health fields. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 49(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2023.2281670

Proctor, S. L., & Romano, M. (2016). School psychology recruitment research characteristics and implications for increasing racial and ethnic diversity. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(3), 311-326.

Sabnis, S. V., & Proctor, S. L. (2022). Use of critical theory to develop a conceptual framework for critical school psychology. School Psychology Review, 51(6), 661-675.

Sabnis, S. V., Tanaka, M. L., Beard, K., & Proctor, S. L. (2023). Women of color and the hidden curriculum of school psychology doctoral programs. Journal of School Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.02.004

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. 

Tenure and Promotion: Updated Perspectives in the “Post”-Covid Era from Full Professors

As we approach summer, many early career scholars have begun preparing their tenure and promotion materials for their universities. This process can be daunting. The good news is many scholars have successfully navigated this process and want to see their early career colleagues be successful. We asked scholars who often write external letters of support for tenure and promotion packets and/or who review packets within their universities to provide advice on the tenure and promotion process for early career scholars.

Robin Codding (RC) is a professor at Northeastern University. Her work focuses on the intersection of intervention and implementation by developing and exploring the effectiveness of school-based academic interventions, the factors that contribute to student responsiveness of those interventions, and strategies to support intervention implementation.

Steve Kilgus (SK) is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His work focuses on social-emotional and behavioral assessment, particularly validating measures for screening and progress monitoring.

Shannon Suldo (SS) is a professor at the University of South Florida. Her work focuses on positive psychology, children’s subjective wellbeing, and the social-emotional functioning of youth participating in accelerated programs.

Many early career scholars feel daunted by the tenure and promotion process. What is the best piece of advice you would offer to an early career scholar at the assistant rank (perhaps advice that was shared with you)?

RC: The most helpful advice I was given is to integrate your teaching, service, and research efforts such that the themes that you are focusing on in each area intersect. For example, that meant that I (a) selected service activities such as manuscript reviews or served on the college research committee, whereby I could keep up on the literature in my area of expertise and identify resources; (b) taught courses in MTSS, academic interventions, and academic assessment, which was informed by my research and vice-versa. You can expand this concept by creating a matrix that includes the areas of expertise you are cultivating and then consult the matrix to see if future service, teaching, or research roles fit into that matrix before agreeing to commit to those endeavors. The idea being that all your efforts in the three areas are informing each other and are tied together.

SK: Most universities’ tenure guidelines are intentionally opaque. They were written to guide assistant professors while allowing the people evaluating them (e.g., department chairs, deans, provosts) a degree of flexibility in their decision-making. This leaves many assistant professors with large questions regarding what exactly is expected of them. “How many publications is enough? Should I go after grants? Do I need to land one?!” In my experience, it is very unlikely those in evaluative positions will give highly specific information. Thus, it can be helpful for assistant professors to establish some very clear goals for themselves. That is, how many peer-reviewed papers they will submit each year, the number of conference presentations they will deliver, the number and type of grants they will submit (along with a submission timeline across the pre-tenure period), and so forth. They can then bring these goals to leaders and ask, “Would a record that looks like this merit tenure at our university?” You might not get a straight answer, but what we’re looking for is, “Yes, a record like this is consistent with others that have been tenured here.”

SS: Keep in mind that your successful promotion is generally in the best interest of the colleagues in your institution who supported your hire, so lean into that potential network of colleagues for practical and emotional support throughout your tenure-earning years.  Tenure and promotion standards can vary substantially between institutions. Become very familiar with the evaluation criteria applicable to you, clarify your understanding with leaders in your unit, and consider prioritizing your professional activities to stay focused on success in those areas that seem to matter the most at your institution. Most universities offer multiple opportunities for feedback on progress toward tenure – for instance during the annual review process and perhaps a mid-tenure review.  Carefully consider all feedback received, ask leaders for elaboration as needed, and shape your subsequent academic goals and activities accordingly. Bottom line – you are not alone in your desire for a successful T & P decision – don’t be shy about actively seeking input and support from colleagues who have navigated this path before you!

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed how many of us work. As a tenure and promotion external letter writer or reviewer within your institution, do you continue to see COVID-19 effects on the tenure and promotion review process?

RC: I provide external letters for candidates for tenure and promotion, and I have not seen an impact on their portfolios. Fortunately, it seems many universities have extended the tenure and promotion deadlines accordingly.

SK: Absolutely. And the effects are not always that straightforward. COVID-19 effects can present as a quite understandable gap or lull in their productivity around 2021, perhaps due to illness or family care responsibilities (among numerous other obligations). COVID-19 could have also impacted an individual’s ability to collect pilot data, ultimately limiting their ability to submit a grant proposal supporting a large-scale project. There are numerous ways in which COVID-19 could have impacted a researcher’s productivity and trajectory, not all of which are clear. Thus, early career scholars must describe these impacts when going through the tenure and promotion process. Many universities have given early career scholars the option to write COVID-19 Impact Statements, which can be included in their dossiers. I have seen some folks express hesitancy to do so, fearing the vulnerability or worrying that their disclosures could be held against them. If someone feels as though their record speaks for itself and they have met the standard laid out for them, then perhaps such a statement is not necessary. However, if there is any question, preparing a COVID-19 Impact Statement might not be a bad idea.

SS: Yes, particularly as research agendas that required access to schools were halted in 2020 – 2022 and perhaps still limited as the workforce recovers.  However, not all senior faculty who are reviewing your materials may have been engaged in data collection at that time for a variety of reasons (e.g., in administrative positions, consultative research roles,), and can’t be expected to anticipate the professional and personal challenges you faced. Therefore, I think it’s wise to (briefly) educate the reviewer about the way(s) in which your plans were disrupted, delayed, modified, etc. during the pandemic, share how you pivoted with your research activities, and emphasize your accomplishments, studies in progress, and concrete plan(s) for the future. Consider crafting a story of reliance to provide context for gaps in activities and products.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on many early career scholars’ research given the applied nature of our work. What advice would you give to early career scholars about contextualizing their scholarship generally or research productivity specifically within COVID-19?

RC: Consider talking about the projects that were delayed but planned and how you will execute those projects in the future. Transparency about these challenges and how you pivoted is useful to illustrate your continued scholarship efforts. It might also be helpful to describe any new research methods or areas that you engaged in that might deviate from your research agenda but enabled you to continue to be research active. Perhaps you engaged in professional development to conduct meta-analyses and accordingly now are working in this area. Maybe you learned about secondary data analysis and have a future project planned that will use this technique. Finally, you might consider highlighting the work that you have ongoing (data you are collecting), grants recently secured, or manuscripts in preparation and under review as evidence of your future scholarship potential.

SK: I would suggest that early career scholars be as clear as possible about how COVID-19 impacted their work while staying within their comfort zone. Disclosing this information will be straightforward for some. For example, I found most of our projects shut down because, initially, students and teachers were not in schools, and our projects could not transfer to a virtual format. Later, when students and teachers were back, researchers were still not allowed in schools. This pushed back our timelines even further. Describing a situation like this is typically straightforward, as the reality of schooling during that time is familiar to many. However, for other scholars, COVID-19's effects could be more personal. Some early career scholars found themselves becoming their children’s primary instructors. Others were taking care of loved ones impacted by illness. It can be challenging to disclose personal information, and in many circumstances, it might not be appropriate. And really, a large level of detail is unnecessary. Expressing that COVID-19 impacted one’s personal life in a way that negatively affected their productivity or performance should be sufficient for many tenure committees.

As an external letter writer or internal reviewer of tenure and promotion packets, what have you seen candidates do well when discussing their scholarship?

RC: Candidates do an excellent job of describing their research agenda by delineating specific research threads, highlighting the corresponding peer-referred research that has been conducted in that area, and summarizing their findings in such a way that the contributions to the field are clear. Furthermore, candidates very clearly illustrate how this work will be extended in the future and illustrate the big ideas that their scholarship is designed to pursue. As a letter writer this makes it easy to illustrate impact on the field and forecast future grant opportunities for the work.

SK: I find that strong discussions of scholarship possess a few key characteristics. First, it helps to start with a broader overview of one’s coherent research lines. These lines will be often related in some way, but it helps to describe them in a way that makes them distinguishable. It would help if these descriptions were written in a general way so that researchers from several fields could understand them. Although your letter writers will come from school psychology or closely related fields, most individuals evaluating your tenure materials within your institution could have a limited background in psychology or education. General descriptions support relevance to a wider audience. Second, it helps to operationalize a description of one’s research lines through a broad overview of the studies conducted within each line. It can help to highlight a few important and representative studies, including those published in prominent journals. Third, it helps to describe the impact of one’s research. In terms of impact on the field, does your research help address a literature gap, settle a scholarly dispute, or change the field’s thinking about a topic? Regarding impact on society, will your work yield an intervention that could improve outcomes for students with disabilities? Will it help to break down barriers and promote equitable access to mental health supports? Answers to questions like these could help a scholar describe the effect their work will have beyond the university walls. Fourth, it helps for a scholar to describe their post-tenure plans. Tenure committees (and external evaluators) want to ensure tenure candidates know what they will do post-tenure, speaking to their preparedness to continue within their role once their position has been secured.

SS: Tell a story about your research agenda that begins with a layman’s description of the topic area and why it’s important to education, then link together your research activities to illustrate a sequenced series of activities that contribute to school psychology research and practice, and pave the way for further scholarship—i.e., the next steps in your agenda. Consider staying high level when introducing your area of focus, zooming in to summarize findings from your relevant studies, and then zooming back out to make clear implications of your findings for research and practice.

What have you seen candidates struggle with when discussing the impact of their scholarship?

RC: In my experience candidates have done well describing the impact of their scholarship; however, their curriculum vitae (CV) is not always organized well and what constitutes scholarship has not always been delineated accurately across publication types. Accordingly, I have corrected the allocation of publications by type in my own letter writing. With respect to the CV, it is difficult to discern productivity when the CV is not well organized. It’s worth taking the time to review and edit the structure and organization of your CV so that it is easy to read and interpret.

SK: I have seen struggles in two directions, with some tenure candidates over-promoting the importance of their work and others under-promoting. But really, I have seen far more of the latter, where tenure candidates are reluctant to promote themselves and their work’s real or potential impact on the profession or society. This is an understandable challenge. As scientists, we are trained to discuss the importance of our work (not ourselves) while emphasizing the iterative nature of any single study or finding. But this is a different exercise – when preparing our tenure documents, we’re not reporting a study, we’re speaking to the totality of our work to date and to come. We also want to impress the folks with decision-making power enough to keep our jobs. Thus, it’s important to be forthcoming in describing the importance of our work while, of course, being mindful not to overstate what one has done.

SS: School psychology is an applied discipline; candidates can lose the reader if discussions of impact of scholarship overemphasize incremental advances to the literature without consideration of the implications of one’s scholarship to practice and training.

What other advice would you give to early career scholars regarding the tenure and promotion process?

RC: Review the requirements according to your university and attend workshops or presentations on the preferred organization of your tenure and promotion packets. Scholarship is important to focus on throughout the pre-tenure years (consider the rule of 2’s: 2 projects in preparation, 2 in process, 2 under review).  It is helpful to build a research agenda that will take you from year 1 to year 6 as soon as you begin your first semester in academia and review that plan annually. Service should start slow and gradually build with membership on committees first followed by leadership later; consider sticking with the same committees rather than adding a lot of different committees. Teaching takes time (for me it’s been about 3 semesters of the same class before I really like how it turns out) so be patient and responsive as you build your skills in this area. Try to work with your program and department to teach the same courses from year to year. Evaluate your own progress in research, teaching, and service each year and make adjustments as needed. And remember – you got this!

SK: Throughout the pre-tenure process, try to get lots of feedback from scholars within your university and across the profession. See if you’re on the right track, discuss common hurdles in the pre-tenure or evaluation process, and see what you can do to improve. Expect the process to be opaque – everyone seems hesitant to give you a straight and simple answer. However, someone once told me that if you set high standards for your work in terms of quantity, quality, and impact, and if you then meet those standards, it will likely be enough to earn tenure. Hopefully, you can surround yourself with others along the way who help you meet those standards, too.

SS: To the extent possible, try to stay focused on completing studies that fall under the umbrella of 1 to 2 lines of research, rather than allowing yourself to drift into many different directions that are seemingly unrelated. That said, good things can come from being open to new projects that are at least near your wheelhouse and have a high likelihood of access to data collection, funding, and/or collaboration with scholars who have complementary expertise.  Regarding the latter, good collaborators are gems to be treasured — work hard to maintain those relationships and be intentional about making sure they are mutually beneficial to all involved.

Thank you to Drs. Codding, Kilgus, and Suldo for their insightful advice on preparing for the tenure and promotion process! What advice do you have or have you received? Share below!

Tips for Serving as an Action Editor for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University, and Courtenay Barrett, Michigan State University

As an early career scholar, you may be interested in serving as an action editor for peer-reviewed journals. Action editors (AEs), also known as handling or managing editors, are scholars who are responsible for coordinating the peer review process, including selecting reviewers, synthesizing reviewer feedback, and crafting decision letters. Some early career scholars perform this responsibility on a regular basis as associate editors or as editorial fellows, whereas others might engage in this activity on a temporary basis as special issue guest editors. In this blog, we offer tips for early career scholars who are interested in becoming AEs. This blog post may also shed light on the peer review process for those who are new to publishing in academic journals. It can also be used in conjunction with other articles and guidance documents on peer review.

Initial Review of the Manuscript

Generally, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of a journal will determine whether a submitted manuscript should be sent out for the peer review process, also known as full review. In some instances, manuscripts may be incomplete, misaligned with the journal’s aims and scope, and/or not meet journal quality standards; when this occurs, the EIC may deem full review to be unnecessary and thus issue a “desk rejection” (i.e., a decision of reject without peer review). Alternatively, if the EIC decides that full review is warranted, they will assign the manuscript to an AE with expertise aligned with the manuscript. If you are guest editing a special issue, the EIC may forward all manuscripts received for your issue so that you can decide which ones should be sent for full review. Such procedures should be discussed with the EIC before you begin sending manuscripts out for review.

As an AE receiving a new manuscript, you should first consider whether you have any concerns or conflicts of interest that need to be discussed with the EIC. Such concerns or conflicts may include: (a) close personal relations with any member of the author team; (b) prior interaction with the manuscript (e.g., you previously provided feedback to the authors on the manuscript); (c) financial conflicts (e.g., you have financial ties to a product described in the paper); or (d) theoretical conflicts (e.g., you have concerns about coordinating a fair review process due to personal or professional biases or beliefs). If the EIC deems the concern to be a potential conflict of interest, they will reassign the manuscript to a different AE.

Before selecting reviewers, you should read the manuscript in its entirety to gain your own independent perspective on it. As you read, it can be helpful to note specific areas of expertise that will be needed to evaluate the manuscript as well as your own preliminary thoughts about the paper’s strengths and weaknesses.

Selecting Reviewers

After your preliminary review of the manuscript, you will need to select reviewers who can competently evaluate it. It is likely that multiple areas or types of expertise will be necessary, and you may wish to select reviewers with complementary skillsets. For example, you might invite one reviewer with content expertise (e.g., reading skill acquisition, social-emotional learning, trauma-informed care) and another with methodological expertise (e.g., qualitative methods, single case research design, meta-analyses). You might also invite reviewers whose expertise complements your own, as you may feel more or less comfortable evaluating certain aspects of the manuscript.

Most often, AEs first look to members of the editorial board, who have committed to reviewing a certain number of manuscripts per year; are familiar with the aims, scope, and procedures of the journal; and were appointed for their expertise in relevant areas. Reaching out to board members first may increase your likelihood of securing reviewer commitments in a timely manner. However, you might also consider inviting reviewers outside of the board (i.e., ad hoc reviewers), particularly if the manuscript calls for specialized expertise that is not currently represented on the board. Doing so can also help the journal connect with new ad hoc reviewers or potential new board members. Additionally, you may wish to consult methodological advisors, who are appointed for their expertise in specific methodologies and/or analytical approaches. You can discuss with the EIC when it is appropriate or advisable to engage methodological advisors.

Many AEs aim to secure commitments from three reviewers to ensure a well-rounded and comprehensive review process, although sometimes more or fewer reviewers will be asked to provide input. After you invite three reviewers, be sure to monitor if and when they accept your invitations and submit their comments so as not to delay the review process. If the reviewers do not respond, follow up as needed. Notably, authors can often see the status of their manuscript in the journal’s online portal and may be eagerly awaiting a decision.

Crafting the Decision Letter

When the required reviews have been returned, you might first re-read the manuscript without looking at the reviewer feedback, which will allow you to gain an independent perspective on the paper before synthesizing comments across reviewers. Subsequently, you should review the manuscript again with the reviewers’ feedback in hand to identify strengths and potential areas for improvement.

When crafting decision letters, it is often helpful to have examples of good letters. Consider requesting samples from the EIC, as the journal likely has template language for standard procedures, such as instructions for resubmission. You can also look at decision letters you have received for your own work or request samples from a mentor. Using multiple examples, you can then construct templates that reflect your own style while also incorporating the journal’s requirements and procedures. For instance, you can craft templates for various types of decisions (e.g., minor revision, major revision, rejection). These templates should be tailored for individual manuscripts but may also save you time and ensure that all necessary details and instructions are included.

In crafting decision letters, be direct about the editorial decision you are recommending and what it means. For example, if a decision of major revision is indicated, clearly state that publication of the revised manuscript cannot be guaranteed and is contingent on the author’s satisfactory response to reviewer and editor comments either in a reviewer response letter or the manuscript itself. Although it can be disheartening and uncomfortable to reject an author’s work, especially given that your identity will likely be known to the authors, decisions of major or minor revision should only be rendered when you believe there is a strong possibility of the manuscript ultimately meeting publication standards. In other words, it is important not to encourage a resubmission if there is little chance for eventual publication so that the authors can submit their work elsewhere.

Decision letters should provide constructive and thorough, yet concise feedback. Typically, there is no need to recapitulate all of the reviewers’ comments; rather, you can summarize key points for revision. Even for manuscripts that are rejected, an important goal of the peer review process is to provide constructive, timely feedback to authors to improve their work. You should also bear in mind that authors typically have invested substantial time and effort in developing their submissions. Thus, your decision letters should highlight strengths of the manuscript (often early in the letter) in addition to areas for improvement.

Ensuring a Rigorous and Inclusive Review

Historically, publishing in peer-reviewed journals has been a form of gatekeeping and exclusion for scholars who identify as members of marginalized groups and/or who apply traditionally marginalized research paradigms in their work. Thus, editorial board members and leaders (including AEs) hold power in shaping research and publication norms. As an AE, you should educate yourself about how oppression has been enacted in academic scholarship and publishing as well as how researchers can promote equity through their work.

AEs and all members of the editorial board must work toward promoting rigorous, equitable, and inclusive review processes. In particular, it is your responsibility as AE to coordinate peer review processes that lead to the publication of sound, informative, and innovative work that moves the field forward. Rigorous empirical inquiry can assume a variety of forms, many of which have been historically excluded in school psychology research. It is important to be mindful of exclusionary norms in the field and ways to uproot them in the peer review process.

It is also important to be mindful of harmful narratives or approaches embedded in seemingly “neutral” or “normative” work. For instance, Zuberi and Bonilla-Silva (2008) cautioned against the acceptance of “white logic” and “white methods.” White logic and methods refer to research practices (e.g., scientific reasoning and analytical approaches) that center whiteness as normative and marginalize People of Color (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008). Holland (2008) noted that an example of white logic and methods is the framing of race, rather than racism, as a causal variable in predicting students’ academic, social, and behavioral outcomes. Additionally, it is often just as important to consider what is not discussed in a manuscript as much as what is. For example, it would be problematic for an article to discuss the overrepresentation of Black youth in some special education eligibility categories without also discussing institutionalized racism.

Sometimes solutions and/or concerns may lie within the reviewers’ feedback to the authors. It is your job as AE to determine which reviewer comments need to be addressed and which do not, and to subsequently communicate these expectations to authors. For example, if a reviewer notes that the manuscript does not adequately account for issues of privilege and marginalization, you might explicitly highlight this comment in your decision letter and ask the authors to clearly address it in their next submission. Alternatively, if a reviewer recommends using a white comparison group to contextualize the lived experiences of Youth of Color, you might explicitly note in your letter that you disagree with this approach because it would reinforce the centering of whiteness. This may create some discomfort for both you and the reviewer who offered the feedback, as reviewers often see the decision letters that are sent to the authors. However, the peer review process is a critical venue for scholarly dialogue and thus also a space for advocacy. Enacting justice-oriented advocacy in the review process ultimately benefits all those involved including our larger scholarly communities.

Resources for Further Reading

Below are some resources that can assist you in effectively coordinating rigorous and inclusive peer review processes. The references for this blog post are also helpful resources.

• Arora, P. G., Sullivan, A. L., & Song, S. Y. (2023). On the imperative for reflexivity in school psychology scholarship. School Psychology Review, 52(5), 665-677. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2105050
• Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905
• Noltemeyer, A., Newman, D. S., Grapin, S., & Fallon, L. (2023). Promoting Equity and Social Justice in Manuscript Writing: Tips for Authors. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 33(2), 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2022.2122980
• Sabnis, S. V., & Proctor, S. L. (2022). Use of critical theory to develop a conceptual framework for critical school psychology. School Psychology Review, 51(6), 661-675. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1949248
• Sabnis, S. V., & Newman, D. S. (2023). Epistemological diversity, constructionism, and social justice research in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 52(5), 625-638. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2022.2094283

What to Know About Inclusive Syllabi

By: Geremy Grant Ph.D. NCSP

Scholars who train future school psychologists have a responsibility to integrate diversity and social justice (DSJ) throughout their program curricula, using affirming and strengths-based approaches (see Standard 1.5 for the Graduate Preparation of School Psychologists). Implicit within this standard are course syllabi, which should evidence a commitment to equitable teaching practices. Equitable teaching practices are particularly important for early career scholars who prioritize training school psychologists to be critical consumers of research in addition to researchers themselves. DSJ-centered syllabi may have particular benefits for underrepresented students (Taylor et al., 2019), which aids our field in its efforts to retain and support minoritized trainees. To successfully apply diversity and social justice principles to one’s work, early career scholars must first immerse themselves in the literature, and critique available research to glean evidence-based practices that can inform their teaching. Moreover, equitable teaching practices can serve to inform how early career scholars’ approach other areas of their work including scholarship (e.g., centering DSJ within conceptualization, development, implementation, analyses, and interpretation of research).

To further our understanding of the importance of inclusive syllabi in course construction, I had the honor and privilege of interviewing Dr. Charles Barrett (CB) and Dr. Leandra Parris (LP), two well-known scholars who instruct graduate-level school psychology courses. 

How would you describe an “inclusive syllabus”? What characteristics distinguish it from a traditional syllabus?

CB: ​​Many elements come to mind that distinguish an inclusive syllabus from a typical syllabus.  First and foremost, an inclusive syllabus includes readings and resources from a variety of authors who represent varied professional backgrounds and disciplines, as well as races, ethnicities, genders, and a host of other identities. For example, books, articles, podcasts, and other resources are not only written by or feature school psychology faculty or researchers, but also those who are practitioners, and individuals from other disciplines (e.g., economics, sociology, history, and education) when their perspective is relevant to the course’s subject matter.  Next, the authors of assigned readings are not only those from the typical [school psychology] cannon, which are often cisgender White men and women, but racially and ethnically minoritized (REM) individuals, and those representing marginalized identities (e.g., LGBTQ+ individuals) are also included. Notably, who is reflected in a syllabus is one way to measure the extent to which diverse perspectives are valued in the course. Additionally, an inclusive syllabus intentionally includes assignments (e.g., projects) that reflect a variety of modalities (e.g., presentations, papers, small group/partner activities, individual tasks) that allow students an array of access points to demonstrate their strengths as they show their understanding of course content.  In sum, an inclusive syllabus is mindful of what students should know, and how they should demonstrate such knowledge, rather than only valuing what the instructor is comfortable offering.

LP: There is a difference in intention. The traditional syllabus is about telling students what they will be doing and what individual students need to do to get a good grade. The approach is “you will do this thing and here is how you will be evaluated and if you do not perform well, here are the consequences.” The instructor is seen as an evaluative expert rather than someone sharing a learning space with students. An inclusive syllabus is more about sharing what we will be doing together, how we will accomplish shared learning, and how we will ensure that we create a safe, supportive environment as a group. The approach is, “we will be accomplishing these things together, here’s how we’re going to do that in a safe learning environment, and here’s how to communicate your needs." There is still the evaluation piece, etc., but the presentation is student-centered, accessible, and flexible.

How do you think an inclusive syllabus relates to social justice pedagogy?

CB: An inclusive syllabus is central to social justice pedagogy because it is one way that graduate instructors model that social justice is more than the latest hot topic, buzzword, or fad in psychology or education.  More importantly, social justice, and social justice pedagogy is how we think about the discipline of school psychology, especially the students and families we serve, and the purposeful actions we engage in to promote equitable outcomes. An inclusive syllabus, by incorporating the perspectives of individuals who represent communities whose voices have been historically muted, overlooked, or ignored, is one way to center these necessary ideas.  An inclusive syllabus, by including content from other disciplines that might be more knowledgeable than school psychology currently is about systemic issues such as racism, access to quality healthcare, access to high-quality preschool, living in safe and supportive communities, the history of American policing and subsequent police violence in REM communities, and low-income and economic marginalization (LIEM; American Psychological Association, 2019), models the importance of students learning about the structural challenges that fundamentally affect children’s opportunity, access, and subsequent academic and behavioral outcomes.

LP: Inclusive syllabi clearly outline procedures and processes for engagement in the course (i.e., procedural justice), how resources and your time as an instructor will be equitably shared and accessible (i.e., distributive justice), and expectations for interacting and working together within the learning space (i.e., relational justice). Those expectations should include cultural humility, open and curious approaches to learning, grace when giving and receiving feedback, the expectation that we’ll disrupt bias when we hear/see it, etc. There should also be space for critical reflection, making it transparent how you, as the instructor, will elicit and respond to feedback and student needs as the course progresses. Finally, I think it helps to have an acknowledgment of the systems that impact the course topics and student experiences (e.g., including the university’s statement on the history of enslavement, land acknowledgment, acknowledgment of violent socio-political climates, etc.) that is coupled with resources, both academic and mental-health focused.

What strategies do you find most useful when revising your syllabi to be more inclusive?

CB: Because effective instruction is about teaching students more than content or information, I regularly ask myself, “What does this group of students need to know this semester?”  Based on the makeup of the class, including their personal and professional experiences, I include readings and other resources that might be more salient to support the course’s curriculum or extend students’ learning.  Personally, I share with my students that the syllabus is an iterative document that will be revised, as necessary, throughout the semester.  As such, remaining attuned to current events is one of the best ways to add readings and other resources (e.g., podcasts) as they are released, almost in real time.  For example, while teaching an advanced assessment course for rising 2^nd year graduate students during the summer of 2020, although police violence wasn’t particularly relevant to the course objectives, it would have been irresponsible to ignore the social climate that was unfolding in America.  As such, I shared an article by a pediatrician, Rhea Boyd, whose research was focused on police violence, equity, and child health outcomes.  It wasn’t difficult to highlight the connections between the article and the implications for the course and school psychologists (e.g., the importance of school psychologists thinking about what is happening around children rather than only focusing on what is happening within them), and it was also a way to acknowledge what could have been on the minds of some of my students, particularly those from REM backgrounds.

LP: There is a group of us who will run our syllabi by each other, ask for feedback, etc. I think finding that support network of people who truly understand what inclusion and social justice are, and getting their perspective on your syllabus, is crucial. I review materials each semester not only to update them, but to make sure that I don’t miss a voice. I also review my assignments to ensure accountability for addressing social justice and inclusion are always present and that the assignment is flexible and adaptive. I also try to find things that are not just readings, including podcasts, videos, TedTalks, etc., to make it not only more accessible but more meaningful.

Are there specific resources you’ve found helpful in your creation of inclusive syllabi?

CB: One reading that I often assign is Just Walk on By: A Black Man Ponders his Ability to Alter Public Space.  Published in Ms. magazine in 1987, and written by Brent Staples, a sociologist, the piece is an excellent example of how racism, privilege, implicit bias, and intersectionality impact the daily decisions of a Black male living in an urban center.  As a magazine article, it cuts to the core of these issues and is more emotive than what is typically published in peer-reviewed journals.  Other excellent readings and resources that I’ve assigned include Enrique’s Journey, which is a book that was written by Sonia Nazario, a Hispanic, female journalist, and How to Be an Antiracist, a book that was written by history professor, Ibram X. Kendi.  Last, in my assessment courses, I have students listen to several episodes of a podcast about Larry P., which not only features the real “Larry P.,” but also several school psychologist practitioners in California.

LP: APA Bias-Free Language, National Communication Association Guidelines, and APA’s Inclusive Syllabi Resources.

Any additional advice for early career educators on writing inclusive syllabi?

CB: Because school psychology doesn’t have the market cornered on what students need to know to be effective school psychologists who are prepared to infuse a social justice paradigm into their research and practice, actively seek the perspectives of people beyond school psychology who are researching and writing about issues that affect children in schools.  In many ways, creating an inclusive syllabus is a multi-method (e.g., including different types of activities, projects, and assignments) and multi-source (e.g., including diverse (broadly defined) authors) process that leads to better outcomes, not only for school-age children but also graduate students.

LP: Remember that the syllabus is your handbook and contract so to speak. If it does not include accountability for professional dispositions and inclusive behaviors, then you will find it hard to enforce expectations around inclusion, belonging, and diversity. Model what you want to see through your syllabus, which includes how you will take responsibility when you make a mistake and what students can expect of you in terms of diversity, inclusion, and belonging.

Concluding Thoughts

There are several key takeaways from the rich information provided by the esteemed interviewees. I summarize a few of these points below:

• An inclusive syllabus acts as an extension of the instructor, demonstrating their commitment to cultural diversity and social justice. As both are foundational to our practice as school psychologists, it is paramount that educators model for students a dedication to these domains.
• Because inclusive syllabi are an extension of the instructor, their creation requires graduate educators to be critically reflexive regarding perceptions of their course content and students, in addition to broader issues related to the field and society.
• Inclusive syllabi acknowledge that course content does not exist in a vacuum, and that university, regional, and broader societal events have implications for the course and the practice of school psychology.
• Inclusive syllabi offer educators an opportunity to center quality research that models good theory and methodology and advances cultural diversity and social justice issues.
  • Educators should elevate the work and efforts of scholars and practitioners who belong to historically marginalized groups that are often silenced within general society. Intentional inclusion of their voices allows for more diverse perspectives and critical issues to be addressed in the classroom.
  • To ensure voices are being elevated appropriately, and that syllabus language is bias-free, educators should strongly consider engaging in a syllabi peer-review process.
  • To promote student learning, and application of research provided in courses, inclusive syllabi apply diverse evaluative procedures, beyond traditional quizzes/tests. Alternative evaluation procedures could include class presentations, group assignments, creation of practical resources for school staff/parents, conducting professional development workshops, submitting research proposals to state/national conferences, and providing research critiques. Below are three examples of activities I have included in my courses to evaluate students’ consumption and/or application of research:
    • Fact Sheets/Brochures (Social Psychology Course): Students create a fact sheet that applies learned social psychology concepts to a real-world educational problem faced by school psychologists, caregivers, teachers, etc. They must use peer-reviewed literature to explain the problem, and to justify any recommendations to remediate the issue. When completed, the fact sheet often serves as a resource for practicum/internship.
    • Cultural Diversity/Social Justice Presentation (Cultural Diversity Course): Students conduct a 30-minute presentation on a cultural diversity/social justice issue. They provide practice recommendations, and discuss how school psychologists can advocate for change, basing their discussion on peer-reviewed sources.
    • Test Evaluation Presentation & Paper (Psychological Measurements Course): Students practice being consumers of research by reviewing the theoretical and empirical merit of a norm-referenced test that a school psychologist might use in practice. They present their impressions to their peers and generate a written test review.
• Inclusive syllabi use clear and specific language to convey that the classroom is an identity-safe space that encourages collaboration and co-creation in the learning process.
• Early career scholars may consider how their scholarship informs their teaching and how their teaching informs their scholarship. Thus, they could consider how being thoughtful in developing and incorporating inclusive syllabi may inform their scholarship and vice versa, particularly specific to centering DSJ in their work.

Additional Resources:

Taylor et al.’s (2019) Social Justice Syllabus Design Tool(SJSDT), was born out of the need for greater support for women and students of color in STEM. The SJSDT is a checklist consisting of 19 straightforward yes/no questions that can be used to guide syllabus development.

Fuentes et al. (2020) offer numerous practical suggestions on how we can promote equity, diversity, and inclusion when generating syllabi. 

APA’s (2023) comprehensive Inclusive Language Guide can be used to check the language used in your syllabi, regardless of the course content.

The Society for the Teaching of Psychology offers Project Syllabus, a collection of peer-reviewed syllabi across approximately 38 different categories. All syllabi post-2017 are assessed based on their 1) teaching methods, 2) learner support and resources, 3) assessment and evaluation procedures, 4) course design, goals, and learning objectives, and 5) syllabus organization and design. Overall, having access to multiple examples may facilitate understanding of what differentiates an “adequate” syllabus from one that is “well-constructed”.

Brodsky & Green (2020): Ways to Make Classrooms More Inclusive, Equitable, and Anti-Racist

Thanks to Drs. Lindsay Fallon and Kathrin Maki for their review and input on earlier drafts of this blog post.

Have you started to revise your syllabi to make them more inclusive? What resources do you find to be the most useful? Comment below!

Mentoring Students to Present at NASP

Crystal Taylor, Appalachian State University

Lindsay Fallon, University of Massachusetts Boston

Presenting at conferences is a rite of passage for many graduate students. For school psychology graduate students, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Annual Convention provides a unique opportunity to showcase their work and engage with their peers, school psychologists, and academics. Below, we reflect on our experiences presenting at NASP as graduate students, acknowledging the support we received from our mentors. These experiences not only shaped our views on the process but also fueled our enthusiasm for supporting graduate students in their participation in conference presentations. 

Benefits Presenting at NASP

Beyond enhancing one’s curriculum vitae, presenting at NASP offers graduate students a platform to discuss their research with a diverse audience of experts (e.g., more senior scholars, practitioners, policymakers, etc.). This provides the opportunity to receive constructive feedback, suggestions for improvement, and alternative perspectives. Such input is instrumental in refining research methodologies, strengthening arguments, and improving the overall quality of one’s work. Further, conveying ideas concisely helps graduate students develop confidence in public speaking, a skill that is beneficial not only for academics but also for practicing school psychologists. 

For students engaging in thesis or dissertation work, presenting at NASP can take their work beyond the defense stage. Presenting may result in invitations to share their work at other conferences (or to other audiences) as well as open the door for subsequent publication and collaboration opportunities. Findings from dissertations and theses might be shared at sessions or forums specifically targeted toward graduate student research or during the general convening.

Identifying the Appropriate Fit

The first step to mentoring graduate students and preparing them to present at NASP is to understand the current skills of the students and then identify goals for moving them toward independence. To do this, we suggest a developmental approach to mentoring. This worked well for us as graduate students and the model we follow now as mentors and supervisors of graduate research. An example of this is to first involve a graduate student in a collaborative project and support their efforts to present a piece of the research with you or other more experienced members of your research team initially. As the student gains comfort and familiarity with the process, provide the opportunity for students to take on more of the development and presentation of materials, ultimately striving for first-author and/or independent proposals by the end of their training program (we discuss this further below).

Another example is to start graduate students with the opportunity to present a poster. A poster provides opportunities to concisely represent work without focusing on too many technical aspects of the project. Audience members may ask questions to probe a more technical description, but the overall expectation is that presenters describe the study briefly and then answer basic questions. Overall, speaking to a smaller audience introduces the student to the process with less pressure. Further, poster presentations offer the student the opportunity to share a project they may have completed outside of your lab (e.g., for a course). As an instructor, you might build these opportunities into your course instruction and encourage graduate students to pursue submitting and sharing their work accordingly.

As students progress through the program, they can transition to presenting a paper with increasing independence in subsequent years. Paper presentations are often given to larger audiences with the expectation that the presenter goes into detail about the study method and results while also diving deep into study limitations and implications for practice. In the beginning stages, students might be expected to create or present one section and later be expected to create or present multiple sections or the whole presentation. 

Creating the Presentation 

After identifying the right fit for students, collaborate closely with students to create the presentation. Start early. Especially if this is the first professional presentation because they might be nervous. Starting early allows students time to think through ideas, send multiple drafts, and feel more prepared at the onset. 

Having students create an outline with your help will get the process started. Involving them in building an outline will also allow them to identify areas that they are most comfortable working on or presenting. For example, in the beginning, I (Crystal) found the Results and Discussion sections the most difficult so I would ask to help with the Introduction and Method sections. Being a part of the data collection process made the method more tangible and easier to describe. As I became more comfortable with statistics and understanding the results of the studies, I started volunteering for other sections.

If a student has requested to help with a more challenging section such as a Results section, mentors might scaffold the support provided to their students. Outside of graduate school, presentations are often completed as a team, so modeling how you are part of their team and how you can support them in creating the presentation,  provides a more realistic example of the preparation process. 

Feedback on Revisions

You will probably be asked to provide feedback on one (or many) drafts. When providing feedback, base revision on constructive feedback. To reduce the workload, ask advanced graduate students to participate in the feedback cycle. This provides opportunities for advanced students to experience a different side of the process and allows them to learn how to refine content and strengthen arguments. Reviewing, editing, and providing constructive feedback is an integral part of the work we do so it becomes a great learning experience.

When it comes time to provide feedback, I (Crystal) begin by acknowledging the student’s strengths and then address any areas of improvement. I start with strengths to build the student's confidence and hopefully increase their responsiveness to my feedback. Feedback is a natural part of the graduate experience, but I try to use it as a teaching moment, not criticism. After providing written feedback, I meet with students to address my comments, answer questions, and provide specific suggestions for improvements in future drafts. I have found this helps students process the feedback and improves the quality of their work in the future. 

The Importance of Building Confidence 

When preparing graduate students to present their poster or paper presentations at NASP, build in time to support the student by having them practice with you (and potentially other members of your research team). This might include the opportunity to run through their portion of a presentation or share their brief description of a poster in a trusted space, such as a lab meeting. The benefit of these practice opportunities so the student feels comfortable sharing with an audience. I (Lindsay) set the stage for a mock presentation by reminding the students that they are an expert in this area. I encourage them by telling them they are ready to share their work with others and field questions. I listen actively and share any feedback I have (e.g., pace of delivery, clarity of descriptions). Feedback is offered in a supportive manner to convey my interest in their development. By building their confidence in a trusted space, the student might feel more prepared to present to a larger audience and field questions with greater ease when the time comes.

You might also support students to anticipate questions that could arise from audience members when they present. Practicing answering questions in mock presentations will help the graduate student feel more relaxed and confident on presentation day. I (Lindsay) also let students know that it’s OK if they do not have the answer to a question. Often I am with the student presenting, but if I’m not, I let them know that they can always say, “I appreciate that question and am unsure at the moment. May I contact you later when I find out the answer?”  This often helps the student relax and enjoy the prospect of presenting, too.

Supporting networking at NASP 

When NASP arrives, supporting students to network is another important mentoring opportunity. One way I (Lindsay) enjoy doing this is to attend sessions or walk-around poster sessions with students, taking the opportunity to make introductions when I’m able to do so. Several events and sessions are scheduled to encourage graduate students to network with others and discuss issues of relevance to them. Compiling and sharing a list with students in advance of the conference can allow them to schedule times to attend those sessions. Further, the Early Career Forum has a networking session for early career scholars. At NASP 2024, this will take place on the evening of February 15 from 4-6 PM CST at the Sidecar Patio & Oyster Bar. Registration can be found here.

Concluding Thoughts 

Preparing for and attending NASP can offer many opportunities to mentor student research. Check-in with colleagues within and outside of your institution and ask about their approach to this process. Consider ways of building infrastructure within your lab or research team to have students support one another to develop, engage in mock presentations, and connect at NASP to attend each others’ sessions. Supporting students to take advantage of the many rich opportunities for presenting research and networking with other scholars will help their professional growth and development in an impactful way. It can also be a time to connect and spend time together socially which may allow for stronger and more meaningful collaborations for years to come.

The Early Career Forum (ECF): Looking Back and Moving Forward

Lindsay Fallon, University of Massachusetts Boston

This year marks the 10th year that the Society for the Study of School Psychology (SSSP) has sponsored the Early Career Forum (ECF), a service committee dedicated to providing community, professional development, and mentorship opportunities to early career scholars in school psychology. To commemorate this milestone, I take a brief look back at the ECF’s purpose, activities, and accomplishments and share how we are moving forward. I use a Q&A structure for this retrospective and prospective summary.

What is the ECF?

To answer this question, it is important to share how the ECF started. Drs. Amanda Sullivan (University of Minnesota) and Bryn Harris (University of Colorado Denver) met at the SSSP School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC) preceding the NASP Convention in February 2011. (There is an excellent blog post about the start of the ECF, so I offer a brief summary.) As Drs. Sullivan and Harris began their work as school psychology researchers, they found, “many aspects of an academic career seem shrouded in mystery and lore.” This drove their desire to support individuals who had not received strong mentorship toward embarking on a research career due to any number of reasons (e.g., the climate or foci of their doctoral training program, relationship with their primary mentor, discrimination experienced during training). Drs. Sullivan and Harris subsequently set out to support other early career scholars’ entry and persistence in this field, co-presenting on topics related to early career guidance at NASP and APA in 2012 and 2013, as well as submitting related articles to the School Psychologist and Communiqué. 

In 2013, Drs. Sullivan and Harris connected with Dr. Rob Volpe (Northeastern University) who shared their commitment to supporting early career scholars. Dr. Volpe suggested they expand their work through a blog and, with SSSP’s generous sponsorship, the ECF was officially launched. Through this formalization, ECF developed a standing committee of about six to eight early- and mid-career researchers who continue to meet monthly and are committed to supporting the professional development of early career scholars in school psychology. Drs. Sullivan and Harris led the ECF until Spring 2023 when, this fall, Dr. Katie Maki (University of Florida) and I stepped in as Co-chairs. As we embark on what feels like a new era for the ECF, we hope most everything will remain the same. That is, we endeavor to continue the strong, foundational, impactful work of the founding members of the Forum and uphold the mission of the ECF.

What is the mission of the ECF?

From the start, the ECF has had a clear mission.The ECF disseminates information to early career scholars concerning matters relating to their success in the academy generally, and as researchers specifically. The ECF also seeks to provide a community of support to exchange ideas and develop and nurture collaborations. The ECF defines early career scholars as individuals who aim to embark on a research career or have begun a research career in a university, research center, or state or local agency. This includes graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, and faculty in school psychology. Further, we broadly characterize early career as those within 10 years of graduating with their advanced degree.

What is the ECF’s impact?
Over the past 10+ years, the ECF has disseminated a monthly blog, hosted conference programming and networking events, and coordinated online webinars, writing retreats, and virtual happy hour meet-ups. I recently looked back to discern which topics and programming generated the most interest with early career scholars and found the Forum’s most-read blog posts are as follows:

• Congratulations, You’ve Been Invited to Campus! Now What? (Sullivan, Jan 2017)
• Strategies for Optimizing Your Sabbatical for Professional and Personal Growth (Harris, Oct 2018)
• Academic Parenthood: Lessons Learned Along the Tenure Track (Harris, Mar 2015)
• Starting Off on the Right Track: Negotiating a Faculty Job Offer (Barrett & Maki, Dec 2022)
• “Revise and Resubmit…” Now what? (Pendergast, Feb 2019)
• Questions on Tenure and Promotion: Perspectives from Full Professors (Ardoin, Burns, McIntosh, May 2018)

What struck me in reviewing this list is that the topics truly run the gamut of issues early career scholars may face, spanning topics relevant for new researchers (e.g., interviewing for campus jobs, negotiating offers) and those closer to mid-career milestones (e.g., navigating sabbatical, preparing tenure materials). Further, the blog has accumulated tens of thousands of hits since it started, soliciting numerous comments from both national and international readers. As we move forward, we aim to continue providing blog content that will support early career scholars at various time points, focusing on work-life integration, conducting and disseminating rigorous scholarship, demystifying applying to and working in academia, and supporting broader access to research careers in school psychology.

I was also curious about the impact of ECF programming. Looking back, even the earliest ECF sessions at NASP and APA would fill conference rooms, and socials grew from a few attendees in a meeting room to nearly 100 in event spaces and restaurants. In the past year or so, the most attended ECF events include a virtual speed mentoring with SSSP members (35 registrants; April 2023), tenure and promotion online panel (45 registrants; April 2022) and our networking social at NASP (60 registrants; Feb 2023) events. We also host six two-hour virtual writing retreats throughout the academic year, attracting up to 20 registrants each time. Considering how it can be a challenge to schedule a meeting with just a few individuals at a time of mutual availability, having 35+ registrants for virtual events feels monumentous. Early career individuals appear to prioritize these opportunities for connection and professional development, and we will continue offering the chance for these connections to occur. Further, in a survey sent to early career scholars around this time last year, most indicated their desire to engage in more virtual mentoring opportunities as well as webinars with CEU offerings, and read blog posts explicitly addressing the impact of COVID-19 on research productivity and tenure timelines. This information drives our work moving forward.

What is next?
As we continue on, our efforts remain steadfast to serve the ECF mission but also evolve as our field changes. We aim to be intentional about outreach and engagement with early career scholars (via social media, a dedicated early career listserv, and more) so that we can continue to build a community and predictable schedule of programming each year. We will welcome new members to the committee annually, requesting all ECF committee members commit to a two-year term. This process will bring fresh perspectives while allowing committee members to build upon their work in consecutive years. We will continue to strengthen our collaborations with other early career groups (e.g., Division 16, TSP, SPRCC) to co-sponsor relevant programming and events, providing more opportunities for connection among early career scholars in school psychology. Finally, we will continue to seek feedback for how we might best provide support while still serving our mission. 

Ultimately, to quote Drs. Sullivan and Harris in their first blog post, we will continue “normalizing the challenges you encounter and providing strategies for success.” That has been and will remain the goal of the ECF.

Setting Boundaries to Promote Your Research Productivity

By June L. Preast, PhD, NCSP, University of Alabama

Within traditional academic positions, our jobs are divided upon research, service, and teaching. The division of responsibilities across those commitments typically varies across different institutions and roles. For example, more research-intensive institutions may have a workload of .4 FTE for research, .4 FTE for teaching, and .2 FTE for service. Alternatively, institutions with more of a focus on teaching may require .60 FTE for teaching, .20 FTE for research, and .20 for service. Faculty, especially early career scholars, often have a lot of flexibility in how they spend their time in a given time period, which has many advantages. We often get to devote our time, focus, and energy to the activities and experiences about which we are most invested. 

However, there are also challenges that come with the flexibility of an academic career due to the abundance of unplanned opportunities that can crop up and assumption of self-management. Plus, many of us are taken by surprise--sometimes frequently--by the sheer volume of expected requests and opportunities that can come up, from staffing crises to calls for proposals to student needs or grading and advising needs that far outstrip allocated FTE. Quite simply, there is never a shortage of work, new opportunities, or time-sensitive demands. Scholars typically must be disciplined, thoughtful, organized, and self-protective to ensure they are able to fulfill their various responsibilities. Doing so, especially as an early career scholar, can be daunting because it requires setting and holding boundaries in a context where demands for your time can seem never ending.

Boundaries can be referred to as how we let others know our needs. And holding those boundaries are important to ensure that we are meeting our own needs. It’s important to keep in mind individual faculty may have different experiences in setting and holding boundaries in comparison to their colleagues. Women faculty are often expected to provide more time on service and teaching obligations, are often approached more often by students for support, and subsequently have less time to devote to research endeavors and their counterparts identifying as men. Faculty of color, especially women faculty of color, experience even more inequity, adding the sometimes hidden additional requirements for achieving tenure and promotion. LGBTQIA+ faculty and faculty of color are also tasked with creating and maintaining safe spaces for community for students. And women faculty often have significant caregiving responsibilities outside of work that limit their ability to continue working on tasks beyond the typical work day. The structure of higher education is designed to get as much as they can out of you before you say no. And with that, the structure easily takes advantage of faculty, especially women, faculty of color, and LGBTQIA+ faculty.

Often, teaching and service have set deadlines (i.e., class times, meetings) and involve working with others or for others. For teaching, you know you have to be prepared for the set class meeting times, grades have to be submitted by a certain date, and students are asking questions that need to be answered related to specific assignments or topics. For service, you usually know when the meetings will be, when your tasks are due, and have other people holding you accountable. But research is self-driven, with deadlines you set yourself or with research partners. Although there are times when you may have others holding you accountable for research, that may not always be the case. And your research agenda is just that, yours, and yours alone. It’s up to you to accomplish your goals related to research. And it can be easy to let the teaching and service needs take over the time you set aside for research simply because of the perceived obligation to others. This blog post aims to provide some strategies for preserving research time in the midst of other responsibilities. 

Strategy 1: Align your time with your job expectations. 

Research suggests that faculty time is often poorly aligned with job expectations. For early career scholars, developing effective habits for time use can be critical for avoiding over-extending yourself or failing to meet basic job role expectations (e.g., publishing). As much as possible, strive to align how you spend your time with how you’re expected to spend your time. This will often require a combination of proactive calendaring, self-monitoring, adjustment, and the strategies above. For early career scholars for whom research is a primary expectation for employment, promotion, or tenure, the ongoing process of scheduling, protecting, and fulfilling research time is especially important. This will likely necessitate firm limits on how much time is available for other responsibilities or endeavors. For example, you may cap the amount of time you can spend on course prep or grading each week, which will likely require use of strategies for efficient feedback.

Strategy 2: Set aside time each day to touch research. 

It’s important to make time in your schedule dedicated to research. Treat it like you would an important meeting or class period, limiting distractions for that scheduled time. If you struggle with carving out large chunks of time, one idea is scheduling 30 minutes each day to make any sort of forward progress towards research. Committing to smaller amounts of time throughout the week may be more beneficial than setting aside say all of Friday, especially as the needs of earlier in the week may overflow into your research time at the end of the week. Or if you prefer larger chunks of time, try to make sure to schedule those earlier in the week before other work responsibilities are able to get in the way. Regardless, make a point to cut distractions as much as you can during your research time and make note of all that you accomplish, even if it feels small. Avoiding distractions may mean ignoring email during writing time, limiting apps or internet access, or working where others are unlikely to disrupt your time.

Strategy 3: Schedule times in your day to answer emails. 

Very rarely are there emergencies in academia, so it’s okay to not answer all emails immediately after receiving them. Give yourself some time each day to answer emails, but only during that time each day. If it’s too hard to do all emails that way, consider setting aside time just for student emails. You can also use email templates to streamline your email time by preparing standard responses as the basis for common inquiries. These can include templates for graciously declining an opportunity that is a poor fit for your goals, role, or availability.

Strategy 4: Start saying no to opportunities that don’t align with your research and professional goals

The ECF has repeatedly addressed the importance of saying no to opportunities that aren’t aligned with your goals and interests because the tendency to say yes to every opportunity can derail goals and contribute to exhaustion and burnout. As an early career scholar, it may feel hard or seem mean saying no to committees or opportunities. But if those opportunities don’t align with your research and professional goals, it's okay to say no, especially if you are already meeting the expectations for service for your institution. You may feel better about saying no by visibly and frequently reminding yourself of your goals and role expectations. Write out your research and professional goal(s) and keep it either on your laptop, desktop, or maybe as a post-it note. Look back at your goal(s) when presented with an opportunity and ask yourself if it aligns. If you find it difficult to say no, text a couple friends (especially fellow academics) who are willing to provide guidance. Our previously mentioned post provides additional suggestions for how to navigate this tricky process.

Strategy 5: Resist the urge to fix to every student issue

Student issues (or situations that students perceive as issues) are inevitable. And when students come to you upset and in need of support, it can be easy to instantly want to help and find solutions for them. However, be sure to take the time to understand the issue before saying yes and jumping into the problem-solver role. Not all student issues are ours to solve. Feel free to ask colleagues for guidance. Consider directing students to other resources or personnel who are better positioned to support their needs. Where infrastructure is lacking, it might be helpful to work with colleagues to build out procedures or resources so that you’re not always in reactive mode every time a concern emerges.  

For most (if not all) of us, research is enjoyable and the questions we strive to answer drive us and our work. However, our various work responsibilities sometimes take away the time we plan or hope to spend on research. Prioritizing research is possible with a little planning and strategizing. Hopefully you find something helpful in our suggestions. What other suggestions do you have for effectively setting boundaries to support your research?

Considerations when Applying for a Fulbright Award

Kathleen B. Aspiranti, Associate Professor, University of Kentucky

In the fall of 2021, I embarked on a journey to complete a Fulbright award at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary. When I began my position at my current university in 2019, I soon met three colleagues in my field who had recently completed Fulbright awards: one to Southeast Asia, one to Finland, and one to Hungary. Through conversations with these colleagues, I learned that although all three had very different focuses for their projects they all had amazing experiences, would recommend the Fulbright program to others, and would most definitely do it again. After encouragement from these colleagues, I decided that I would apply for a Fulbright. But where to start? Below I discuss some considerations when applying for a Fulbright award.

Where do I want to go? The Fulbright program partners with over 135 countries across the world, which can be quite overwhelming as you can only apply for one Fulbright award at a time. An important part of the application is to highlight the specific award that you are applying for and why you need to be in that geographic location to complete your project. For this reason, many Fulbrighters have a specific reason to apply for an award located in a certain country based on ongoing research or professional goals. For instance, perhaps you already have a connection with a research lab in Myanmar working on a specific research question. Or maybe you have always been interested in how the education system in Singapore compares to that in the United States.

The catalog of current Fulbright awards lists all of the available awards for the upcoming cycle. Each award specifies the requested discipline. In some instances, the title of the award will specify the discipline. In others, the award will be titled ‘All Disciplines’, but then at the bottom of the Award Details page there will be a list of specific disciplines that will be considered. Some awards even specify areas of interest, for example, in one case within the discipline of Education the award is really interested in the areas of Higher Education Administration or Curriculum Development. By filtering through the countries and the disciplines, your choices narrow significantly. For me, there was an award for Hungary titled Education and Psychology, which was perfect for school psychologists. I had no previous connections to Hungary but I was able to tailor my application to my match to the specific award, my contribution to the host institution, and my desire to learn more about the country.

Awards for some countries are more competitive than others. Countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and France typically get a lot of applicants, but they also have more awards available. Countries such as Hungary, Romania, and Serbia typically have fewer applicants, but they also offer fewer awards. The award I applied for only grants two awards per year, but the number of applicants received for each award are not published.

What do I want to do? There are four main Fulbright activities: Research, Teaching, Teaching/Research, or Professional Projects. In research, you are conducting a specific research project. This could take place in a lab, school, using secondary data, or archival data. There should be a tangible outcome such as a journal article as a culmination of the Fulbright. For a research award, it is preferable to already have a relationship with collaborators in the host country to make it easier to conduct research. If you want to do a research-based Fulbright, think about the time and resources needed to make the project happen from beginning to end. With the applied school-based focus of my research, it was not feasible to obtain IRB permission from both my university and the host institution, find a willing site, obtain permission and parental consent, and complete a research project all in one semester.

A teaching activity Fulbright requires teaching classes, usually two per semester, as well as providing guest lectures, workshops, and seminars. My Fulbright was a Teaching award, and I taught two graduate-level courses in English, attended conferences and workshops, visited and observed in several primary schools, and provided eight guest lectures/workshops. I also had the opportunity to consult with several graduate students on their theses.

A teaching/research Fulbright combines both the research and teaching responsibilities, although the teaching load would be lessened. For a professional projects Fulbright, you would engage in various activities in your area of expertise. This could include serving as a consultant, gaining practical experience, or visiting scholars and practitioners in the field. The professional project can vary, but the primary focus is not either research or teaching.

How long is my project? Typically, Fulbright scholar awards are either one or two semesters, varying from four to nine months. This usually depends on the award and the country. In Hungary, all scholar awards are four months, whereas all student awards are nine months. In other countries (such as Czech Republic), the applicant is given the option of award length based on the specific award. Some awards have the option of a flex grant, where scholars can propose multiple stays in the host country of one to three months over the course of two to three years. This may be useful for someone doing a longitudinal study who would want to return to the country for short periods of time. It is important to ensure that your award length is long enough to be able to accomplish what you have planned for your project.

But what about funding? It is daunting to think about continuing payments on responsibilities from home (such as house or car payments) while having to pay living expenses in a separate country. All Fulbright awards will provide some sort of funds to complete the program. This typically includes a monthly stipend and may also include a housing allowance, travel allowance, and extra allowance for dependents. In some cases, the university will provide housing; in other cases you will need to find your own place to live.

Many scholars will complete a Fulbright during a sabbatical to alleviate concerns about funding. If that is not possible, speak with your administration about creative solutions. My administration was very supportive of the Fulbright award and agreed to supplement the Fulbright stipend with additional funds to match my current salary. Have conversations with your institution about funding and coverage of your current responsibilities prior to applying for the Fulbright; you don’t want to get stuck in a financial bind.

What if I have a family? Many Fulbrighters complete their award alone, but plenty others bring their family along! This is definitely a personal consideration, but if you have a partner that can travel it can be a wonderful experience for them. My entire family came for the Fulbright, including my partner and our three preschool/elementary school aged children. It was very daunting to organize everything and there were many more logistics to consider when bringing a family, but it was a wonderful experience for our family. We collaborated with our public school and while we technically homeschooled our kids while in Hungary, their teachers would email us the lesson plans each week and we would work from those to ensure our kids were on track when returning to school. In Hungary there were a few Fulbrighters who travelled with their partners and there was one other family; the Hungarian Fulbright Commission and the other Fulbrighters were very supportive of the families and our children still talk about the other Fulbrighters they met.

What else do I need to consider? By carefully reviewing the Award Details for each award, some awards specify the host institutions that are approved for that particular award or will provide a list of potential institutions in the country who can host that award. If you want to work with a particular institution make sure they are authorized as a host institution. The Award Details will also tell you if a letter of invitation from the host country is required. In my case, a letter of invitation was recommended but not required; I obtained a letter by cold-emailing the chair of the department at the university I wanted to host me. This allowed me to show the committee that there was a university who valued my expertise and wanted to host me. Some countries do not allow you to contact the universities in advance, for example, awards in Bhutan indicate that a letter of invitation should not be sought.

Many Fulbrights can be completed without any additional language expertise. The Award Details will let you know if another language is required or if English is sufficient. In many cases, there is no need to be proficient (or even know a word) of the host language. I didn’t know any Hungarian prior to applying, and my current Hungarian is very rudimentary. All the courses I taught were in English and the majority of my students were Erasmus students (foreign students in Hungary for an exchange semester/year). There are several other types of Fulbright awards in addition to the traditional Fulbright Scholar award. These include the International Education Administrators award, Distinguished Scholar awards, Postdoctoral awards, Student awards, and English Teaching Assistant awards.

On the Fulbright Scholar Directory | Fulbright Scholar Program (fulbrightscholars.org) website, you can search by person, host country, home institution, discipline, and other filters to learn about past Fullbrighters. It is highly beneficial to hear about the experiences of other Fullbrighters as you determine the specifics of your application. Each university should also have a Fullbright liaison through their international center that will be able to connect you with Fullbrighters at your own institution.

Is it worth it? The unanimous vote from me, my family, my colleagues who have been on Fulbright, and the other Fulbrighters from my semester in Hungary would be yes, the Fulbright experience is definitely an experience that will not be forgotten. The best advice I can give is to make the most of the Fulbright experience and immerse yourself in the host country’s culture. Learn at least the basics of the language and experience the country’s food, music, history, and holiday traditions. Visit the local markets, playgrounds, ruin pubs, hillside wineries, and ride public transportation. The Hungarian Fulbright Commission sponsored excursions at least monthly for all the Fulbrighters with trips to historical sites, experienced guides, and special customs such as traditional gingerbread decorating. Talk to people and learn from those that live in the country. We were able to get to know the other scholars and students within the program, none of which had expertise in psychology or education but were studying other fascinating areas specific to Hungary. Our building landlord was wonderful and brought our children holiday treats while trying to teach them Hungarian.

Finally, make sure to explore! This was the first time I had been out of the country for an extended amount of time and the first time I was fully immersed in a different culture. On the weekends we visited many different cities and towns within Hungary and the surrounding countries, most of which were easily accessible by train. Although the Fulbright awards limit the amount of time during your actual award time period that you are allowed to spend out of the country, we took several longer trips before the Fulbright started, after the Fulbright ended, and during the university’s fall break week to visit other countries and explore more of Eastern and Western Europe. Overall, the Fulbright was an incredible experience that I would recommend to anyone wanting to immerse themselves in another culture while working on a special project related to school psychology.

What intrigues you about obtaining a Fullbright? How might this experience benefit you as an early career scholar?

Addressing White Privilege in School Psychology Research

By Sally Grapin, Associate Professor, Montclair State University & Lindsay Fallon, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts BostonRacial privilege and oppression impact not only practice but also research activities in school psychology. In research contexts, white privilege can be defined as unearned advantages (e.g., social, professional, economic, and other benefits) conferred on white* scholars, as well as on white communities impacted by their work, by virtue of institutional and structural racism (adapted from Sue, 2006). Since the earliest years of the field’s development, a number of school psychology scholars (often scholars of color) have illustrated the many ways in which racial privilege and oppression impact research and practice (e.g., Graves, 2009). Nonetheless, these violent dynamics continue to permeate research activities in ways that harm scholars, practitioners, children, families, and communities of color alike.Building on the work of researchers both within and outside of school psychology, we (the authors of this blog post) published an article in March 2022 on dismantling white privilege in school psychology research (Grapin & Fallon, 2022). Drawing from Mintrom (2008), our article described white privilege as permeating four stages of the research process: (a) inputs; (b) transformations; (c) outputs; and (d) applications to practice (all of which are defined below). We also offered a number of examples of white privilege in school psychology research. For example, white school psychology researchers can:

• be assured that ethics review boards will uphold standards that protect the well-being of their racial group;
• remain oblivious to research methodologies and paradigms that do not reflect the values of their racial group with minimal to no penalty for doing so; and
• be assured that they will not be asked to justify the relevance or generalizability of interventions developed to support youth and families who share their racial background (Grapin & Fallon, 2022).

As a follow-up to this article, we hope to further encourage school psychology scholars—particularly white researchers and practitioners—to consider the ways in which white privilege impacts the execution and application of research in school psychology. To this end, we have developed a number of reflection questions for scholars to consider as a guide for engaging in this work. We also provide recommended resources and readings for further study. While these prompts and resources reflect only a small range of issues and resources around this topic, we hope they will be helpful for facilitating further dialogue and action. Research InputsDefinition: Resources, including financial, personnel, and other types, that support the initiation of research (Mintrom, 2008) 

• Have I taken steps to educate myself about the history of racism in psychological research? Can I articulate the ways in which legacies of racial privilege and oppression continue to manifest in contemporary research activities (especially within the field of school psychology)?
• Have I considered the ways in which institutional review boards (IRBs) may prioritize ethical standards consistent with the values of my racial group while decentering ethical principles of others? Have I considered seeking additional approvals from community-based IRBs?
• Have I considered how racism may potentially impact dynamics within and among research team members and community partners? How will (or have) I contribute(d) to the disruption of oppressive dynamics?

TransformationsDefinition: Processes by which research inputs are utilized and translated into outputs using field or discipline-specific practices (Mintrom, 2008)

• Have I considered the ways in which the research paradigms I am utilizing may reinforce the worldviews and biases of my racial group? Have I considered other paradigms that challenge my racial worldviews?
• Have I considered the ways in which existing research in my area of study reinforces norms of whiteness? Is my approach to research design, methodology, etc. replicating these oppressive dynamics?  
• Does my research testify to the experiences and perspectives of racial groups other than my own? Does it assume an ecological/systems approach to conceptualizing and addressing racism?

Research OutputsDefinition: Proximal outcomes and byproducts of the research process (e.g., journal articles, technical reports, augmentation of researcher’s influence or reputation; Mintrom, 2008)

• Am I submitting my work to journals whose editorial boards reflect racial backgrounds other than my own? Are these journals making intentional efforts to center a diverse range of voices, perspectives, and epistemologies?
• Am I submitting my work to journals that will interrogate the explicit and implicit assumptions of my work?
• Am I ensuring that my work is accessible to a wide range of audiences outside of academia (particularly individuals, groups, and communities that will be directly and/or indirectly influenced by my work)?

Applications of Research to PracticeDefinition: Translation of research to service delivery or applied practice (Mintrom, 2008)

• Am I monitoring the ways in which my research is being translated and/or applied in practice? Is it being used in ways that perpetuate racial privilege and harm marginalized populations?
• Have I presumed applications of my work to be “race-neutral,” despite their reinforcing whiteness as normative?
• If I find that my work has contributed to the reinforcement of racial privilege and oppression (albeit inadvertently or unintentionally), have I actively named, held myself accountable for, and taken measures to deconstruct this harm? How will I ensure that my future research efforts (and the efforts of my collaborators and others) DO NOT replicate these harms?

Enacting an anti-racist approach to producing, disseminating, and applying research will inevitably require school psychologists to proactively disrupt violent assumptions and practices that marginalize the voices of historically minoritized populations. Beyond reading and reflection, we emphasize the importance of taking decisive action to disrupt dynamics of privilege and oppression in research activities. We welcome feedback on this topic as well as comments about the many ways in which early career researchers and their collaborators can tackle (or are already tackling) these issues.What other prompts, processes, or resources can you share to help address white privilege in school psychology research?Note: * We intentionally use lowercase style for the term “white,” as uppercase style is traditionally favored by white supremacist groups. It also reinforces the need to decenter whiteness in academic and other spaces.Recommended Readings and ResourcesBaffoe, M., Asimeng-Boahene, L., & Buster, B. (2014). Their way or no way: “Whiteness” as agent for marginalizing and silencing minority voices in academic research and publication. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(1), 13–13. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2014.v3n1p13Bonilla-Silva, E., & Zuberi, T. (2008). Toward a definition of white logic and white methods. In T. Zuberi & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology (pp. 3–27). Rowman & Littlefield.Fallon, L., Grapin, S. L., Newman, D. L., & Noltemeyer, A. (2022). Promoting equity and social justice in the peer review process: Tips for reviewers. School Psychology International, 43(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211070165Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709 Settles, I. H., Warner, L. R., Buchanan, N. T., & Jones, M. K. (2020). Understanding psychology’s resistance to intersectionality theory using a framework of epistemic exclusion and invisibility. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 796–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12403 ReferencesGrapin, S. L., & Fallon, L. (2022). Conceptualizing and dismantling white privilege in school psychology research: An ecological model. School Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1963998Graves, S. L. (2009). Albert Sidney Beckham: The first African American school psychologist. School Psychology International, 30(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034308101847.Mintrom, M. (2008). Managing the research function of the university: Pressures and dilemmas. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802155028Sue, D. W. (2006). The invisible whiteness of being: Whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege, and racism. In M. G. Constantine & D. W. Sue (Eds.), Addressing racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educational settings (pp. 15–30). John Wiley.