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!

Thinking About Tenure and Promotion: Advice from Tenured Faculty

Curated by Lindsay Fallon (University of Massachusetts Boston) 

The SSSP Early Career Forum (ECF) recently hosted a panel event to answer questions attendees submitted in advance about the tenure and promotion process. SSSP Members, Drs. Amity Noltemeyer (Miami University), Mel Collier-Meek (Teachers College, Columbia University), and Andy Garbacz (University of Wisconsin-Madison), shared their insights about the process as well as several key pieces of advice. Below, we share 10 tips provided in the session in support of those thinking about the tenure and promotion review process:

1. Learn your university's requirements for tenure and promotion. It’s important to know that tenure packets may “look different” depending on the institution (e.g., one university may require you to indicate your specific contribution to each article you’ve published, while another university may not). Requirements are important to know so that you understand what is expected, align your work and priorities with those expectations, and format your materials correctly. Perhaps teaching, research, and service are all considered equally, or one is weighted more than the others. Knowing exactly what the criteria are at your university will set you up for success.

2. Seek example materials and dossiers, ideally from more than one individual. You might ask colleagues inside your department to review their tenure packets. You may ask colleagues from other universities to share their personal statements. Reading multiple examples will help you identify what you might need to strengthen in your own materials and how you might spend your time in the months or years you have before your review.

3. If possible, build your dossier along the way as part of your annual review process. If you are asked to submit an annual review, be thorough and intentional about this process. Then, when it comes time to build your dossier, you may have written materials and evidence compiled to get you started. One idea is to have a visualization, plan or other method of organizing projects on an ongoing basis (e.g., having a white board or Excel spreadsheet to map out projects in various phases from development from data collection to manuscript development). 

4. Have multiple mentors. As teaching, research, and service are distinct but often overlapping areas, it may be helpful to have mentors who support your progress in each area specifically. They then might be able to give you feedback on your development in each area, setting you up for maximal success.

5. In your personal statement, tell your story. Although you will likely have distinct sections on teaching, research, and service, be sure to thread common themes throughout (e.g., areas of expertise), providing specific examples of the impact of your efforts in all areas. Don’t use the short space you have to retell your CV, but elaborate and/or integrate pieces of your story to supplement your materials. Be explicit about how you addressed any constructive feedback received previously in mid-tenure or annual reviews (e.g., lower course ratings). Ask a colleague who is not at your institution to offer feedback to ensure your story and message are clear (e.g., little use of jargon, flows well).

6. Set professional goals early – and monitor your progress over time. Write down your goals related to teaching, research, and service early. This will help you identify exactly how you might spend your time during your pre-tenure years. For instance, you might have a goal to serve as an Associate Editor for a school psychology journal. As such, spending time conducting journal reviews in your early career years will help you get there. This may mean saying no to other service opportunities or committee work to achieve this goal, however. Check in with yourself each semester (or at regular intervals) to monitor how you are progressing toward your identified goals.

7. Develop collaborative peer networks of individuals who are progressing through the early career stage with you. You might join or form a writing, research, or accountability group. Commit to meeting with each other regularly and build a community of support with them. 

8. It’s never too early to think about potential external reviewers. When considering how to create your list of external letter writers, look at editorial boards, network at conferences, and/or ask colleagues to provide suggestions or feedback about your lists. There may be fewer full professors available to do reviews, so it may be worth considering saving some full professors who are experts in your area to list when you go up for full professor.

9. Don’t wait until the end of the review period to put your tenure materials together. Instead, consider keeping a running organization system. Compiling the dossier often takes longer than one might expect, so it is a good idea to give yourself ample time in the months before it is due – and a better idea to be building your dossier as you go during your pre-tenure years.

10. Finally, if you’re considering going up early, talk to your department or college leadership. Your review chair, department chair, and/or college dean may have good guidance about how successful individuals typically are when they submit their materials early and if you are a good candidate. Some make this choice as they accumulated time at a prior institution or think they have met the criteria and are hopeful for a successful tenure review for the additional benefits (e.g., job security, additional income). It is most helpful to check in with leadership if this is a goal, as they should be able to tell you their thoughts about if it is a good idea for you or not.

Ultimately, the message from panelists is to be organized, planful, and seek critical social and professional support as you navigate the tenure and promotion process. The vast majority of departmental review committees and external evaluators want tenure candidates to be successful in their pursuit of tenure. With this in mind, it is important to be proactive and strategic with your time, asking for support and feedback along the way, to ensure your review is a success.

What to Know About the External Scholarship Review Process for Tenure: Advice from Tenured Faculty

Lindsay Fallon (University of Massachusetts Boston) and Heather Ormiston (Indiana University Bloomington)

For those beginning tenure-track faculty positions, the tenure review process may seem far away. Yet, it is never too early to start planning and thinking strategically about how you will structure your tenure packet, craft your personal statement, and demonstrate impact in the areas of research, teaching, and service. One essential element of tenure review at most universities is the external review process. The external review process is often nebulous and can be difficult to navigate without mentorship or guidance. We endeavor to share a bit about this process here to shed light on what happens during external review and how to set yourself up for success.

External reviewers are typically individuals who are already tenured at another institution. At some institutions, external reviewers must be Full Professors while at others, Associate Professors can serve as external reviewers. Some universities may have policies regarding the type of institution at which the external reviewer works. Given differences across institutions, it is important to know your institution’s policies. Most often, the chair of the tenure candidate’s departmental review committee or department chair will contact and send materials to potential reviewers for review. Frequently, these materials include the candidate’s personal statement, CV, and representative scholarship, although reviewers might be sent additional materials depending on the institution. 

External reviewers are typically asked to produce a letter (or complete a comprehensive online form) that evaluates the tenure candidate’s scholarship. Reviewers conduct these reviews as an act of professional service to the field. Instructions to the external reviewers might include (a) considering if the candidate would likely receive tenure at the reviewer’s institution, (b) evaluating the strength of the candidate’s research trajectory, and/or (c) commenting on the impact of the candidate’s contributions to the field. Further, an external reviewer is typically notified if the candidate will see the letter or not. 

At my (Lindsay’s) institution, tenure candidates are asked for a list of possible external reviewers from institutions with similar research activity. Candidates are told to consider listing individuals who might provide a fair assessment of the candidate’s scholarship, but with whom the candidate has not collaborated on research (e.g., not published a paper or chapter together). The tenure review committee also produces a list of possible reviewers. Then, the tenure review chair contacts a selection of external reviewers from both lists. This process may differ at your institution, so it is very important to know your institution’s external review procedures.

Advice from Tenured Faculty

We wanted to gather more information about this process and asked Dr. Janine Jones (JJ; University of Washington) and Dr. Amy Briesch (AB; Northeastern University) for their recommendations. 

1) What is important for early career psychologists/scholars (ECPs) to consider when devising a list of external letter writers? 

JJ: This is going to sound counterintuitive, but it is important. When compiling a list of potential letter writers, ECPs will want to help the committee by leaving off some of the most obvious scholars that are leaders in your area of expertise. You see, the committee has a responsibility to come up with several names of scholars that are NOT on your list. If they only made requests of the people on the list, it is perceived as "stacking the deck."  Thus, you want to leave them room to ask the leading scholars on their own. At many R1 institutions, it is a regular practice to specify which external reviewers came from each list. The ECP’s list can consist of people that know your work, cite your work, but do not collaborate with you regularly. They are supposed to be scholars who are an arm’s length of your scholarship.

AB: You want to create a list of those “arms’ length” scholars who are doing work in a similar area to your own because they will best be able to speak to how your work has contributed to the field. At the same time, however, it can also be important to consider how similar the individual’s position and institution are to your own. Universities often ask for lists of letter writers at “comparable or aspirational institutions,” but it can be helpful if the letter writer has a grounded sense of what reasonable expectations are for teaching, scholarship, and service in a position like your own (yes, someone could theoretically look up the tenure standards for your specific institution; however, is it likely they actually will?).

2) What advice do you have for early career scholars about relationship building so that letter writers might be familiar with an early career scholar’s work before a request to write a letter is sent? 

JJ: This is a great question. I think many relationships of this kind come through service activities (e.g., serving on national boards, committees, mentoring programs). Ad hoc committees and task forces are exceptionally useful for this purpose. Those allow you to get to know other scholars in the short term while also giving you experiences that do not create conflicts of interest that would preclude a senior scholar from serving as an external reviewer.

AB: My recommendation would be to seek out both research and service opportunities that will allow you to interact with more senior scholars in the field in different ways. Presenting as part of a symposium, for example, is a great way to both interact with more senior scholars and to introduce them to your work. Similarly, engaging as part of an interest group or task force on a topic related to your research interests can allow for meaningful interactions that may not have happened otherwise.

3) When you have written an external letter, what is your process? How do you approach this task? 

JJ: As I got more experienced at it, I recognized that I feel the pressure to write a strong, detailed, and personalized letter since the stakes are so high. Thus, I only accept the requests where I am familiar with the person's work, those who I know (from a distance), those who I know their advisor or mentor, and/or when I personally know the tenure committee chair. So my first step is deciding whether to say yes or no.

AB: Although your full dossier will be evaluated across the three domains of teaching, research, and service, the focus of the external letters will largely be on research. As such, I turn first to the candidate’s research statement to develop a grounded sense of how they view themselves as a scholar. I then move on to both (a) review the representative publications provided by the candidate/committee and (b) seek out additional publications that will help me to understand where the candidate has been and where they are going. In my letter, I want to be able to make a case for how the candidate has developed an individual research identity and how they are expected to impact the field moving forward. 

4) When you have written an external letter, what do you look for in the candidate’s packet? What do you emphasize in your letter? 

JJ: Once I have accepted the task, I schedule the steps needed to get the letter done. I schedule time to read the tenure statement, the CV, and all of the articles submitted in the packet. I like to start with reading the statement, because the statement teaches me how to view the candidate. It frames the person's scholarship for me and allows me to read the CV and the articles with the same lens.  

AB: After I have had a chance to read through the candidate’s materials and feel that I have a strong sense of their work, I then go back to the committee’s instructions to see what specific questions the university wants me to address in my letter. As a tenure candidate, I don’t think that I ever thought about this piece. Although most universities will ask similar questions (e.g., How has the candidate impacted the field? What evidence do you see of future impact?), some may have very specific questions that they want the letter writers to answer. If the candidate has already sought to answer these questions in their statement, this can be incredibly helpful in the process.

5) Any additional advice for early career scholars regarding external letters?  

JJ: Do not underestimate the power of your tenure statement. It really does shape the view of the external letter writer. Take time to tell your story the way YOU want it told. When we read that, it guides us in powerful ways. 

AB: The only other thing that I would say is to try and not get too intimidated by the process. Although it can certainly feel very daunting (sort of an amped up version of the blind review process for manuscripts!), the external letter writers are there to help provide objective context for your work to individuals who may know nothing about school psychology. As someone who has served on the college T&P committee, reviewing dossiers for faculty in fields such as pharmaceutical sciences and physical therapy, I know that I could use all of the interpretation and context that I could get! Thinking about external letter writers in this way may help to make it feel less like a gauntlet to run through!

Concluding Thoughts

There are several key takeaways from the advice above. We reiterate a few here:

• Take time in your pre-tenure years to build your network. Traveling to conferences is of course helpful, but if funds are limited, connecting with colleagues who do research in your area might be possible via participation in relevant service committees or connecting informally via email or Zoom. Participation in the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC) is another great option to meet several senior researchers in the field who might be able to serve as external reviewers for you.
• Mentors can help you think about your list of external reviewers. You might ask mentors for suggestions and/or to review your list and recommend additions (or subtractions).
• When crafting your personal statement for tenure review, you might find out what external reviewers are asked to write and incorporate that content into your statement. For instance, if external reviewers are asked to describe the impact of your scholarship, you might be explicit about the extent to which your work has been cited and/or the impact factor of outlets that have published your work. This evidence can then be used by reviewers to make a case for the impact of your scholarly contributions.

Finally, both esteemed panelists conveyed the notion that external reviewers typically want to support you with their review. Tell your story in your statement and select your representative publications with intention. Make it easy for reviewers to highlight all of the amazing work you have done. You’ve got this!

How to Illustrate the Impact of Your Research

By Courtenay A. Barrett (Michigan State University), Heather Ormiston (Indiana University), and Katie Maki (University of Florida)

Not only do early career scholars need to engage in high-quality research, but they also need to show the positive impact of their scholarship in both scientific and practice communities. Demonstrating this impact may be particularly important for those who are in tenure-track positions at research-intensive universities, but nearly all early career faculty will need to document research impact for tenure and promotion. The scientific community has developed metrics and approaches for documenting research impact (e.g., h-index), however, some early career faculty may not be familiar with these metrics or what they mean. Further, practice communities may not have access to traditional research outlets (e.g., academic journals). Therefore, other approaches have become increasingly common as a means to document research impact and share evidence of why our research matters for practitioners and communities (e.g., social media). This blog post describes both traditional and innovative ways to show that your research is having an impact on the field.

Traditional Approaches for Documenting the Impact of Your Research

Some of the most common metrics for showing the impact of your research in the scientific community are your total citation count, h-index, i10-index, and research awards. These traditional approaches more effectively capture the impact of your research on the scientific community as opposed to practitioners or community members. Your total citation count, h-index, and i10-index can be found on Google Scholar or ResearchGate. You can easily and freely register for an account on both Google Scholar and/or ResearchGate by visiting their respective websites to start tracking these metrics. We define each of these approaches below.

Total Citation Count

The total citation count is the total number of times your work has been cited. Each citation of your research (e.g., published academic journal article, non-peer reviewed article, conference presentation) is counted as one citation, with your collective citations called your total citation count. This metric suggests that other researchers not only read your work but found it impactful to their own research by citing it.

h-index

The h-index is defined as the number of your publications that have been cited at least that same number of times. For example, an h-index of 5 means you have 5 papers that have each been cited at least 5 times; an h-index of 10 means you have 10 papers that have each been cited at least 10 times; an h-index of 15 means you have 15 papers that have each been cited at least 15 times; and so on. Your h-index can be found on both Google Scholar and ResearchGate. To provide context for the h-index, Watkins and Chan-Park (2015) calculated the average h-indexes for faculty in school psychology programs according to a range of characteristics (e.g., rank, gender, doctoral vs. specialist). For example, according to Scholarometer, the median and mean h-index for assistant professors in doctoral-level programs were 4 and 4.93, respectively (Watkins & Chan-Park, 2015). It can be helpful to provide this type of context for how to interpret your h-index in relation to other school psychology faculty for those outside of the field of school psychology (e.g., department chairs, deans) who review your tenure and promotion packet or other materials (e.g., annual review).

i10-index

The i10-index is defined as the number of publications with at least 10 citations each. For instance, a researcher with an i10-index of 4 has four articles that have each been cited at least 10 times. The i10-index is a metric created by Google Scholar and is automatically calculated for the articles that have been linked to your Google Scholar profile.

Awards

Professional organizations, universities, and academic journals also have awards for high-impact research and researchers. Examples include being named an Early Career Scholar in the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC) by the Society of the Study for School Psychology, national professional organization awards, internal university and college awards, and nominations or awards for a journal’s article of the year. Some of these awards require you to apply, so be sure to put yourself out there. These types of awards highlight the impact of your research on the field or institution and should be included in your materials.  

Innovative Approaches for Documenting Research Impact

There are several ways to illustrate the impact of your research on practice communities. These types of approaches do not require access to academic journals and highlight how our research can impact the communities we serve.

Preprints and Open Access

Open Science is expanding the way scholars engage in and disseminate their research. Although traditional peer-reviewed journal publications are still the most common approach to research dissemination, expanding dissemination to include postings of preprints and open access to journal articles provides evidence of scholarly impact on broader audiences. For example, the Open Science Framework provides a platform for registering research plans, posting preprints, and supporting the wide dissemination of research findings. Early career scholars can describe their use of such platforms and how their use of the platform improves their scholarship and its impact. Many of these outlets track how often articles or preprints have been viewed on or downloaded from the platform, which is a way to illustrate that others find your research interesting and useful.

Early career scholars may also consider publishing through open access journals or allowing open access to their specific articles within a journal that typically requires a subscription. Articles published open access do not require organization (e.g., NASP) membership or institutional (e.g., university) subscription, facilitating access to broader audiences. However, open access journals or articles typically have a high cost associated with publishing (e.g., $3,000) for the author. Thus, early career scholars should consider how they will pay for such costs (e.g., grant funding, start-up funding, university funding) if publishing in these journals. grant funding, start-up funding, university funding) if publishing open access. Despite the financial challenge, open access publishing is another useful way early career scholars can broaden the audience who has access to their research. Increasing the number of people who have access to their research may increase the impact of their research on practice communities, increase the likelihood their research gets cited, and increase mentions of their research in mass media outlets. In tenure and promotion (or other materials), early career scholars should explicitly describe how open access publishing has increased their research’s impact.

Altmetric

Altmetric, shorthand for “alternative metrics,” documents the attention your research has received in online spaces. Altmetric measures the impact of one’s scholarly work in a broader sense, beyond traditional, academically oriented measures (e.g., h-index, i10-index). Examples of Altmetrics include tweets/retweets/mentions on X (formerly Twitter), shares/likes on Facebook, mentions/references in online news sites, the number of times an article was uploaded to an online citation management system such as Mendeley, the number of full-text article downloads, and comments/references in blogs or other online forums. Altmetric also includes traditional media coverage (e.g., New York Times) as well as references in field-specific sources. Dimensions is an example of a free application that can be used to document Altmetrics.

Social Media, Websites, and Other Outreach

School psychology and other faculty are increasingly using social media and other outreach efforts to share their work with diverse audiences (e.g., other faculty, educators). Of course, traditional dissemination of research through publications and presentations is extremely important for early career faculty, but other outlets can also be used to share your research and its impact. X (formerly Twitter) is one social media platform that many academics use to disseminate their research findings to the public and to engage in conversations about research (e.g., #academictwitter). X provides metrics that document engagement with your posts. For example, early career scholars may consider documenting the number of views or engagements with research they shared on X.

Along with social media, many scholars maintain a website affiliated with or separate from their university profile. A professional website can be a great way to share your scholarship with educators and psychologists outside of academia given those outside of universities are less likely to have consistent access to journal articles. Through websites, users can access metrics of the number of website views and engagement over specific periods of time. These metrics can document the impact of one’s work with diverse audiences (e.g., practicing school psychologists). Of course, tenure and promotion expectations vary by institution, but typically, demonstrating your impact to diverse audiences is often expected. Using social media and other outlets is a useful way to showcase your impact.

Podcasts, Newspaper and Magazine Articles, and Other Press Coverage

Your CV should also capture opportunities to demonstrate impact to the broader community. For instance, having a separate space entitled “Press Coverage” will allow you to share news articles, reports, or podcast episodes that have been disseminated to a broader audience. Links to the articles, website, or blog posts can also be shared in a citation on your CV. Another way to increase the visibility of your scholarly work is to contact your institution’s marketing team who can profile your work and share your research via school- or campus-wide emails or on social networking sites. Taking screenshots of these shares/mentions/tweets and uploading them to your dossier is an excellent way to document your work in the broader community.

Community Collaboration and Outcomes

As applied scholars, school psychology researchers are often engaging in work with community organizations (e.g., schools, community centers). Although scholarly impact through journal articles, book chapters, and social media can all be meaningful, many early career scholars hope their work has the greatest impact on the communities with whom we work. When engaging in research, professional development, or consultation with local schools and other organizations, early career scholars can document how their collaboration with the organization resulted in meaningful change. For example, did a school begin using an intervention you implemented and showed was efficacious? Did a school begin implementing an assessment framework after you consulted on multitiered systems of support? Briefly describing these experiences can show how your research had a positive impact on those with whom you work.

Conclusion

This blog post summarized some ways to document the impact of our research on the scientific and practice communities. What are other ways you can document the impact of your research? Comment below!

Ten Tips for Developing an Edited Book

By Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

Developing an edited book can be a valuable activity for school psychology scholars and their field at large. Unlike authored books, edited books represent the voices and contributions of multiple authors. One advantage to edited books is that they allow editors to connect with authors outside of their established networks, which can be a valuable activity for early career scholars. Additionally, early career scholars might consider developing an edited book when they feel a topic is best addressed from multiple perspectives or when they wish to feature expert voices in areas related to but somewhat beyond the scope of their own work (e.g., a scholar with a particular focus on antiracism seeks to develop an edited book on social justice more broadly). Like many other forms of scholarship, edited books are one way in which scholars can support the advancement of their field and fill in knowledge and resource gaps for practitioners, researchers, and others. 

At the same time, edited books are a tremendous undertaking, and coordinating submissions from multiple author teams can present challenges for producing a cohesive product. The following describes ten tips for early career scholars seeking to develop an edited book.

1. Identify a publisher that is a good fit for your project.

Numerous academic publishers are interested in recruiting school psychology book projects. Whereas some publishers may focus primarily on books for higher education students or practitioners (e.g., many trade publishers), others may focus on books for scholars and researchers (e.g., many academic publishers). Examining recent titles from the publisher and talking with editorial staff (e.g., at conference exhibit halls) may help you identify a publisher that is a good fit for your project. Moreover, some publishers produce book series edited by school psychology scholars; talking with these series editors may be helpful for finding a home for your book. Before signing a contract, you might consider asking publishers (and authors who have worked with these publishers) questions such as:

• How long are authors typically given to develop the book?
• How will the book be marketed?
• Who will prepare the index? Who will be expected to secure and pay for permissions?
• What are the criteria for determining if a second edition is warranted?

Once you have identified a publisher and are ready to sign a contract, be sure to read the contract carefully and ensure that the timelines specified (e.g., due dates) are feasible for you.

2. Carefully consider and clearly identify your audience.

Many books for school psychologists may also be appropriate for other audiences. Because school psychology scholars, practitioners, and/or graduate students constitute a relatively small potential audience, you might consider targeting your book toward a broader range of school-based professionals, mental health providers, students, and/or caregivers. Books that have a wider audience may ultimately be more attractive to prospective publishers.

3. Use the book proposal as an opportunity for in-depth planning.

Publishers will typically request a formal proposal for your book project. While the structure and requirements of these proposals may vary, areas you may be asked to address include: (a) the book’s intended audience; (b) rationale or need for the book; (c) potential competitors; and (d) detailed table of contents with brief chapter summaries. If you are developing a book that could be used in an undergraduate or graduate classroom, you may be asked to specify relevant courses. Often, the questions posed in these proposals will prompt you to think carefully about the content and unique features of your book. Spending time on this proposal at the outset may ultimately benefit you in the long run.

4. Set realistic timelines for your contributing authors and yourself.

Edited books can take a long time to develop (often a full year or more), in part because they involve coordinating multiple rounds of chapter submissions across multiple author teams. Inevitably, authors will experience delays due to work or personal commitments. Being understanding of these circumstances is important, especially given that authors are taking the time to support your work. To minimize potential delays, give authors adequate time to develop and revise their chapters, accounting for summer and holiday breaks as well as particularly busy times of the year (e.g., beginning or end of the semester). More time should be given for initial chapter submissions, whereas timeframes for revision may be somewhat shorter. You might consider staggering due dates for chapters such that you can edit submissions at a steady pace rather than reviewing them all at once.

If you are planning to invite a foreword author, consider securing a commitment from that individual early on. Be sure to let them know when they can expect to review the final (or near final) draft of the book and when their contribution would be due, as there is often a shorter window for preparing a foreword than a chapter.

5. Carefully consider who you will invite to author chapters.

The strength of an edited book relies not only on the work of its editor(s) but also on the ideas, perspectives, and follow-through of its authors. Think carefully about whose voices and perspectives will be represented in the book. For example, editors hoping to cultivate a strong social justice orientation in their work should consider how they will center the voices of scholars and communities with marginalized identities. In addition to considering the lenses, expertise, and perspectives of authors, editors should recruit contributors with strong writing skills and a history of completing projects in a diligent and timely manner. Being thoughtful in recruiting author teams can make for a smoother editing process later on.

6. Provide clear writing guidelines for authors before they begin writing.

Providing clear and detailed guidelines for chapter submissions can be especially helpful for ensuring a cohesive final product. These guidelines should be provided to authors before they begin writing and may include information related to: (a) section headers (e.g., chapter objectives, introduction, recommendations for practice, summary/conclusion); (b) chapter length; (c) guidelines for references; (d) style/formatting (e.g., APA style or other formatting requirements provided by the publisher); and (e) major issues or topics for the author(s) to address (or not address) so as to avoid redundancies or major gaps in content. The more information you provide up front, the less time you will need to spend editing individual chapters for cohesion. Moreover, providing a sample chapter can be especially helpful (perhaps one of your own that you can complete ahead of inviting submissions).

Consider asking experienced book editors about the guidelines they provided to their contributing authors. Sample emails and guideline documents can be helpful in constructing your own, especially if you have the opportunity to see examples from multiple editors.

7. Provide feedback to authors that is constructive but not overly prescriptive.

Providing clear feedback is essential for supporting authors in revising their chapters as well as ensuring timely resubmission. Where appropriate, be as specific as possible about the revisions you hope to see. However, at the same time, respect authors’ decisions about how and where to make edits to their work. One significant advantage of edited books is that they bring together the perspectives and expertise of multiple author teams; as a corollary, it is important to respect authors’ autonomy in deciding which content should and should not be included. Navigating this balance can be difficult, but it may be helpful for you to: (a) clearly distinguish high-priority from low-priority recommendations for revision; (b) give authors the opportunity to indicate which edits they feel are appropriate or inappropriate; and (c) have real time conversations with authors about edits if disagreements arise (rather than going back and forth on email).

8. Implement and maintain a system of organization.

Staying organized is essential for managing chapter submissions, especially when those submissions are at different stages of the writing and/or editing process. Implementing a system of organization early on can be helpful for reducing stress associated with the editing process. For example, you might consider maintaining a Google spreadsheet with chapter titles, author names, due dates, notes about the status of each chapter, and “to do'' items. You might also find it helpful to maintain an inbox folder designated specifically for book-related correspondence so that you can easily retrieve email threads when needed. Whatever organization system you decide on, stick with it throughout the project (even if you think you are likely to remember details without recording them).

9. Work efficiently.

The work for an edited book project often ebbs and flows. There may be times when you are waiting on submissions and have little to do followed by bursts of intense editing. As noted previously, staggering submission due dates can help distribute editing responsibilities across the project timeline; however, there will likely still be lags in your workload from time to time. Be strategic about how you utilize these lags. For example, when waiting on initial chapter submissions or revisions, consider working on other components of the book, such as the acknowledgements, editor bios, preface, dedication, or glossary. Although these may seem like relatively minor tasks, they can be time-consuming, and getting them out of the way as early as possible can be helpful.

10. Don’t underestimate the time commitment of an edited book and pace yourself.

Given that edited books often rely heavily on the contributions of invited authors, it can be easy to underestimate the amount of time, energy, and work that goes into developing them. Before deciding to pursue an edited book project, consider discussing the time commitment with experienced editors. Moreover, recognize that committing to an edited book may leave you less time to work on other projects (e.g., peer-reviewed journal articles). Before undertaking an edited book, consider whether the project is aligned with your professional objectives. If you are a pre-tenure faculty member or are seeking promotion at an academic institution, you might consider discussing with your department chair or dean whether edited books will be valued in the tenure or promotion review process. Finally, remember that book projects are a marathon, not a sprint! Pacing and self-care throughout the process are critical.

Overall, developing an edited book can be an arduous yet rewarding process. What other suggestions do you have for early career scholars who are considering developing an edited book? Comment below.

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?

Making the Most of Your CV: Talking About Yourself in Bullet Points

By Ryan L. Farmer, Oklahoma State University Assembling a curriculum vitae (CV) can simultaneously be exciting and daunting. Okay, maybe exciting is an exaggeration. But some folks—myself included—really enjoy updating their CV. Why? Well, it’s an opportunity to reflect, to think about what I have accomplished, and to compare what I have done with what I would like to do. In this way, I use my CV as a self-evaluation of my progress. Whether you want to use your CV in this way or not, there’s no denying that the CV is used as an evaluation tool by others. Whether you’re applying for an internship, a postdoctoral fellowship, an academic position, a clinical position, or going up for promotion or tenure, the CV plays an integral role in documenting your professional identity and activities. In fact, the CV is one of the first documents that hiring, search, and tenure and promotion committees will look at. Just because the CV is used as an evaluation tool doesn’t mean it doesn’t serve other purposes; you can use your CV to inform and persuade others. It can also serve as a reflection of who you are as a professional. A well-formatted, informational CV can go a long way. In comparison, a sloppy or uninformative CV can make a committee’s job harder, which can mean losing the position or not getting a promotion. So why are we here? The goal is to talk about some standard CV guidelines (not rules), to talk about different ways to document your professional activities, and to share some ideas and templates. First off, a CV is different from your more traditional resume in that it’s longer and more comprehensive. Some would say, there are no length or space restrictions. Secondly, the traditional CV isn’t the only game in town (though it is by far the most common). There are two general types of CV: The traditional CV and the narrative CV, which was developed by the Royal Society & UK Reproducibility Network. The primary distinction between these formats is the former encourages listing activities and products with brief descriptions while the narrative format uses a series of prompts to evoke a narrative response about one’s professional activities and products. The purpose of the narrative format was to de-emphasize the notion of performance indicators (e.g., publication count) and to build a more comprehensive narrative of a person’s professional work. While this is a noble goal, it has not been readily adopted by many programs at this time and so our focus will be on the traditional CV in this blog post. General AdviceWhen developing your CV, remember that your ultimate goal is to communicate your professional activities and details to someone who may not be familiar with you or your work. As a result, being straightforward, well-organized, and focused will help you in achieving your goals. Additionally, while the CV is pretty structured, you should focus on you and your goals. Both the content and the order of the content are flexible, and so you should design your CV to highlight aspects of your professional work that are relevant to the situation. Treat it as a dynamic document that can be reorganized for particular uses. If you’re applying for a research position, you might lead with publications, presentations, and grants. In contrast, if you’re applying for a clinical position, you may want to highlight your clinical license(s) as well as your past clinical positions and field-based or applied experiences. Finally, those applying for predominately teaching positions may want to highlight their past teaching experiences and the courses they’ve taught in the beginning while moving research activities and publications to the end. There is no right or wrong way to build your CV--just make sure it fits your purposes.Also remember that your CV is an evolving document, and so frequently updating the content is crucial to communicating accurately. While it may be feasible to update after a long period of time, you may find it more difficult to recall details. What was the name of that committee? What presentations did I do, again? Many folks update monthly, though, for major products (e.g., a publication), I strongly encourage dropping the details in as soon as you have them. For me, I am sure to forget something I’ve done—a local presentation, an open-source document or figure, or a science communication effort—if I try and do it in batches later on. Before I jump to some basics, I wanted to provide a few wonderful links. Dr. Sara Hart provided this wonderful PowerPoint on CV basics. Some other folks offered their insights, examples, and a bit of humor that folks may find useful.[embed]https://twitter.com/rfarmer27/status/1373733643978432515?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/embed][embed]http://twitter.com/SMasonGarrison/status/1374135934493601800[/embed][embed]https://twitter.com/madDoctorAlex/status/1374135236871782406[/embed]When writing a CV, it’s crucial that it appears clean and polished at the end. One way to do that is to ensure that your formatting is thought out and consistent throughout the document. Pick a font (at max, two) and use them strategically. All of your text at a given level (e.g., body) should be in the same font and at the same size. It’s okay to vary up your headers a bit (different font or font size) to help others navigate your document. But for the love of all that is good in this universe, don’t treat this as an abstract art exhibit. While it’s the content that matters, how we present that content may bias reviewers.Screen capture of a CV that uses three different fonts across three sections. The third font is illegible. Another good thing to consider here is the readability of fonts. While it’s not wise to vary up the fonts across your document, at least the fonts in the first two sections (Education and Certification & Licensure) are easily read. Fonts.com argues it’s “all about legibility” in design, and I argue that this is true for CVs as well! Keep it clean and make it easy for others to read. Fonts.com provides wonderful information about selecting fonts. Like Fonts.com, Adobe Fonts lets you search and filter by type of font. However, there’s still a lot of options and it may not always be evident which ones will translate well to print or a pdf document. These excellent blog post from The Paper Mill Store and Practical Typography discuss many of these issues and offers suggestions for fonts. You won’t be surprised to learn that Times New Roman is amongst those suggested. If you’re not feeling adventurous, no one will judge you for sticking with the classic. In general, you want to avoid stylized, cursive, and impact fonts as those tend to be harder to read. Another CV basic is the margins of your document. Arguably, this is a preference to some extent. Those who want to read more can do so here at Practical Typography. That said, I’m a big believer in not trying to fix something that isn’t broken. The defaults in your word processor are fine. That said, you want to keep it consistent throughout your document. The last big decisions you’ll have to make are how to use spacing, tabs, tables, and horizontal rules to organize your document. There are wonderful resources for learning about the details at Practical Typography, but you may want to look at examples from others in the field and see how they’ve managed these elements. Find something you like or mostly like and tweak it. The best advice I can give here is to keep it consistent throughout your document; this may require slightly more planning upfront, but it’s worth it in the end. Okay, enough of the nitty-gritty. Let’s talk content!The ContentFor the most part, there are a number of standard sections and you can find a plethora of ways to organize and format these sections online. Note that some universities or committees may request specific breakdowns, such as the Boyer categories or institution-specific (e.g., Scholarship, Service, Outreach) categories. As such, the following should be taken as general advice, and readers should check with their institutions to see if there are specific requirements.

• Education
• Clinical experiences (e.g., practica, clinical positions)
• Professional experience (e.g., professional, non-clinical positions)
• Teaching experience (e.g., courses taught, teaching positions)
• Publications with subsections
  • Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles
  • Book Chapters
  • Reviews (e.g., test reviews)
• Presentations with subsections
  • National
  • International
  • Regional
  • Local & University Presentations
• Funding
• Certifications & Licensure
• Honors & Awards
• Membership and Professional Affiliations
• Service with subsections
  • National (e.g., NASP, editorial boards)
  • State & Regional (e.g., state associations)
  • Local & University (e.g., committees, organizations)
    • You may need to break this down further to document service at the department, college, and university levels, depending on the expectations of your promotion committee.

Since we don’t want to reinvent the wheel, we’ll only cover these briefly with a few pieces of general advice. For instance, what if you don’t have content to go under each section? Some good advice I’ve gotten is to simply exclude a section or to combine sections. For instance, early career researchers may not have a ton of publications, and so dividing them out in subsections may look a little odd. So long as you’re candid about your content (e.g., specifying that a publication is a chapter versus a peer-reviewed publication), this shouldn’t be a problem. Another piece of general advice here is to add totals at the top of each section (and maybe subsection). Yes, we know that counting publications is a pretty poor way of accounting for a person’s contributions (e.g., Büttner et al., 2020), but unfortunately many of the committees we’re submitting CVs to still operate under this paradigm, so let’s make the process clearer when we can.While how you document this information is a bit of a personal preference, there are a few standards you should be aware of. For instance, reverse chronological order (i.e., newest at the top) should be used whenever possible to highlight what you’ve been doing most recently. Whenever possible, use APA style to format information. While APA doesn’t offer styles for everything (e.g., funding) you might want to include, they offer a great deal of information about how to document publications, presentations, podcasts, and so forth that may be useful. A lot of the standard approaches to building a CV have been around for a good long while, and that may make it difficult to figure out how to include other types of content. For instance, it’s surprisingly hard to find a good, authoritative source on how to document awards and funding. One great source is Walden University’s section on documenting grants. For instance, they recommend this general format:

• Current Research
• Grant # (PI Name)
• Name of Funding Organization (no acronyms)
• Amount of Award
• Period of Grant Award
• Title of Project
• Role on Project (if not PI)

Certainly, the key elements are there and it may be worth documenting your funded (and unfunded) projects in this way, especially if you want them to stand out in your CV. A more streamlined approach, however, might be to approximate an APA format for the funded project. Something like this.

• Name of Funding Organization (no acronyms). Amount of Award, Period of Award. Title of Project & Grant # (if applicable). PI Name. Role on Project (if not PI). 

Documenting Non-Traditional ContributionsThere don’t seem to be any hard and fast rules here, so find a format that works for you and—you guessed it—be consistent. Similarly, there’s little guidance out there on how to document more contemporary contributions to science and practice, such as the creation of software, leading national book or journal clubs, engaging in science communication, and so forth. One option is simply to create subcategories, or a new section, called Public Scholarship to capture some of these activities. This can be a bit imprecise as some are more like traditional scholarship (e.g., an open data set) while others are not (e.g., science communication). I have taken the route of creating a Public Scholarship section and specifying that it is not peer reviewed. Under that, I list subsections for podcasts, science communication and white papers, and blog posts (like this one!). That said, I’m not claiming my approach is right. Some authors have started thinking and working on these issues. Recently, Acquaviva et al (2020) helped to define the notion of Social Media Engagement as an aspect of Public Scholarship both in terms of including social media outreach and activities in the promotion and tenure process, but also in offering guidelines for how such content might be documented. For instance, documenting engagement in social media overall is relatively straightforward, and may look something like this:

• Twitter: @rfarmer27. 2019 to present
• 897 followers. 37,100 impressions.
• 87 tweets. 

or

• Facebook: EBSPsych. 2018 to 2020
• 7,382 followers. 27,000 user reach.
•  https://www.facebook.com/EBSPsych/notifications

Acquaviva et al. (2020) offer more specific guidance for individual social media efforts, but I don’t wish to repeat them here. I strongly encourage folks to check out their work for more details. In addition to how we document public scholarship, I want to talk a little about how we might verify these contributions. For instance, when creating and uploading digital presentations, podcasts, or static images (e.g., infographics), users might consider Figshare or Open Science Framework (OSF). Figshare may be ideal for individual files or presentations whereas OSF more appropriate for projects that consist of several files. The benefit of these services over personal repositories is the ability to generate digital object identifiers and static links. An alternative for video recordings is YouTube, which also provides a permanent link. In addition to details for describing and accessing the content, scholars may want to provide metrics for these materials, such as the number of participants, the reach, and so forth. This said, these guidelines are very much in their infancy and there are a number of ways to document these types of activities. For instance, Dr. Garrison offered a few screen-captures from her CV demonstrating how she documents her contributions to online forums, software packages, and even skills![embed]https://twitter.com/SMasonGarrison/status/1374135407760318467?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/embed]Documenting Transparency & Open Science EffortsAdditionally, we might go about documenting various transparency efforts on our CV as an indication of our contributions and as indicators of scientific rigor. Some of you may be familiar with open science badges. It’s relatively straightforward to include these badges and relevant links right into your CV to highlight your transparency efforts. Consider this example from my CV.We’ve documented that we have open stimulus materials (in this case, a survey) and a hyperlink to the OSF project where those details can be found. It would be relatively little effort to modify this to specify that we’ve posted open data, open code, or that we pre-registered the project. We didn’t, so we don’t have those elements here. These badges are available with attribution to the OSF and can highlight these efforts. It might be virtue signaling, but it’s also an indication that you value transparency in your work, and it just might be viewed fondly by your committee! ConclusionFrankly, there’s so much content here that it was hard to select what to include. I tried to be responsive to questions we received following our blog post on science communication, to address common concerns, and to provide a plethora of resources. Toward that last point, we’ve assembled an OSF project on CV construction. If folks want to contribute by adding resources, examples, or templates, please contact Ryan Farmer at r.farmer@okstate.edu or request access as a contributor via the OSF project page. What other recommendations do you have for making the most of CV prep? What tips or tricks make the process less arduous? Let us know what we missed and how we might expand on these and related topics!

Science Communication: It's a Dialogue, Not a Monologue

By Ryan Farmer, PhD, Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State UniversityUniversity faculty are often encouraged to engage in ‘outreach’ to increase the impact of their work locally, nationally, and internationally. While this may take many forms, such as working with local schools, providing professional development, and so forth, one increasingly popular approach is science communication. Science communication (scicomm) is communication aimed at engaging or informing an audience about science-related topics, and can serve a variety of traditional purposes such as (a) increasing awareness or (b) interest in specific topics; (c) developing understanding; and (d) providing information for decision-making. Throughout 2020 and into 2021, we saw a great deal of scicomm about COVID-19 including dashboards to relay information about the spread of the virus (e.g., https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/), information about the efficacy of mask-wearing (e.g., https://aatishb.com/maskmath/), and vaccine efficacy and safety (e.g., https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-vaccines-infographic). Other perennial topics have long been front-and-center of scicomm efforts, including climate science, GMOs, and health and dieting. While these efforts are intended to share information on controversial and important topics for the general public, science communication may target a variety of audiences for many different purposes. On a much smaller scale, individual researchers often share research within and between research communities, with practitioners, or target specific audiences such as policymakers and related professionals. School psychology researchers are well-poised to engage in science communication as they can assist with developing deeper understanding and awareness of important issues and influence their impact in real time. Why Should You Consider Science Communication?The most obvious ‘why’ of scicomm is the transmission of information from an expert to an audience. This dissemination paradigm is the most traditional approach to science communication and is captured well by university press releases, documentaries, science books, and interviews on news and podcast mediums. In the dissemination paradigm, information only--or primarily--moves in one direction. The Conversation is an exemplar of this approach and most scicomm efforts in school psychology have existed primarily within the dissemination paradigm (e.g., School Psyched Podcast) as well. In contrast, the public participation paradigm is built on the idea of a dialogue between the expert(s), public, and policymakers. Kappel and Holmen (2019) write about more-and-less involved approaches to the public participation approach, ranging from organized efforts to involve members of the public in an ongoing research project to public hearings. Perhaps the most obvious examples of the public participation paradigm in school psychology are the active school psychology communities on Twitter (#schoolpsychology), Practitioner Conversation sessions at NASP, and research-practice partnerships. The benefits of more traditional scicomm are clearer, though scicomm built around improving dialogue has the potential to improve research questions and methods, social validity, and involvement from stakeholders. Both approaches have a small but meaningful potential to narrow the scientist-practitioner gap.How to Get StartedThere are many ways to get started with scicomm, including posting information about a paper you’ve written on social media. Take, for instance, this tweet from Dr. Dan Cohen.

We collected data on the number suspensions received by each student in the sample & found that more exposure to ISS or OSS was associated with worse social, emotional, & behavioral outcomes at the end of the school year, accounting for the same measures collected in the fall.

— Dan Cohen (@DanRCohenPhD) February 4, 2021

In this thread of tweets, Dr. Cohen shares his research, tags relevant users on Twitter, and then describes--broadly--the findings of the paper through a series of tweets. While built primarily from a dissemination paradigm, this approach to scicomm has great potential for dialogue as readers can respond to each tweet in the thread with comments or questions.Using Twitter as a scientist may seem a bit daunting. For those who are interested in learning more, Dr. Daniel Quintana maintains Twitter for Scientists, which is a guide to using Twitter to get feedback on ongoing work, engage in scicomm, and build your reputation in an online community. Researchers may choose to have an individual account or a lab account, but the effect is largely similar. Ortega (2016) found that papers published by Twitter users were more likely to be shared on Twitter, and that “...it indirectly could influence the research impact because the visibility of academic outputs could benefit the citing of those materials” (p. 1362). It is likely that when papers are behind paywalls, the impact of sharing via Twitter may be diminished (cf. OA Citation effect). Twitter, however, is just one avenue. Researchers have been turning to other digital media platforms such as Facebook, Youtube (see How to Succeed as an Academic on Youtube), and blogs to share research and engage with audiences. More traditional approaches, such as posting material to college digital repositories and professional listservs also remain viable as approaches to promote your work, but may not create an open dialogue or provide users with an opportunity to expand or clarify.Before we jump into recommended practices, those interested in learning more about scicomm should check out these podcast episodes from Everything Hertz*:14: Science Communication107: Memes, TikTok, and Science Communication with Chelsea Parlett-Pelleriti*may contain explicit language.Early career faculty interested in learning more about the science behind science communication are referred to the journal, Science Communication, which has been publishing rich content since the late 1970s. Other sources of information include The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University and the AAAS Communication Toolkit. In addition, wonderful digital resources are available, such as Canva, PiktoChart, Sci Ani, and WordPress that can help people start building and sharing content.General RecommendationsThe School of Public Affairs at American University has shared an introduction to scicomm and outlined several recommended practices. Similarly, Choo and Lewis (2021) provided recommendations from their active scicomm efforts. Rather than copying their content here, I’ll provide a brief outline of their recommendations below.

1. Plan ahead (e.g., research the audience; prepare, practice, and get feedback).
2. Identify your goals.
3. Collaborate with other experts and organizations.
4. Communicate your content accurately, ethically, and clearly.
5. Engage on social media (e.g., in ongoing discussions).
6. Establish trust and build relationships with your audience.
7. Respect your audience.
8. Be flexible.
9. Seek out training.
10. Embrace what science can tell us (and what it can’t).
11. Be humble about what you know and don’t know (see Skipper’s The Humility Heuristic).

Additional resources have encouraged the use of humor (Jocularity, jocularity, jocularity!) within reason, share information in images or videos whenever possible (e.g., a key figure from your paper), keep the text short and relatively jargon-free, use--but beware--metaphors, and consider the venue. Above all else: follow the evidence and be humble. Scicomm should not be limited to positive results, and we should embrace uncertainty in our outcomes. This might include specifying the boundary conditions of observed effects, the limitations of our design, and the potential for error. It may also simply be embracing uncertainty with a bit of humility. Communicating uncertainty can feel like a risk, especially when you want others to take your information and apply it to their research, their practice, or in policy change. However, there’s good reason to believe that communicating uncertainty is ethically appropriate (Lewis et al., 2020) and, at the very least, doesn’t significantly decrease our public credibility (Gustafson & Rice, 2019). Ultimately, school psychology is somewhat unique in that our audience is three-fold. We may be talking within the academy (i.e., to scientists), from the academy to persons outside of our field (i.e., non-scientists), and from the academy to practitioners (e.g., scientist-practitioners). We have to understand our goals in communicating, the background knowledge of our audience, and that even within each audience, the relevance of your work is going to vary. Each of these factors must be considered before any communication will be successful. Also, Eric Elias and Rebecca Comizio from the School Psyched Podcast team provided some general advice for people interested in engaging in scicomm.When asked about the biggest lesson they’ve learned doing scicomm, Rebecca Comizio said that “It’s hard because regular communication is even harder. People don’t speak science, or fully appreciate/understand it.” Similarly, Eric Elias commented said “I think one lesson is that as a practice, pseudoscience has its hooks in deeply. We often sink to the easiest common denominator in some aspects of practice. In other words, pseudoscience is easier to follow because it’s less challenging.” Both hosts seemed to come to the same general conclusion: science is hard, and communicating it is no easy task. When asked about the advice she would give to people interested in starting to engage in scicomm, Ms. Comizio said “...know what you don’t know and name it. Keep an open mind and keep learning. Shoot for understanding, not convincing.”Getting Credit for Your SciCommLet’s be honest with one another: If you’re on the tenure track, finding time to tie your shoelaces can be a challenge. Engaging in any kind of professional activity without a clear product to add to your annual or promotion materials is a hard sale. While traditional forms of scicomm (e.g., interviews, popular press articles) can be directly cited in your evaluation materials, this is less clear for scicomm efforts on social media. To address this (very real) concern, I’d remind you that scicomm can pay dividends. As we discussed earlier, it can lead to increased awareness of your work, and thus increased impact. It may also lead to additional opportunities to collaborate, speaking invitations, and a boost to your professional reputation. But what about the short game? One way to get immediate credit for your scicomm efforts is to use Open Science platforms such as Figshare or the Open Science Framework to host your scicomm products (e.g., infographics, videos). First, this produces a stable link which you can tie to a line on your CV or other materials. But perhaps more importantly, both systems can produce digital object identifiers for your work. Take for example this infographic that our research team produced regarding remote ability testing during COVID-19. Not only is that figure shareable, but it can also be cited. Thinking outside the box, using some of the resources produced by the open science movement, and looking toward the future may help in evaluating the impact of your scicomm efforts.ConclusionThroughout this blog post, I’ve tried to embed resources on various topics, where to find research on effective communication strategies, general recommendations, and a bit of advice from people doing the work. There’s no debate: scicomm takes effort, persistence, and time. However, the payoff can be completely worth the effort. What benefit could scicomm have for your research? How might school psychology faculty use scicomm to increase the use of culturally-responsive and evidence-based practices? 

Top 10 Tips for New Faculty

On November 5, 2020, the ECF’s Lindsay Fallon and Bryn Harris hosted a virtual social for new faculty where they highlighted their top 10 tips from past ECF posts. See the tips below, linked to the original posts. 10. Self-Care MattersIn a year in which the election, racial justice, and a global pandemic are at the forefront, take care of yourself to help others. 

• Take breaks from watching, reading, or listening to news stories, including social media. Hearing about the pandemic repeatedly can be upsetting.
• Take care of your body by engaging in relaxation techniques (deep breathing, stretching, meditation), healthy eating, exercise, and adequate sleep. 
• Make time to unwind and connect with others. Talking with trusted friends and colleagues can help to process difficult events and feelings. 

9. It’s OK to Not Have Academic Parenthood All Figured OutIf you are caring for others, be kind to yourself. In this post, Dr. Sterett Mercer reminded us to:

• Match tasks with current capabilities. 
• Planning and initiating a major project at a “low point” may not be the best use of time. 
• Be aware of the cycles of the work week and academic year and set reasonable expectations. 
• Try to relax and stay in the game - burnout is real!

8. Recognize That Imposter Syndrome Is CommonKnow that you belong; fake it ‘til you make it. Our anonymous blogger, Dr. Ima Syke, pointed out the following steps to help deal with imposter syndrome:

• Recognize it within yourself and in others. 
• Regularly remind yourself of your accomplishments. 
• Become keenly aware of your strengths. 
• Discuss imposter syndrome with your students. 
• Seek support. 

7. Be as Efficient as Possible With Course PrepFind ways to use time wisely when prepping courses and teaching. Dr. Bryn Harris recommends that you: 

• Schedule time to prep. 
• Make revisions right away! Take notes during or immediately after class on things that went well and things that need to be improved. 
• Teach early in the week if you can. It forces you to be efficient, and leaves the rest of the week for other tasks. 
• Use the notes feature in PowerPoint to remind you what you were thinking when you made the slide a year ago. Be kind to your future self!

6. Know Who You Are As a MentorBe intentional about how you will mentor and know your limits. Drs. Bryn Harris and Amanda Sullivan advocated that we: 

• Seek support from others when stuck and to learn ideas.
• Identify strong role models, be inspired by their style. 
• Know your strengths and decide what your approach will be/is. 
• Define expectations, roles and goals. 
• Set boundaries.
• Follow through with what you say you will do. 

5. Your Research Agenda Can EvolveYou are not wedded to who you were in your cover letter. Dr. Milena A. Keller-Margulis emphasized that it’s important you: 

• Don’t think of your research agenda as static but rather inherently reflective and ongoing.
• The best way to determine (or evolve) the general topic(s) of your research agenda is to pay attention to the topics that interest you the most. You might discover this through reading the literature but these ideas may also surface through your practical or field-based experiences. 
• Do not be afraid to test drive some areas of interest by getting involved in or exploring new areas, and talking to other people with similar interests.
• These activities will help you narrow your focus to the topics and questions that are the most interesting to you. 

4. A Manuscript Rejection Is Sometimes a BlessingIt’s awful, but can also teach you a lesson. Dr. Laura Pendergast shared this story: “Are you done?” my mentor asked patiently. My beautiful manuscript had been rejected… again. My mentor had been listening to me complain for 15 minutes. I was starting a tenure-track position and needed to publish. I had conducted my analyses using the most current statistical techniques. I had painstakingly crafted my arguments and drawn careful, well-supported conclusions. Why didn’t these reviewers understand my paper?! My mentor looked at me calmly and shared a hard truth that changed the way I thought about my writing. She said, “The editor chose three reviewers who he viewed as trusted experts. These hand-picked experts didn’t understand your paper. If multiple, highly educated people didn’t understand what you wrote, whose fault is that?” She was right. Publishing manuscripts is not just about being technically correct and scientifically sound. It is about communicating with an audience… I began by making a new outline. I kept my original results section but rewrote the rest of the paper in a way that was clear and conveyed why the work was meaningful. The revised paper was quickly accepted at another journal.” 3. Start Thinking Now About Your Personal StatementIt’s never too early to start thinking about T&P. Panelists offered the following advice on crafting your materials:Dr. Jamilia Blake: “Your CV provides a quantitative account of what you have accomplished in a set amount of time. I often think of my CV as my personal reference list. However, your candidate statement is qualitative and provides the context for your work. It should not merely be a narrative recount of your CV. It is your opportunity to bring attention to themes in your work that you feel are important and will eventually have impact on the field. It is your space to discuss how your work shows promise for changing school psychology practice and research.”Dr. Amanda Sullivan: “I used my statements to explain activities and describe linkages between them - to tell the story I wanted them to take away from reviewing my materials.” 2. Be Intentional About Managing Your TimeSelf-manage or track your time devoted to research, teaching and service. Dr. Stacy-Ann January offered the following recommendations: “I use a program/app called Toggl (many other programs are available). I started with 3 broad categories (research, teaching, service) and then kept track of everything I did related to those categories. Each week, Toggl sends me an email with a breakdown of how I spent my time during the previous week.”Know when you write best. Dr. Dave Klingbeil shared his approach: “I write best late at night, when there are far fewer distractions. I also tend to be more productive when I write almost every day for 1-2 hours (not always attainable), rather than trying to protect two full days for ‘research time’.” 1. Give Yourself the Gift of NoDr. Amanda Sullivan pointed out, As an early career scholar, you have a finite amount of time so there reaches a point where saying yes to one thing means saying no to another - or where you risk overburdening yourself to the point where your performance in other areas of work suffers. Saying yes to x often means less time for y. Learning to say no first requires identifying your priorities so that you can easily identify requests and opportunities inconsistent with those priorities. Practice pleasantly and unapologetically saying no. It’s okay to say no without offering any more justification than you are simply unavailable. What other tips or favorite posts would you share with new faculty?

Navigating the Impact of COVID-19: Advice from School Psychology Faculty with Experience in Administrative Roles

By Lindsay Fallon, University of Massachusetts BostonIn our previous posts this spring, we addressed the general concerns posed by COVID and those specific to research. On May 11, 2020, the SSSP ECF, led by Bryn Harris, hosted a Q&A session for early career faculty to explore perspectives of university administrators who are also school psychology scholars. Experienced department and college administrators answered questions from early career faculty about how to weather this time and what to expect in the months to come. Our panelists were Drs. Beth Doll (Professor and former Dean, University of Nebraska – Lincoln), Randy Floyd (Chair and Professor, University of Memphis), and Amity Noltemeyer (Chair and Professor, Miami University). Below, we synthesize their responses to the questions posed by early career participants.A note: The panelists recognized that institutions and circumstances vary widely and there is no one-size-fits all approach to working in the context of COVID-19 as an early career faculty member. Therefore, these ideas are intended only as a starting point for reflection, rather than a road map for success.How can early career faculty advocate for themselves with their administrators to get support for their professional and personal needs? 

• Be informed and participate in shared governance. If you are able, consider serving on the faculty senate (or other shared governance entity at your college or university). If you are unable to participate in shared governance actively, identify a colleague who can advocate on your behalf. This might be a more senior faculty member in your department who can suggest policy changes or request support to benefit you and other early career faculty members.
• Be strategic with requests for support when communicating with administrators. Your institution’s administrators may have certain priorities right now, impacting what they can (and are willing) to support. When making a request for support, ask for what you think you need at this moment, acknowledging there may be limited capacity to support your requests. 
• Be entrepreneurial if you can. Consider strategic opportunities that may benefit you now and in the coming year. An example of this is perhaps applying for a small grant to allow for a course buyout. If funded, this could offer you more time in the coming academic year to devote to other professional and personal responsibilities. 
• Build relationships with department, college and university administrators and leaders. It is helpful if these individuals know who you are and what you have accomplished. This may be especially important as administrators navigate the next steps of responding to COVID-19 at your institution (e.g., how to address budgetary losses).
• If time allows, continue to improve your skills. That is, if you’re able, consider spending time engaging in professional development activities (e.g., reading, strengthening statistical skills) to improve your skills as a researcher, teacher, and mentor.

The ramifications of COVID-19 will likely be extensive in all areas of academic work – teaching, research and service. Some universities have offered to stop the tenure clock for one year given these challenges. What things should early career faculty consider when determining whether or not to take this clock stoppage? 

• Every institution has its own set of traditions around promotion and tenure. Find out when you will have to make any decisions about pausing your tenure clock or delaying tenure. Determine if you must ask for it now or if you can ask for it in a year, two years, etc.
• Solicit advice from more senior faculty members in your unit. They should be able to tell you if you’re on the right path or if more time might be beneficial to you, considering their understanding of your institution’s guidelines. It may also be helpful to discuss such a decision with college-level leadership.
• Inquire if and what guidance will be given to external reviewers when considering tenure portfolios in the future. Specifically, you might ask departmental or college leadership if there will be a standard statement made to all reviewers about how to consider tenure packages in light of the impact of COVID-19.
• Do not feel badly if you’re not your most productive right now. Most people are not being highly productive at the moment. 

As COVID-19 may impact tenure decisions, annual reviews, and general evaluative processes, how might recent or future administrative action impact these processes? How might early career faculty advocate for themselves during these evaluative processes? 

• Most likely, COVID-19’s impact will be context-specific. That is, there will be variability across departments, colleges, universities, states, etc.
• Provide contextualization in reviews or review materials to give your Chair (or other evaluator) more detail about the materials submitted for review. Consider explaining changes to productivity or teaching evaluations, and convey how you continue to add value to the unit. 
• Know the policies of your college and university. If you feel like you’re being evaluated in a way that conflicts with the policy, ask about it, determine your rights, and consider engaging with your faculty union (if you have one). Again, be as engaged as possible in the decision-making at the department and college level to support you and other early career faculty. 
• Stay optimistic and strong. It is likely leaders will be taking context into consideration, care about the development of faculty, and will want to nurture a sense of goodwill within units.

Early career faculty are concerned about potential pay freezes and pay reductions. Recently, we have seen both of these scenarios become reality at multiple universities. What strategies might early career faculty consider in dealing with these financial challenges? 

• Pay cuts may be seen in various forms, and this is (and will likely be) highly varied by institution. Pay cuts may come in the form of furlough days, pay freezes, and a reduction of supplemental pay opportunities. The pay cuts may impact administrators and staff in more significant ways
• If pay freezes occur, they won’t last forever. Continue to think about showing your value, make yourself indispensable. 
• Know your limits. Know what you can do and what you can’t do. Don’t be taken advantage of.
• Know your options. For instance, if you are facing a 25% pay cut, perhaps look around for another position (including outside of academia), or if you’re finding that there are not viable options, consider if you can survive with the cut.
• Again, be entrepreneurial. Perhaps there are summer teaching opportunities that maybe you didn’t consider before that may be worth pursuing now.
• When the financial situation improves, you may be able to request support to increase your productivity. This might mean asking for additional graduate assistant hours or research funds (if possible or available).In sum, you picked a great field and there continues to be a need for school psychologists. It should give you a sense of optimism. You have skills as a school psychologist that professionals in many other disciplines do not have. There are always going to be opportunities for school psychologists (both inside and outside of academia).

Early career faculty may be asked to assume additional administrative tasks or an increased load next year and potentially beyond. What advice might you have for early career faculty as they navigate these additional responsibilities? 

• It is very possible that there will be changes in the future. There may be changes to how we evaluate teaching, research, and service. 
• If you have increased class sizes, consider how to adjust your teaching to continue to teach with high quality. This may involve being innovative. For instance, if you’re teaching an assessment course in which you traditionally had many protocols or review and grade, consider instead asking students to review each other’s work carefully and then for each student to submit an exemplar for grading. This would reduce your grading load.
• Start thinking now about how to move your coursework online for the fall (e.g., start locating videos, ancillary materials, online examples). This will help you prepare for distance or hybrid teaching.
• Think about untapped resources. For instance, consider if you can rely more on undergraduate students and offer an independent study. If you’re able to “delegate” to students, students may be able to learn from the opportunity and it will give you more time to do other tasks.
• Monitor distribution of service tasks among your unit and advocate for yourself if you feel you are doing more than your share of service.If possible, ask departmental leadership to give you no new course preps in the coming year to protect your time.
• Expect that this may not be your best year (per teaching evaluations, number of manuscripts submitted for review, etc.). That’s OK. You’ll learn a lot and be able to apply what you learn in future years.

What advice would you give new faculty as they potentially have fewer opportunities for collaboration (research/teaching/service), presenting, professional development opportunities, and travel or internal research funding (among others) while trying to establish themselves and launch their careers? 

• Take advantage of opportunities to be involved in online conferences and professional meetings. This will require little travel funding and allow you to engage in networking and professional development.
• Or, perhaps instead of focusing on conference posters and paper presentations, allow yourself more time to spend writing research briefs and/or full-length manuscripts. 
• Consider if you have contacts or colleagues interested in collaborating on (a) analyses of large existing datasets, (b) systematic literature reviews, (c) policy analyses, or (d) research with undergraduate students. 
• Consider if there are opportunities to engage in research about the impact of COVID-19 with school partners. Some of the most exciting research comes out of unanticipated circumstances.

What other advice do you have for early career scholars?

• Not everyone is in the same boat, but we’re all weathering the same storm.
• Look for allies in other academic units if you’re not being supported in your own unit (e.g., colleagues in social work, teacher education). They may be able to relate to your situation and provide advocacy in your unit, college, or university.
• If you need to advocate for yourself, use your consultation skills to guide your interactions with administrators (e.g., build rapport, reference facts/data). 
• Keep an updated CV so that you’re tracking your marketability and prepared for change, if needed.
• You may see pots of money (e.g., travel funds, indirect funds for a PI) being reallocated for more immediate needs. That is, reallocated funds may be protecting the jobs of more vulnerable university staff, so take that into consideration as you note changes.
• Access available resources from professional communities. For instance, TSP is archiving guidance and various forums related to supporting faculty in the era of COVID-19. Access these opportunities.
• Keep moving forward. Be well.

Thank you to our panelists and to everyone who joined us for the session. Do you have comments or questions? Post below.