Cultivating Growth and Balance: Strategies for Supervising Graduate Assistants Effectively

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

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

Understanding Different Types of GAs

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

Teaching Assistants (TAs)

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

Research Assistants (RAs)

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

Clinical GAs

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

Administrative GAs

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

Mentoring, Not Just Managing

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

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

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

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

Clinical Setting Example: 

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

Setting Clear Expectations and Boundaries

Transparency at the beginning prevents misunderstandings later.

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

Creating Structure: Systemic GA Management

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

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

Promoting Fairness and Preventing Burnout

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

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

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

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

Building a Sense of Community

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

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

Final Reflections

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

Sustaining Your Writing Pipeline When Research Funding is Scarce

Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

For many scholars, grant funding is an important component of maintaining an active research program. Cuts in federal funding for research in the social sciences, education, and other disciplines have been sweeping, stalling important projects and ultimately threatening school psychologists’ ability to provide a range of academic, behavioral and mental health services in schools. For faculty charged with maintaining active research agendas, this may also mean a significant interruption to publication pipelines, which can be problematic for junior faculty who must demonstrate productivity in order to obtain tenure.

Given that grant funding from major federal agencies likely will continue to be limited under the current federal administration, junior faculty may need to find ways to maintain their publication pipelines until they are able to resume their planned research activities. Below we offer some suggestions for maintaining an active writing pipeline in the absence of critical grant funding.

Support community partners.

First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge the tremendous impact that cuts to federal funding have had on children, families and school communities. Many of the grant dollars that were terminated had been allocated to provide much needed mental and behavioral health services to school-age youth; as such, schools are coping with a significant loss of resources. This is an important time to support communities that have experienced these losses, and attending carefully to their needs will be important. While some school districts may wish to pause their relations with research teams, others may still be seeking support. Consider some ways that you can support these districts in light of funding cuts. For instance, providing consultation, professional development, or other resources (support through practicum student placements) may be helpful to schools as they navigate these difficult times.

Initiate writing projects that require minimal funding.

There are many types of research and scholarship that require minimal funding. These projects can be helpful in preparing for future, larger-scale projects if and when funding returns. Some examples are as follows:

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be particularly helpful for taking stock of existing work in a given research area. They can also be helpful for reconciling similar studies with conflicting results. While meta-analyses can be time-consuming and require considerable labor on the part of research teams, data collection is often done through online databases typically accessible through university libraries. These types of research projects can be very helpful in summarizing existing work and helping scholars consider future directions for their work.
• Conceptual or other non-empirical articles, or articles focused on advancing new frameworks, perspectives, ideas, or theories, also require minimal financial resources. These articles are important forms of scholarship that can set the stage for subsequent empirical work. Some recent prominent examples include Malone (2024), Sabnis and Proctor (2022), and Fallon et al. (2023).
• Secondary data analysis involves conducting analyses on existing large-scale data sets. Large-scale secondary data analysis can allow researchers with minimal research support to engage in potentially rigorous studies that would not otherwise be possible without substantial research funding (Sullivan et al., 2020). A three-part primer on secondary data analysis that addresses considerations for researchers, practitioners, and dissemination and consumption of research findings in popular media can be found in the NASP Communiqué.Books and book chapters can also be good prospects for projects when funding is limited. Given their time-intensive nature, book projects may be ideal when there are long-term lulls in research funding. A recent ECF blog post described considerations for developing edited books.
• Guest editing a special issue is an important form of service and scholarship. These types of projects allow scholars to integrate emerging scholarship from a range of authors along a particular theme. A recent ECF blog post offered some tips for serving as an action editor. Additional guidance on guest editing special issues has also been published in the NASP Communiqué.

Find creative ways to secure resources, engage participants, and build research teams.

Although federal funding may be limited, there may be other outlets for securing research funds. For example, although likely to become competitive in this climate, foundation funding as well as university seed funding may be available. Notably, several years ago the ECF published a blog post on working with university giving to secure funding, which early career faculty may find particularly helpful in this climate.

When funding is unavailable to engage participants and/or research team members, scholars may find other ways to ensure that these individuals are appropriately and fairly compensated. For example, undergraduate and graduate student workers who need course credit (e.g., free electives) toward their respective degrees may be interested in completing independent studies in research labs. Similarly, research participants may be interested in other forms of compensation (e.g., professional development for participants who are school personnel; graduate school consultation sessions for undergraduate student participants).

General tips for maintaining research productivity.

The ECF has developed several blog posts with tips for staying productive, including tips related to developing productive research partnerships, planning research activities for the first year of academia, and structuring writing time. We encourage you to explore these posts. In general, staying connected with colleagues is also important. Although resources may be constrained for everyone, groups of faculty members may be able to pool resources to accomplish certain projects. Additionally, staying connected through activities such as writing accountability groups can help you feel grounded and keep your research agenda moving forward during uncertain times. Finally, talking with others about how they are handling the situation can be helpful, as it may give you some ideas about to how to move forward yourself.

How have you maintained your productivity in light of cuts to grant funding? Please comment below!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Managing Your Time During Your First Year of Academia

Garret J. Hall, Florida State University

Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

As a first-year faculty member, deciding how to allocate your time can be challenging. Many faculty are expected to balance scholarship, teaching, and service responsibilities, all while acclimating to a new institution. At the same time, academic schedules are often quite flexible and afford faculty considerable discretion in how they spend their time. This can leave new academics (and even more experienced ones) feeling lost about how to schedule their days and plan for accomplishing short- and long-term goals. The following describes tips for new faculty members seeking to use their work time efficiently and realistically during their first year in academia.

• Identify and clarify your institution’s priorities and expectations around faculty responsibilities.

Universities vary considerably in their expectations for research productivity, teaching loads, and service responsibilities. Having a clear understanding of your institution’s expectations is critical for determining how to spend your time. For instance, faculty at institutions with substantial scholarship expectations should be especially intentional about carving out time for research and writing. Similarly, faculty who are expected to contribute heavily to academic programs and/or teaching may benefit from spending more time on these activities.

Unfortunately, institutions can be vague in communicating productivity expectations, especially in regard to research. This is due, in part, to the fact that scholarly pursuits (and thus evidence of productivity) vary considerably across disciplines and among scholars within those disciplines. For example, most universities do not explicitly specify a minimum number of publications or amount of grant funding needed to secure tenure and promotion.

Speaking to as many colleagues as possible at various institutional levels (e.g., department, college) can help clarify expectations. More experienced faculty members often have knowledge of institutional precedent that can be helpful for surmising university expectations. Moreover, examining CVs and other professional profiles (e.g., Google Scholar profiles) of colleagues at your level (e.g., pre-tenure) or more advanced levels (e.g., tenured and promoted) can also be helpful for gauging expectations.

Clarifying tenure and evaluation timelines and requirements is, of course, an important consideration in allocating your time. Being knowledgeable about these processes will allow you to determine how much progress you need to make over a given period. For instance, learning more about whether and how often periodic pre-tenure evaluations occur can help you pace yourself.

Finally, balancing university expectations with your own career goals is important as well. For instance, faculty with primarily teaching and clinical appointments who ultimately aspire to obtain more research-oriented positions should be mindful of balancing institutional priorities with their own research pursuits. Likewise, faculty who aspire to more teaching-oriented positions may wish to focus on refining their teaching philosophy, mastering effective teaching practices, and building a strong, diversified record of university instruction.

• Focus on your existing pipeline of scholarship while maintaining an eye toward building your long-term research agenda.

Building a long-term research agenda at a new institution can be time intensive. As you work toward this goal, consider making progress on writing projects that are already in your research pipeline (i.e., with data that are already collected and/or analyzed). This will allow you to maintain a fluid, consistent record of scholarship as you settle into your new faculty position. If you do not have a robust pipeline of scholarship to draw from, consider undertaking writing projects that do not require a full lab setup or established research partnerships. For instance, you might consider working on conceptual papers, book chapters, or other types of manuscripts while you prepare for new data collection. Working closely with existing collaborators can also help you maintain publishing momentum while also affording you time to set up longer-term projects.

As you build your long-term research agenda, it can be helpful to set tangible, short-term goals and to avoid starting too many new projects at once. You might consider identifying a few short-term research tasks and committing to finishing them (e.g., finishing a literature review, submitting an IRB application). You might also identify projects that will allow you to document clear progress along your tenure timeline (accounting for interim reviews). At the same time, consider how these short-term projects will contribute toward your longer-term publication pipeline and grant funding goals (if relevant).

• Work steadily toward building your lab and research infrastructure while also being mindful of the work required.

Spending time building your lab and/or research team infrastructure can be time-consuming. If you are fortunate to be awarded start-up funding or space for a lab, setting up this space (and even spending down funds) can require quite a bit of time and administrative effort. Likewise, setting up lab routines and protocols, preparing Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications for a new university, establishing external research partnerships, and recruiting and training new lab members can also be time intensive. While these activities pay dividends in the long run, they often do not result in tangible products or evidence of productivity. Be patient with yourself as you navigate these processes and remind yourself that you are still making needed progress. Moreover, consider the above tips for maintaining research productivity while building your lab/research infrastructure.

• Intentionally pursue collaborations within and outside of your university.

Collaboration both within and outside of your university can be one of the great joys of academia; nevertheless, identifying collaborators with whom you are compatible and share common interests can take time. Consider building these relationships as early on as possible. Internal colleagues might appreciate your reaching out to get to know them and to discuss potential collaborations (even if these collaborations are not realized immediately). Outside of your university, attending conferences and connecting with committees and/or interest groups through professional organizations can be a great way to build relationships and identify potential collaborators.

• Choose your service activities carefully.

Service is an important part of contributing to your university and larger profession; however, extremely heavy service loads can make it difficult to balance other roles in your first year and beyond. Typically, first-year faculty are (or at least should) be expected to take on relatively less service than their more advanced peers, as new faculty need time to prepare for research and teaching. While it is important to be a good citizen of your department, university, and profession, be sure to protect your research and teaching time as needed during this early stage of your career.

Ultimately, you will likely take on some service responsibilities in your first year, and choosing activities that are aligned with your other professional roles can be helpful. For example, serving on internal grant review committees may allow you to become familiar with procedures and evaluation criteria for these funding mechanisms. Likewise, becoming involved in editorial service (e.g., serving as an ad hoc reviewer, editorial board member, or editorial fellow) for peer-reviewed journals may sharpen your skills in critiquing and designing research studies as well as familiarize you with publication standards for various journals.

• Identify optimal times for productivity and prioritize them.

Your unstructured time can quickly become filled with impromptu meetings or other unplanned tasks. Imposing your own structure on large blocks of time can help prioritize specific kinds of tasks at different points in the day or week. Some faculty prefer to write research papers on certain days of the week and/or during certain times of the day, but those days/time might not be the same ones conducive to accomplishing other important tasks (e.g., class preparation).  It might take some trial-and-error to identify those times of day that are best suited to specific tasks—not all 3-hour blocks are ideal for the same activities. You might not have the same motivation to finish that Discussion section on a Friday from 1-4 p.m. as you would on a Tuesday. Everyone works a little differently, and that’s OK, but it might take time to figure out what works best for you—especially when the obligations pulling you in different directions as faculty will be very different than those as a graduate student, postdoc, or practitioner. Finding time to write with other friends and faculty can help provide structure and accountability; for instance, the SSSP ECF monthly writing retreats may help you build writing momentum.

Another strategy for prioritizing writing time can be to write during small blocks of time between other commitments. Those 15 minutes between meetings could be used to make some incremental progress on a smaller writing task. We know that saving a large task for a large block of time can feel daunting. Breaking down writing tasks into those smaller chunks to complete in between other commitments can help keep the writing momentum going and prevent you from becoming overwhelmed with the writing projects you have.

On the other hand, try to also be flexible with your time. That impromptu lunch with a colleague during your planned writing time is also important for your social and personal satisfaction at your job. You may feel like you are getting distracted from your writing plans, but being too task-oriented can burn you out. Many fruitful ideas and collaborations have come from unplanned meals, coffee breaks, and hallway conversations. Moreover, save time to think and read about your ideas. What “counts” as writing is not just the act of writing itself; thinking and reading are investments in writing. Don’t underestimate them. It’s OK to stare at the wall for 2 hours if it brought you clarity on how to approach your next project or write your next paper introduction (it’s also OK if it didn’t).

• Finding a way to balance work and life takes time and needs to be intentional.

You worked hard for many years, and you finally landed the academic job you were hoping for. Starting your first academic job is exciting and likely also stressful. There are many new responsibilities to balance. Depending on your teaching load, faculty meeting schedule, and research workflow, you could be left with a substantial amount of time to conduct your research or seemingly very little. You may have also moved a long distance to your new institution. Through all of that, you have to find time to live your life outside of your job.

The lack of structure to academics’ time can make it difficult to draw the line between your work and your personal life. As faculty, we are also passionate about what we do, and even when we are “done” with our workday and close our laptops, many of us are probably still thinking about our teaching, our new exciting research project, or that frustrating comment we received in a manuscript review. As passionate as we might be, it’s important to remember that this is still a job. Some might integrate their life with their job more than others, but that does not work for everyone, nor should it.

Finding structured time to separate yourself from your work can be extremely helpful, but this looks different for everyone. Some might choose to have activities with specific time commitments during the week that force them to be away from work. Others might choose to work only in specific spaces/locations (e.g., coffee shops or work/home offices but not other rooms in their home or on campus). Some are fine working on the weekends, and others don’t open their laptops between Friday afternoon and Monday morning. Establishing these boundaries and habits early on in your faculty career can help you prioritize non-work activities that promote your personal wellness, which will ultimately help you identify how your new faculty position fits into your preferred lifestyle.

Do you have any other good tips for planning your time in your first year of academia? Share below!

AI in Scholarship: What is it and how can it help me?

Dr. Kai Zhuang Shum

Dr. June L. Preast

“Have you tried using AI to help you with this task?” seems to be the question we have been getting a lot lately. We look around, and we see AI everywhere. Students are using AI to help them with academic assignments (whether their professors told them AI is allowed or not; Digital Education Council, 2024), the academic world is putting out more AI-related workshops than ever, and grant funding agencies are encouraging researchers to study or utilize AI in their studies.

The truth is that AI has been around us for longer than we think. In a nutshell, AI stands for Artificial Intelligence, and it is “technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human learning, comprehension, problem solving, decision making, creativity and autonomy” (IBM, 2024). While most people think of ChatGPT or self-driving cars when asked to give an example of AI, it is much more embedded in our world. For instance, digital assistants (Apple’s Siri), search engines (e.g., Google), social media (e.g., Facebook Meta), personalized recommendations during online shopping, rideshare apps (e.g., Uber), and direction apps (Google Maps) are all examples of AI.

In the field of education, AI can be a transformative force. It can be a tool that greatly enhances the efficiency and quality of teaching and/or scholarship. However, there is much to be learned about AI and its impact. We asked, using questions developed with ChatGPT, two experts in this area to provide context and suggestions for how to utilize AI in scholarship.

Adam Lockwood (AL) is an assistant professor at Kent State University. His work focuses on the intersection of AI and school psychology through scholarship and practitioner experiences. He also used AI on his draft answering our questions, you can see his process here.

Rochelle Butler (RB) is a Research Consultant in the Office of Innovative Technology (OIT) at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville. Her work focuses on supporting researchers to conduct rigorous and ethical studies that advance knowledge and practice in various disciplines.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using AI in scholarship?

AL: In terms of advantages, AI saves time, democratizes research access, and provides support for data analysis, methodological guidance, and creative brainstorming. It allows researchers to focus more on conceptual work rather than tedious tasks. Tools like GPT-4 and Claude are particularly effective as research assistants, providing insights and automating routine processes. I use both. I also love NotebookLM for organizing research as it is grounded. As for disadvantages, an over-reliance on AI risks deskilling (loss of skills) for researchers by reducing direct engagement with foundational research activities, which can lead to cognitive atrophy. Ethical concerns regarding data privacy and appropriate data use also need careful consideration. AI also hallucinates, so you must double check it.

RB: AI can help researchers process large amounts of text data quickly. Because it processes large amounts of data quickly and with seemingly relative ease, researchers may be able to identify patterns and generate insights that would not have been possible without it. However, speed can come at the expense of critical analysis, methodological rigor, and thoughtful interpretation. Additionally, AI may be able to introduce some objectivity into the data analysis process by removing some level of human intervention when identifying patterns in data. But, it lacks reflective capability which potentially limits the depth and adaptability of the analysis.  Qualitative researchers often engage in reflexivity – (a process of reflecting on their own influence on the research and data interpretation). AI systems rely on training data which can be biased. The data used to train AI models might not be representative of the diversity within the population that a scholar seeks to understand. While AI is efficient at processing textual data, it may overlook the meaning contained in non-verbal cues, tone and body language of interviews.   Finally, there is a risk that AI-generated results could be seen as more "objective" or "truthful" simply because they are produced by a machine, leading to an uncritical acceptance of AI output without sufficient scrutiny.

How is AI transforming the way research is conducted, particularly in fields that traditionally relied on human intuition and manual analysis? 

AL: AI is revolutionizing research by democratizing access to advanced analytical tools, especially for fields like school psychology that have traditionally relied on human-intensive methods. It will provide a means for scholars, regardless of their research background, to conduct sophisticated analyses and broaden the scope of their research. This transformation enables new insights and augments traditional methods with data-driven approaches. I also use it to provide ideas for research or to improve a project, idea, etc. On the downside this surge in new research will also lead to a lot of spurious findings.

RB: AI is introducing new levels of speed and scalability. Even though AI allows researchers to analyze large datasets - large datasets without specific and relevant research questions may introduce noise that complicates analysis and potentially skews results. Analyzing more data doesn't necessarily lead to more meaningful insights. AI allows researchers to collect and analyze data in virtually real time which means that scholars may be able to detect patterns and trends within their data early in the data collection process. This may allow researchers to dynamically respond to emerging trends or findings as they arise. Additionally, AI offers opportunities for scholars to learn new methods and tools with AI-driven tutorials. This may enhance the scholar’s analysis of their data and improve findings. 

In what ways can AI expedite or enhance the discovery process in academic research?

AL: AI expedites research by acting as a collaborator that can rapidly analyze large datasets, provide methodological suggestions, and propose new research angles. It enhances the discovery process by identifying patterns that may not be readily apparent to human researchers and by offering rapid literature reviews or even initial drafts for academic writing – I published a little paper on this a while ago and the technology is much better now – it wasn’t horrible then.

RB: Machine learning algorithms used with AI can create predictive models that forecast future outcomes based on historical data. This may help researchers employ proactive interventions. AI also allows researchers to capture and analyze data in virtually real time. Real-time data collection can help researchers employ immediate and responsive interventions. For example, if a study monitoring air quality detects pollution spikes, researchers could adjust their analysis to investigate underlying causes or deploy resources to affected areas faster than traditional research methods might allow. Interactive chat-bots are another way AI enhances data collection in academic research. Unlike traditional surveys, chatbots can tailor questions based on participants' previous answers. Chat-bots can be deployed to ask different questions based on previous responses which would allow for deeper insights and potentially more relevant data.   

How should scholars navigate issues of data privacy, ownership, and ethical considerations when using AI in their research? 

AL: ​​I believe strongly in open science and think that all datasets should be redacted and provided online. Sharing data publicly, such as through platforms like OSF, facilitates academic honesty and accessibility. I already do this, so my data has already been scraped by AI (it scrapes information available online). However, there are tools like Co-Pilot for Security that have Business Associate Agreements (BAAs) in place for organizations and can be used with HIPAA data. For these tools the same rules that apply to any other technology (e.g., Google Drive) apply - check with your IRB and IT folks about the rules at your organization. Honestly, we need more guidance on the topic of ethics in AI in general and in research, specifically. My biggest concern is what are these AI companies doing with our data? They will scrape and use our data as they please and we cannot even dream of some of the ways this could be harmful or abusive (think of the concerns raised by folks like Edward Snowden times 100). Even if data is 100% de-identified, we still have to worry about the mosaic effect - a term used to describe the phenomenon where seemingly innocuous or non-sensitive data sets, when combined, can reveal sensitive information using powerful technology. The idea is that individual pieces of data might not be personally identifiable or pose a privacy risk on their own, but when multiple pieces are "mosaicked" together, they create a fuller picture that can lead to the identification of private details or otherwise unintended insights. Here’s a simple analogy: imagine you have multiple jigsaw puzzle pieces from different puzzles. On their own, none of these pieces may provide meaningful information. But if you gather enough pieces and assemble them, you might be able to see the complete image they create. Similarly, the mosaic effect occurs when disparate data points are combined, leading to the revelation of patterns or information that wasn't apparent in each dataset alone.

RB: Researchers should inform participants about what data is being collected, how AI will process it, and the purposes it serves. Consent forms should be explicit about AI's role in data analysis and any implications. Data should be anonymized wherever possible, especially if it contains sensitive information. When AI is used to make predictive or diagnostic recommendations, researchers should ensure that it does not perpetuate or exacerbate existing social inequalities. Scholars should also describe their use of AI and make the AI model used interpretable in their writing so stakeholders understand how the results were generated. I think scholars should also use AI platforms that do not use their research data to train the existing model.

What do you envision as the future of academic scholarship in the context of rapid AI advancements?

AL: The future of academic scholarship will likely involve a rapid integration of AI tools. I strongly believe that AI is the most disruptive technology that we've ever seen. AI has the potential to democratize knowledge production, making sophisticated research accessible to a wider audience. However, to prevent increased inequity, it is essential to ensure that access to new technologies are not limited to well-funded institutions. I want every EdS-level school psychologist to be able to easily conduct action research/program evaluation. I think this can occur. We need to promote broader accessibility and ethical use of AI to ensure it serves as a bridge rather than a barrier. We also need to train non-PhD-level school psychologists on how to use AI to analyze data so that they can be system leaders on program evaluation. 

RB: AI advancements will likely bring shifts in research expectations and methodology. As AI automates some research tasks, scholars may feel pressure to produce research at a faster pace. However, speed can come at the expense of quality and originality of academic work. The push for quick research output could lead to an intensified culture of "publish or perish", where scholars prioritize producing numerous studies over conducting in-depth, high-quality research and robustly exploring complex research questions. In terms of methodology, traditional research often starts with a hypothesis, followed by data collection and analysis to confirm or refute it. AI, however, allows for data-driven discovery, where patterns and insights emerge without pre-defined hypotheses. This may bring a renewed emphasis on exploratory research where data exploration reveals unexpected trends or associations that researchers can further investigate.

Do you believe AI will eventually lead to entirely new research methodologies or fields of study?

AL: AI has already led to entirely new methodologies by enabling data analyses and modeling techniques that were previously unimagined. The combination of machine learning, natural language processing, and large-scale data analysis opens up new avenues for research, potentially creating fields focused on human-AI collaboration and ethical AI governance in scholarship. I believe that this trend will accelerate as the technology progresses.

RB: I do believe AI will eventually lead to new research methodologies or fields of study.  AI systems are complex and understanding how AI systems make decisions could become a field of study in itself. AI systems that generate predictive models offer additional approaches to empirical research. Rather than simply analyzing existing data, AI can create simulations and forecasts that allow researchers to explore potential outcomes. This may help researchers develop interventions more proactively or refine their studies based on model predictions. AI’s ability to generate synthetic data also opens possibilities for research methodologies that don’t rely on real-world data collection. Maybe researchers will generate more findings in fields where data is scarce or ethically challenging to collect.  

Could AI democratize knowledge production or does it risk increasing existing academic inequities between institutions with and without access to advanced AI technologies?

AL: ​​AI holds the potential to democratize knowledge production (and consumption) by providing advanced tools to those who may not have traditional access. However, there is a risk that AI could widen existing inequities if its access remains limited to well-funded institutions. Ensuring accessibility to AI technologies to everyone is critical to prevent a divide and ensure that these tools bridge gaps in academic capabilities. I'm submitting a paper on the topic of AI and whether it will increase or decrease equity with a colleague, Jeffrey Brown at San Diego State, on the topic soon because I think we need to have a lot of discussion on the topic. 

RB: I think there is a risk of increasing academic inequities. The expense and technical expertise required to implement AI tools are significant. Well-funded institutions may be able to conduct AI research, while smaller, less-funded institutions may not have the resources to do so. This disparity could widen the gap in student outcomes, research opportunities and academic funding. Furthermore, if larger datasets and AI-driven methodologies become the norm, certain fields or research topics that rely on smaller, more qualitative data (like humanities or some social sciences) may struggle to compete for funding and recognition, potentially narrow the diversity of academic research.

Is there a role for AI in assisting with student research projects, and how do we ensure this aids rather than replaces critical thinking? 

AL: AI can be very helpful in student research by providing explanations, suggesting directions, and assisting in writing. We need to use grounded models (which ensure that AI uses verifiable data) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) (which combines information retrieval with AI generation to provide more accurate and contextually appropriate responses) to ensure that AI outputs are based on reliable sources, minimizing the risk of misinformation. However, AI should supplement critical thinking, not replace it. Educators and mentors must guide students to use AI effectively, enhancing learning while still developing core research skills. There are academics that worry that AI induced cognitive atrophy is possible.

RB: I do think there is a role for AI assisting students with research projects. I think students should be taught to disclose how they used AI in their projects which fosters integrity and accountability. AI is a tool to enhance, not replace, individual academic contribution. Having students disclose their particular use of AI reinforces the importance of transparency in research. I also think that to foster critical thinking, students should be taught to not merely accept AI-generated summaries at face value. Instead, students should be taught to critically evaluate the information AI tools provide, question the sources, and assess how it contributes to their understanding of the topic.

In closing, Dr. Lockwood noted: While I remain cautiously optimistic, I believe AI's role in research should be guided intentionally. We need a balanced integration that enhances research quality without diminishing our capabilities as scholars. Models like GPT-4 and others provide valuable support, but we must continually evaluate their impact on our skills and practices, advocating for responsible and thoughtful use.

Thank you to Dr. Lockwood and Ms. Butler for sharing their expertise and providing insight into utilizing AI in scholarship! What are your experiences with using AI and have you considered using it in your scholarship? Share below!

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

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

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

Initial Review of the Manuscript

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

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

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

Selecting Reviewers

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

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

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

Crafting the Decision Letter

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

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

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

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

Ensuring a Rigorous and Inclusive Review

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

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

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

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

Resources for Further Reading

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

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

Maximizing Research Productivity During Your First Year in Academia

June L. Preast, The University of Alabama

Starting your first year in academia can feel exciting and new, but it can also be overwhelming and intimidating. You now get paid to work on your research and write papers (!!!), but getting started can sometimes be difficult. Building research relationships with schools or partners in the community can take time, and you might not know how to go about establishing such relationships. Or maybe you’re not quite sure what to do next now that you’ve submitted your dissertation to your graduate institution. Below, we provide some tips for how to maximize research and writing productivity during your first year in academia. 

Publish Your Dissertation

If you haven’t submitted your dissertation for publication prior to starting in academia, make plans to revise the dissertation for (at least) one manuscript for publication. You spent a considerable amount of time completing your dissertation, and it is typically a starting point or foundation for your research agenda. Publishing your dissertation is the next step to getting your work out into the field. 

There are a few considerations for converting your dissertation into at least one manuscript. In addition to cutting about one hundred or more pages of a dissertation down to around 30 pages, you’ll need to consider your audience. Instead of dissertation committee members reviewing your work for your skills to conduct research independently, your audience will be reading your manuscript for its scholarly contributions to the field. One of the most difficult parts of publishing your dissertation is turning your literature review into a concise, yet effective introduction. As you read your dissertation, think about what is needed to make an argument for the study and its contribution to the literature, and to provide the appropriate context for your readers. It may feel painful to delete sentences you spent so much time writing, but just remember that you’ve already submitted the dissertation to your graduate institution and those words are not gone forever. In addition to the tips provided, the seventh edition of the APA manual includes a section on converting your dissertation into a publication.

Conduct a Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis

Often when we move to new places and jobs, it can take some time to develop research partnerships with schools and community partners. While building those relationships, consider conducting a systematic review or meta-analysis to move your research forward. Additionally, if you have been assigned a graduate research assistant during your first year and you’re unsure how to work with them, a review or meta-analysis provides great opportunities to work with graduate students and for graduate students to develop new skills. One important caveat regarding conducting reviews and meta-analyses is that they are time consuming and rigorous. Although they are projects that can be completed without IRB approval or research partnerships, be mindful of the time and effort required to do them well. 

Turn Presentations into Publications

Another avenue for research as you get started is turning your presentations into publications. If you consider the work you’ve already done for the presentation proposal and the presentation itself, you are already halfway to a completed manuscript for publication. Take a look at your presentations on your CV and note any that are not already publications. From there, work on developing the content into manuscripts to build your publications. As noted in the blog post linked above, if your presentation was a research study, you can use your slides to build the method and results sections. Your proposal submission includes the skeleton for an introduction that may only need some expansion. And the Q&A from the presentation itself can support the discussion for your manuscript. 

Turn Coursework into Publications

One last tip for maximizing research productivity in your first year is turning classroom assignments into publishable manuscripts. When designing courses, consider creating assignments that have the potential to be quality scholarship, as described in Hitting the Ground Running: Maximizing Your Early Years in Academia. For a variety of courses and instructors, students write detailed papers demonstrating their knowledge and skills. Rew described the steps to turn student papers into publishable manuscripts. For assignments that require data collection and meet the federal regulatory definition of research, make sure that policies and requirements of IRB are met prior to submission for publication. Most importantly, when turning student assignments into publishable manuscripts, authorship should appropriately and adequately represent the effort of the students. It is important that we as faculty recognize the power imbalance between faculty and students and do not take advantage of their work, especially when submitting manuscripts for publication. APA provides tips for determining authorship credit, including an authorship scorecard.

Conclusion

Above are just a few ideas for supporting your research productivity when you start your first year in academia and as you build your research partnerships. For additional ideas and strategies for research productivity as an early career scholar, consider previous blog posts of Transitioning from Graduate School to Academia, Developing Research Partnerships as an Early Career Scholar, and Setting Boundaries to Promote Your Research Productivity. 

What additional ideas do you have for writing manuscripts during your first year in academia? What advice do you have for early career scholars?

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!

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

Lindsay Fallon, University of Massachusetts Boston

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

What is the ECF?

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

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

What is the mission of the ECF?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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