Avoiding Common Writing Mistakes

By: Daniel Gadke, Ph.D. (Mississippi State University) & Bryn Harris, Ph.D. (University of Colorado Denver)Contributors: Randy G. Floyd, Ph.D. (The University of Memphis); Stephen Kilgus, Ph.D. (University of Wisconsin-Madison); Susan M. Sheridan, Ph.D. (University of Nebraska-Lincoln)Writing is integral to the success of any academic. Active and purposeful writing contributes to publication, grant acquisition, and ultimately, tenure and promotions. That being said, mentorship on scholarly writing is varied. Some early career faculty enter their careers feeling well-prepared to meet their writing demands, while others may find themselves figuring it out as they go along. Regardless, writing is largely an art and everyone has the capacity to grow and become better writers. A large part of improving one’s writing abilities is not only understanding what accounts for “good” writing, but having a firm grasp on common mistakes. To help us with this, Drs. Randy Floyd, Stephen Kilgus, and Susan Sheridan have graciously shared their feedback across a number of questions.In general, what do you think are the top academic writing mistakes scholars make? Floyd: I think that, for graduate students and early career writers, belief that early drafts of their papers must be perfect is a major impediment. Viewing the writing process in terms of pre-drafting, drafting, and post-drafting is vital, as neither planning for writing (pre-drafting) nor text generation (drafting) will tend to produce anything close to the quality that is ready for peer review or publication. It is the cycle of editing and rewriting (post-drafting) that will make a difference in the end. The United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is credited with saying, “There is no great writing, only great rewriting.” Writers should remove barriers to writing by lowering their expectations for the initial text they produce.For beginning writers, omitting basic and required elements in manuscripts submitted to journals is a common problem; reporting more details makes a difference (see https://www.apastyle.org/jars). I do not feel as strongly about the importance of peer reviewers providing feedback to authors about full application of APA style as I did in the past, but both editors screening manuscripts and peer reviewers providing a thorough review of manuscript content remain concerned about surface-level features. Thus, failure to format manuscripts according to the guidelines recommended by the journal editor and publisher (which is almost always—if not absolutely always—APA style for school psychology journals) results in a serious error in that it undermines reviewers’ trust in the authors’ competence. Online searchable resources for writers abound (see https://blog.apastyle.org/ and https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html).For more advanced writers, common problems include both formatting errors (e.g., not carefully attending to in-text citations and reference sections and not italicizing statistical symbols) and more advanced writing skills. These errors with more advanced writing skills often relate to cohesion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesion_(linguistics). A common error in text cohesion stems from authors using a variety of terms to refer to the same variable or phenomenon. For example, my colleagues and I often struggle to agree on which of these terms to use: “intelligence test,” “IQ test,” “intelligence test battery,” “cognitive ability battery,” and the like. I suspect that most content area experts struggle with these same issues, which are magnified when authors develop different sections of a manuscript. In the same vein, authors’ “curse of knowledge” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge) negatively impacts readers, as authors make too many assumptions about what the reader already knows and what the reader is facile in processing. In particular, authors tend to rely excessively on acronyms, whereas they would probably be better served if they omitted them altogether—especially when acronyms share common letters—for all but the most common ones (e.g., NASP and APA).Kilgus: More generally, one of the more common mistakes I see is the lack of flow or story-telling in writing. Whether it’s a peer-reviewed paper or grant proposal, researchers need to demonstrate the importance of their ideas and justify their examination. All too often, researchers do not provide a sufficient rationale within their writing. Or rather, their rationale is clouded by an unorganized narrative. When teaching courses and mentoring graduate students, I heavily emphasize to students the need to tell a coherent and convincing story about their research ideas, thereby providing a strong context for their research and a compelling justification to conduct new investigations.Sheridan:

• Lack of clarity around purpose, with insufficient theoretical grounding for their work.
• Lack of internal consistency: By this I mean too often people set up a paper one way, but deviate when it comes to developing their methods, results and discussion. Each section should build upon what precedes it, such that you tell a coherent, organized story with a theme that cuts across the entire paper. There should be no “surprises” regarding a paper’s purpose and focus; let the study’s results be the surprise.
• Lack of clearly stated research questions.
• Colloquial writing:Often people write in an overly conversational, casual tone. Scholarly writing should be professional and technical, but also accessible and understandable.
• Confusion regarding main and supplemental points: Paragraphs, sentences, and word choice all matter; all should be selected intentionally and in a way that supports the author’s message. All should convey their meaning very clearly.

In the introduction of a manuscript, what do you think are the top academic writing mistakes that scholars make?Floyd: In general, I think that both authors and reviewers place too much emphasis on the literature review that is included in the Introduction section. Often, it is the first section that authors draft (especially for thesis and dissertation projects) and it is almost always the first section that reviewers read. I assert, however, that it is probably the least important section to facilitate growth in the field. I suspect that many authors believe that a strong literature review can help a manuscript overcome a weak study at its heart, but I do not think that it is often the case. In terms of concrete mistakes made in this section, I see three: not citing a sufficient number of recent and relevant references, not using past tense to describe the results from studies reviewed, and writing such a lengthy Introduction (e.g., 12-15 pages) that it dwarfs more important elements of the manuscript (e.g., Results and Discussion).Kilgus: I would say my prior response would work for this question too.Sheridan:

• Authors sometimes struggle stating their main purpose or point early enough to orient the reader to the most important focus of their paper/study. The main purpose should be introduced somewhere on the first page, and the literature reviewed should then relate to the purpose clearly and logically.
• I often see people citing far too many references to justify points made in the introduction. Typically two are sufficient. Citations are also often dated; if the literature review is replete with papers/citations that are two or more decades old, I question the author’s knowledge of current research.
• At times the introduction reads like a term paper or essay written by a student for a course. It is OK to repurpose a well-written paper, but it is important to understand that writing for a journal (or book chapter) is fundamentally different in terms of purpose, technique, technicality, etc. Much of what may have been in a student’s paper will need to be revamped significantly before going into a journal article or other published outlet.
• Lack of cohesion: Too often sections are loosely connected and don’t hang together to tell a story and lead the reader to understanding why the current study is important.  Flow, consistency, and integration (of arguments, main points, gaps, and the current study’s focus) are super important. Writing needs to be tight.
• Sometimes authors fail to differentiate their study from others that have been published previously.

What are the common academic writing mistakes that you see in the method section?Floyd: At the highest levels of publishing in our field, I see two common errors. Authors often completely omit the Procedures subsection when describing the results of an intervention study or a study employing archival data. To me, a description of how participants were recruited, how consent and assent were obtained, and who collected the data that are analyzed should always be reported. In addition, in the Measures subsection, authors often (a) fail to describe their key variables of interest and (b) include text about other features of their measures that are irrelevant to the study. Instead, authors should describe the metric of the variables (e.g., raw scores or T scores), the scaling of their variables (e.g., describing that high scores reflect more of the targeted construct), as well as the reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of the specific variables included in the analysis. In the same vein, they should not typically describe scores that were not employed in the study.Kilgus: I commonly see two mistakes in Method sections. First, authors tend to under-report information related to study procedure. I know it is cliché to say that Method sections should support any future study replications by providing strong details related to study procedures. Unfortunately, the existence of this cliché has not resulted in uniformly strong Method sections across papers. I recognize it can be challenging for authors to include such information given journal page limits. However, there are always ways around this issue. Many journals support online appendices that do not factor into page or word counts. Authors should consider appending manuals or protocols that were used within their study and can be used to better outline what was done as part of the investigation.Second, many authors simply report on what they did without justifying their decisions. What was the rationale for the selected measures? Were they aligned with a particular theory or supported by evidence specific to a particular assessment purpose (e.g., screening, diagnosis, or progress monitoring)? Similarly, what was the rationale for the study design? If the design is not particularly rigorous, is it still appropriate given the early stages of research within that area? Better justification for methodological choices would help to illustrate to readers that the study was not haphazardly constructed but rather thoughtfully designed.Sheridan:

• Too little detail, especially around analytic technique… but also general methods and procedures. Not only does this create problems with understanding what was done and the rigor with which the study was executed, it makes it impossible to replicate or evaluate.
• Insufficient information about context – setting, sample, etc.
• With intervention studies, not enough attention to criteria specified in the What Works Clearinghouse.

What are the most common academic writing mistakes in the Results section?Floyd: In general, a signature feature of a weak study is when the Results section includes only a paragraph or two, so extending this section is important. Reporting data screening procedures and tests of assumptions of statistical tests as well as describing to readers what to reference in tables and figures make a difference to reviewers and improve the quality of the manuscript. The biggest mistakes I have seen have been related to incongruence (a) between the Method and Results section (e.g., describing one set of variables from an instrument earlier but reporting the results of other variables in Results), (b) between terms used in the text and terms used in tables and figures, and (c) between results and conclusions described in text and the content in tables and figures. If I had one recommendation to advanced writers, it would be to better align text in Results with tables and figures.Kilgus: It seems obvious, but I wish more authors would report the extent to which their data meet various analytic assumptions. Many authors are able to provide this information upon request as part of a revision and resubmission. However, they might not always get the opportunity to revise their paper. Often, as an associate editor, I might be more inclined to invite a revision if I trust the paper will eventually be worthy of publication. Without information related to statistical assumptions, such trust might be limited.Sheridan:

• Lack of connection to the study’s purpose statement and research questions.
• Insufficient detail regarding issues such as fidelity (in intervention studies), missing data, reliability.
• Clarity in describing the study’s findings; authors need to state the findings technically, but also interpret what they mean for an audience not trained as statisticians.
• Clarity in interpreting data presented in figures.

Specifically pertaining to the discussion section, what do you think are the top academic writing mistakes?Floyd: No study can be without some limitations in terms of statistical and methodological rigor or generalization, so when authors omit this section, it is a cue to many reviewers that the authors may not have been as thorough or honest as possible in their reporting.Kilgus: I find many authors do not do a strong enough job connecting their findings back to existing research and theory. It is great to summarize what was found in a particular study and connect results back to research questions. However, it is easier to contribute to the broader literature base when explicit connections are made to what has been found previously.Sheridan:

• Lack of effort to tie the new findings to the literature reviewed in the Introduction. Again, it is an internal consistency issue.
• Interpreting only the current findings and not embellishing their meaning with the extant literature.
• Failure to lead and conclude with important take-home findings.
• Over interpretation of findings is a very common mistake. It is OK if findings are somewhat inconsistent or unclear – that leads to more research.
• Insufficient explanation of study limitations.
• Insufficient attention to research directions.
• In some journals, attention to practice implications is necessary but overlooked.

What are the most common writing mistakes that you have seen in the cover letter?Floyd: It has been my experience that many authors do not include submission cover letters that include the necessary elements. However, it is not crystal clear what these cover letters should look like. My brief internet search for models yielded numerous varieties—from brief ones containing summaries of the study described in the manuscript to more lengthy analytical ones. I was struck by the lack of consensus and how few focused on APA style. The best model might be the one on p. 232 (Figure 8.1) of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010). It is noteworthy that many manuscript submission portals for journals now include items addressing manuscript length and word counts, assurance of the uniqueness of the submission and prior review board approval, potential for copyright transfer, and financial conflicts of interest. Author and contact information is embedded in this submission process, too. These features would seem to make a cover letter obsolete, but I recommend developing a detailed, standardized submission letter to include with all submissions as it allows you to address acknowledgements that cannot be included in a blinded submission, alert the editor about potential ethical problems (e.g., publishing a series of articles based on the same data set), and cope with inconsistencies in manuscript submission portal requirements across journals.Kilgus: I find that cover letters tend to be highly general. Make sure each cover letter is specific to the paper and journal in question. Editors and associate editors really do read these, and it can be helpful to see why the authors chose to submit their work to a particular outlet.Sheridan: I don’t know if this pertains only to the cover letter, but it is important that authors read about the journal to which they are submitting. All journals have their scope and purpose published; it is important that the paper as submitted conforms not only to its standards in terms of page count, presentation of tables/figures, conformance to APA style, inclusion of keywords, etc… but also aligns with the focus of the journal itself.How would you describe the most unforgivable writing mistakes?Floyd: I am not sure that there are truly unforgivable writing mistakes, but as editors return many manuscripts (often about one-quarter or more) without full review after their preliminary screening, manuscripts that are incredibly brief or that include plagiarized content are increasingly likely to attract the attention of editors. While processing manuscripts at Journal of School Psychology (2010-2014), I rejected many that were 10 pages or less in length, and unless the authors have very carefully considered every word and the study is extremely narrow in scope and more appropriate for a “brief report,” such a short manuscript cannot include all the necessary information. Employing single spacing of all text, specifying wide (1-½- or 2-inch) margins, and mashing multiple tables together on the same page are related problems with formatting that are not necessarily practical problems as long as editors and reviewers can access the manuscript content. Most editors and reviewers assume, however, that these formatting errors are associated with more serious problems with conduct of the research, data analysis, and reporting in the manuscript. Regarding plagiarism, editors are increasingly equipped with programs (e.g., iThenticate) that allow them to evaluate submissions prior to their own review, so the probability of getting caught making such an error—even in the form of self-plagiarism—is relatively high.Kilgus: Obviously, plagiarism (whether intended or not) is highly problematic. This goes for self-plagiarism as well. Multiple times I have seen authors include content in a paper that is highly similar to content they included in another one of their papers. Whether that work is cited or not, it can still be really problematic. I would suggest that authors strive for independence across their publications.Another shortcoming that does not necessarily fall into the “unforgivable” category, but can still be a big problem, are errors in grammar or syntax. I would strongly encourage authors to carefully and thoroughly proof their papers before submitting to peer review. Simple errors can undermine reviewer confidence. Also, if I am taking the time to carefully read a paper as a reviewer or associate editor, I would like to assume such care was taken in constructing the paper. Simple undetected errors might lead me to assume authors were not taking such care.Sheridan:

• Careless, sloppy presentation (e.g., incomplete [fragmented] sentences, spelling errors, poor word choices).
• Lack of conformance to APA style. The attitude of “an editor will catch/fix this” is unforgivable.
• Getting mired in unimportant details, or remaining far too much “at the surface.”

What should early career scholars do to improve their academic writing abilities in general?Floyd: Use general journal article reporting standards (see https://www.apastyle.org/jars) or design or analysis specific reporting standards (e.g., for single-case research, http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2016-17384-001.html or for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Default.aspx) to guide the drafting of sections of manuscripts.Do not forget to devote 5+ hours to final reviews of a manuscript before submitting it. Printing and reviewing hard copies, using immersive readers while reviewing (see https://support.office.com/en-us/article/use-immersive-reader-for-onenote-10712138-b4ed-4513-958d-d9a1b3038170 and https://www.naturalreaders.com/), and comparing text to tables and figures are important elements during this final stage.Collaborate with others who can contribute substantively to projects and also provide guidance regarding manuscript construction, engage in concurrent internal peer-review of the manuscript prior to submission, and complete final edits to text. Many advanced scholars I know would be delighted to serve in that role during projects relevant to their expertise.Begin using a reference management program early in your development or begin this year. We are fans of RefWorks (https://refworks.proquest.com) but also understand the benefits of using Mendeley (https://www.mendeley.com).Kilgus: I would suggest that researchers find strong exemplar papers from authors they highly respect. They should then read those papers twice: once to obtain the information in that paper and once to examine the paper’s style and structure. I found my writing got better once I started paying attention to how others were constructing their papers.Sheridan:

• Write! There is no substitute for the sheer act of writing.
• Set aside time for writing and be selfish/intentional about it. Writing even a couple of pages in one sitting is better than waiting until you have significant blocks of time. They are few and far between and  you can’t afford to wait.
• Re-read every sentence and every paragraph as you write them. Ask yourself if they are as clear as they can be.
• Get feedback on your writing. When you ask someone to read your work, make sure to give them what you believe is your best effort. It is irritating to readers/reviewers to read and critique shoddy work, and will be much less helpful to you as the author.
• Write with a senior person who is a prolific author. Take the lead but ask them to offer suggestions for improving your style, organization, content, clarity, etc.
• Pay attention to APA style. It actually makes you a better writer; readers will take your writing more seriously if they see you have attended to this professional detail.
• Engage students in writing. This helps everyone.
• Review articles submitted for publication when possible. This helps you see what it is like “on the other side;” what works, what doesn’t, how to organize or frame things, etc. Your critique of others writing will make you a better writer.

NASP 2019 Save the Date! (and APA 2018 Handout)

The SSSP ECF is excited to announce the following NASP 2019 sessions and events:SS014 - Hitting the Ground Running: Maximizing Your First Years in Academia (special session)Tuesday, February 263:00-4:50 pmHyatt Regency Atlanta, Atrium/International Tower, Conference Center LL3, Peidmont RoomTarget audience: prospective faculty and individuals who have recently started or will soon be starting a faculty position.Format: 1-hour symposium followed by discussion in breakout groupsPA344 - Academic Parenthood: Perspectives from Early Mid and Senior Faculty MembersWednesday, February 27th4:30-5:20 pmHyatt Regency Atlanta Atrium/International/Conference Center Level LL3/MariettaTarget audience: prospective faculty, graduate students considering academic careers, pre and post tenure academics, faculty membersFormat: Panel Presentation with Q & ASY054 – Straight Talk about Faculty Careers: Opportunities and Strategies for Success (symposium)Thursday, February 288:00-9:20 amAtlanta Marriott Marquis, Atrium Level, A701Target audience: prospective faculty, including practicing school psychologists and graduate students, who would like to learn more about the diversity of faculty/graduate educator career options and opportunities in school psychology.Format: Symposium with Q&AEarly Career Faculty Lunch & Networking (free!)Thursday, February 2811:30 am - 1:00 pmTin Lizzy’s DowntownTarget audience: new and pre-tenure faculty, including those recently hired who’ll start their positions in the fall. You are welcome to join for all or part of the event.RSVP: https://ucdenver.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_82nDuNw5zWq4aS9SY017 - Methods Matter: The Promise of Empirical Research to Inform PracticeThursday, February 283:30pm - 4:50 pmAtlanta Marriott Marquis, Atrium Level, A701Target audience: prospective faculty, early career faculty, practicing schoolpsychologists, and graduate students who are interested in translating research to practice. Special emphasis will be placed on helping early career researchers ensure their research is understood by applied audiences and strategies to translate their research to practice.Format: Symposium with Q&AAlso, thank you to everyone who joined us at APA 2018 for the symposium, Acquiring Foundation and Non-traditional Grant Funds. You can download the handout here.

Hunkering Down to Boost Writing Productivity

I am not, nor do I ever anticipate being, one of those people who can or will write every day. As someone who reads (and occasionally writes) on faculty and early career development, and who follows many related listservs and groups, I realize this is regarded as heresy by some, and by their more forgiving acolytes, as an unfortunate and career-stifling dysfunction. Although I certainly appreciate others who’ve called out the performative misery of daily predawn writing and suggested more practical alternatives for daily writing, it just doesn’t work for me. The truth is, I write in large blocks—indeed, the largest uninterrupted blocks I can feasibly manage given the constraints of my energy (read: caffeination), attention span, and competing demands (advising, administration, parenthood, self-care, and so on). This is habitual. I wrote much of my dissertation during a two-week self-imposed sequestration in a dark cubicle in the back of windowless, musty office most other grad students avoided. This would set my habit for the next 15 years, though I can avail myself of much nicer spaces now. When the Minnesota weather allows, students and colleagues know they can often find me on our building’s rooftop deck, feet propped up, earbuds in, wifi off (i.e., no email), and very happily writing with only the occasional eagle overhead to distract me.During the academic year, I write once, maybe twice, a week, though more so in the summer if I strategize appropriately. During some weeks-long stretches of the academic year, I might not write at all, but my research agenda is sustained through meetings with colleagues and students to move emergent or in progress projects forward. This is especially true at the end of the spring semester when advising and administrative duties are heaviest. Since assuming the role of program director, I’ve found concentrated group writing time, what we here have called writing hunkers, to be particularly helpful in shifting back into writing mode and making substantial progress on stalled writing projects. For the past few years, our program has offered at least one hunker per summer for students with faculty leads and participants.What are writing hunkers? Simply, these are concentrated writing days dedicated to the process of preparing manuscripts. All students and faculty are invited, with advanced notice that the ideal hunker project is one for which data collection, analyses, and much of the background reading are done. Writers are encouraged to focus on a single project rather than toggling between multiple ones, and to focus on manuscripts rather than ancillary research products (e.g., presentations, materials, briefs). Generally, our hunkers are scheduled for four consecutive days of 6 to 7 hour blocks. This works well during the summer or other breaks, but regularly scheduled day-long or half-day hunkers throughout the semester or summer can also provide comparable opportunity and support. Sample schedules are provided here.During our hunkers, writers are instructed to plan to be engaged for the full time each day. We try to prevent distractions and other things that might take time away from writing by provide refreshments (coffee, snacks, lunch), reference books, ear plugs, and posted lists of what to do if stumbling upon a writing block. Whenever possible, we arrange for space outside of the building in which our offices and lab space is housed to minimize the likelihood of interruptions. That is, students and faculty alike recognized that if we were easy to find (and basically stationary for the duration of the hunker), it would be all too easy for well-meaning colleagues and students to drop by to ask questions or pull us into friendly chats during breaks, and that this would ultimately undermine our goals for the hunker. We’ve also been fortunate to reserve spaces that allow for each writer to organize their personal worktop to their needs. Some people want to work facing the corner or wall with earplugs in, others facing out the window with music flowing through earbuds. Still others might want to work face to face, the typist across the table spurring dedication to task. Individual tables allow each writer to spread as much or as little paper and books as they like without being concerned about intruding on others’ space.We generally follow the 4-day schedule here. On day one, we set group norms and individual goals, usually using the following form that will anchor each day’s work. Outside of the lunch discussions and afternoon consultation time, the expectation is that everyone will work quietly, avoid internet distractions, and only work on the specified goals. The presence of others creates accountability even though our interactions are limited. If nothing else, no one wants to be caught web surfing by a fellow writer. Each writer takes breaks as needed though, and some use task and time management tools (e.g., pomodoro technique and corresponding apps). At the end of the day we debrief, celebrating progress and troubleshooting challenges.The lunch discussions provide much needed interaction and downtime. Discussion topics are tailored to the needs and preferences of each unique group. Past topics at our hunkers have included general writing strategies, journal selection, peer review process, responding to reviewer feedback, handling rejection, getting over writer’s block, tailoring writing for specific audiences, and effective data presentation. Sometimes we also avail ourselves of various university resources, such as writing consultants who can provide feedback on style and mechanics or lead seminars on dealing with writing blocks. Other great options are inviting speakers from the IRB office or subject librarians to help develop reference skills and research consumerism.I love these writing hunkers and I am consistently pleased with the progress I make. Sure, most of us are wrung out by the end of the day since we’re largely unaccustomed to this intensity of work. Yet it’s also incredibly gratifying. Progress is reinforcing, as is the sense of being in a community of writers. I appreciate that the hunkers provide a space for students and faculty from throughout the program to discuss the writing process and its challenges, publication process, and developing productive writing habits. A common conversation is how to adapt the tools and approaches used in the hunker to our own continued writing practice, both for daily writers and others like me. The warmups and parking downhill exercises are especially valuable to writers of all types because they can be applied by both daily and intermittent writers to support quick transitions back into a writing project after time away. Though I am admittedly not a daily writer, I also appreciate the opportunity to talk openly with students about developing effective writing habits--whatever that means for them--with practice in application of strategies and tools during the hunker and beyond.Do you have ideas to share or questions about how to use writing hunkers to boost your productivity? Comment below or join us for a live chat November 29, 2018 at 1 pm PST/ 3pm CST/ 4pm EST. Sign up here for the chat.

Strategies for Optimizing Your Sabbatical for Professional and Personal Growth

By Dr. Bryn Harris, University of Colorado DenverIn 2016, I submitted my tenure dossier as well as my sabbatical application, hopeful that I would obtain both. I had been going, at what it felt like, warp speed while on the tenure track, constantly focused on getting out that next publication, updating syllabi, and the many other tasks that occupied my day but didn’t have a place on my vita. The idea of taking a sabbatical felt incredible—I could work on new projects and reflect on my career in a unique way. At the same time, taking a sabbatical felt overwhelming. How would I structure my time? What projects would I focus on? How could I reinvigorate my connection to academia? I also had two young children (ages 3 and 1) and felt a huge need to be more present in their lives during this time.For some assistant professors on the tenure track, like myself, the idea of taking a sabbatical might be a motivator to obtaining tenure. However, once an academic meets that milestone, they may struggle with organizing sabbatical in a way that increases productivity and recommitment to a career in academia. After obtaining tenure and approval for sabbatical, I started contacting colleagues to learn about their activities during sabbatical. I was searching for tips, strategies, and generally helpful advice that would increase my research productivity and also allow me some much-needed time to reflect on my career. The first emails I received were telling; I wasn’t the only person wondering how to best structure sabbatical. I received many “I didn’t think much about sabbatical, I wish I would have thought about it differently” and “I didn’t have a good plan and I wasn’t as productive as I could have been” emails. Most of the emails I received were people asking me to share what I learned about structuring a sabbatical. A quick google search reveals few resources available regarding this topic. This felt like a stark contrast to the mentorship opportunities that were available to me while on the tenure-track.I received a few recommendations from fellow academics regarding structuring sabbatical to optimize productivity. I also read multiple articles and resources pertaining to academic burnout, and how to avoid it. Based on these anecdotal and research-based resources, I am reflecting on the things that increased my productivity during sabbatical and beyond. Here are the recommendations I want to share with other scholars:1) Reflect. For me, reflecting on my career during this time was the most important aspect of sabbatical. I asked myself questions including (1) What are my favorite aspects of academia? Relatedly, how can I engage in these activities with more regularity?; (2) What skills am I lacking that could enhance my professional endeavors? How can I obtain these skills?; (3) How can I better integrate work-life realms?2) Recognize that everyone has diverse emotions regarding sabbatical. It is completely normal and understandable to feel such things as confusion, exhaustion, and lack of motivation when beginning your sabbatical. It is important to consider that a critical component of sabbatical should be self-care. Allow yourself to have those feelings, but also reflect on why you are feeling that way and seek solutions for returning from sabbatical in a different mindset. Allow yourself time to rejuvenate that does not include research, teaching, or service endeavors.3) Obtain mentorship. Sabbatical can be a wonderful time to start (or finally finish!) a new project, collaborate with a new colleague, or receive advice regarding future career planning. Seeking additional or new mentorship can be invigorating for your career and assist with accountability during a traditionally low-structured time.4) Create a schedule. One of the best pieces of advice that I received was to create a daily schedule, of which each day included time to spend on your sabbatical priorities. For me, this meant at least 1 hour of writing per day, often more, working out at least three times per week, and spending more time with my family in the evenings.5) Increase your visibility. During my sabbatical, I repeated the same activity I did my first year on the tenure track. That was to reach out to one new person per week in an effort to build research partnerships, create new connections with school districts, or forge relationships with state or local agencies or organizations. This activity contributed to being asked to keynote a presentation and a dual academic appointment on our medical school campus, among others.6) Remove yourself from activities that take you away from sabbatical goals. Don’t worry, your service responsibilities will be there when you get back from sabbatical. Take this time to disconnect from non-essential work. Plan in advance for this. This may mean saying “no” to sitting on a new committee or serving on a search committee and setting explicit periods of unavailability. Saying “no” may feel uncomfortable as many early career scholars must engage in certain service endeavors while on the tenure track. However, this work may take you away from other priorities, and leave you feeling less productive than you hoped.7) Do or learn something new. Reflect on the things that are holding you back from accomplishing more in your career. Sabbatical is a wonderful time to increase your knowledge in a particular area or challenge yourself in a new way. For me, this meant taking a biostatistics course (thank you, tuition benefit!) and going back to practice as a school psychologist one day per week. I also completed a certificate program in Research Leadership through the University of Pittsburg Medical School, something that would have been more challenging to complete during traditional semesters.8) Create a new plan. Many people obtain their first sabbatical soon after obtaining tenure. Often, we have a plan for working towards tenure, and when it is obtained we may think, Now what? Use some of your time to reflect on what the next period of your career may be. Seek mentorship if you are having difficulty creating this plan.If you had a productive sabbatical, that includes rest and rejuvenation, you will be a more productive scholar. What ideas do you have for structuring your sabbatical? What questions do you have about sabbatical? Join us Friday, October 26th, at 4:00 PM EST / 2:00 MST to chat about this topic. Sign up here for more info.

Questions on Tenure and Promotion: Perspectives from Full Professors

May 29, 2018

This is the second of our two part series of Q&As on tenure and promotion. In part one, a panel of associate professors answered readers’ questions on how they prepared for the tenure process. Here, three full professors respond to questions on preparing for the T&P process. Our respondents are Scott P. Ardoin of the University of Georgia, Matthew K. Burns of the University of Missouri, and Kent McIntosh of the University of Oregon.1. What are critical components of strong cover letters or personal statements? Many pre-tenure faculty report receiving little guidance or conflicting information about how to craft compelling materials and wonder if the letters/statements should be a narrative recitation of one’s CV, an argument for one’s impact in the field, or something else. Scott: I would not recommend regurgitating one’s vitae, as the committee will have access to the vitae. However, highlight your strongest pieces.  Help readers understand how your work is connected and that you have one or more clear lines of research.  Explain how their institution will enable you to extend upon your lines of research.  Focus on how you will be expanding your research.  Committees want to know that you have a reasonable  future research plan.Matt: The primary purpose of the personal statement is to tell your story. For research, that means that you discuss the themes of your research and use the statement to spell out your programmatic line. For teaching and service, you also want to show how you have been strategic and programmatic. If you have received feedback and/or training, then discuss what changes that you have made due to the training, and the results (e.g., higher student ratings). This is also the opportunity to discuss your teaching philosophy (e.g., research as pedagogy, community of learners, etc.). I would suggest that you exactly do not narratively recite your CV.2. Many scholars are stymied by the task of describing their teaching and service, particularly in institutions where research is the primary focus. What are your thoughts on how early career scholars can articulate and substantiate their teaching effectiveness beyond course evaluation data, as well as describe their contributions to institutional and professional service?Scott:  If you can have a colleague observe your teaching and provide you with a commentary/summary of your research you can include quotes from their summary.  If you are already at an institution make it clear that you have published with your students.  Instruction goes beyond the classroom.3. What are the most common mistakes you see among individuals preparing their tenure dossiers?Scott: Writing a good dossier requires one to be proud of their work. Point out all of the great things that you have done.  Be pompous.  This is one time that it is expected.  Some people make the mistake of thinking that others understand their research and will understand how their studies are tied to each other.  Help your readers to understand your work and the link between your publications.Matt: They emphasize quantity over quality. For example, a candidate might have 20 publications in lower-tiered journals, which would be a weaker case than 10 to 12 publications in top-tier journals. They also submit grants at the expense of writing articles. I suggest talking to your department chair and mentor about this, but I have told junior faculty to stop submitting grants and start writing up the data that they already have.

4. Candidates for tenure are often asked to identify potential external reviewers. What strategies do you recommend for creating a list of potential reviewers, particularly in light of university rules prohibiting reviews by senior scholars with whom the candidate has an existing relationship or mandating anti-tampering/non-contact with reviewers? Should tenure candidates include a mix of associate and full professors as potential reviewers? When is it appropriate for a candidate to request that individuals be excluded as reviewers and how might that be done? Scott: Talk to other senior level people in your department for suggestions and/or call your advisor for recommendations.  Good reviewers are key and some people simply are not all that nice.  You want to make sure you get someone who is nice.  Realize that your graduate advisor is still vested in you, so contact your advisor for suggestions and ask your advisor to review all of your materials for you.  Ask for assistance.5. Many pre-tenure faculty feel like they are sprinting for six to seven years in hopes of gaining tenure and promotion to associate professor. However, the next step, going from associate to full professor, seems an even more daunting process for many. Do you have any advice for early career scholars about things they can do now, to not only increase the likelihood that they will attain the rank of associate, but to carry that momentum forward to prevent being a ‘career associate’ or stalling out after achieving tenure?Scott: Don’t make the mistake of getting too involved in service work.  You have to get your research done. Make sure that you are conducting research that you love, this will help you to keep up your dedication to your research.  If you are doing your research because you love it instead of doing it to get tenured, you are not going to slow down.  Research should be fun.Kent: For me, it’s always been about establishing routines for getting research done. Some carve out big blocks of time and hold them sacred. I don’t usually have that luxury, so I break down my research/writing projects into small tasks and try to complete at least one done each day. I try to do it first thing in the morning, before I open my email. That way I know I will get it done.Matt: First, tenure should never be your goal. Researchers who see tenure as the goal wind up as a career associate professors. Second, find the faculty members in your department who always vote no (every department has them), and take them out for lunch. Ask them what a tenured member of the department looks like. Not, “how many pubs?” or “in what journals should I publish?” Instead, present it more generally. Then, during the same conversation, ask them to tell you about what a full professor looks like as well. Third, seek leadership opportunities. The primary difference, in my opinion, is leadership. Your scholarship will speak for itself. Don’t hesitate to promote your research (social media is great for that), but you should be strategic in other areas as well. In your 5th year and later, start looking for leadership opportunities. Don’t serve on committees, chair them.6. Some early career scholars may consider pursuing early tenure. What considerations would you offer for pre-tenure faculty who want to be evaluated for tenure before the end of their tenure clocks?Scott: My first suggestion would be not to do it.  What good is it going to be for you.  Your options for jobs will decrease with promotion and tenure (there are not many associate level faculty openings). If you go up early you are going to be held to higher standards because you are saying you are better than everyone else.  Just wait.  If you think your vitae is good enough to go up early, then you don’t need to be worried about tenure, so the rational that you just want to get over the pressure of tenure is not a rational one.  Just wait.   If you just want a raise, consider applying for a job elsewhere.  Maybe you will find there is a better job out there.  Getting an offer will help your university to recognize how valuable you are.Kent: Check your university policies and ask those who will be writing the departmental/college letter for you. Some university committees simply look at the total body of work and judge it regardless of the time period. Others will expect a lot more, and there is an institutional bias against those who go up early. If you doubt it in any way, it’s much better to go up on the regular timeframe, unless your case is stellar and you foresee a slowdown before then (e.g., having a baby).Matt: That is very difficult. Most universities have language that represents a potential early tenure case. At my university, the candidate must be “rare and exceptional,” neither of which are defined, but the terms imply an extremely high bar. I suggest talking to your department chair and mentor as soon as you think it is something that you want to consider.7. Some tenure candidates will be denied tenure and/or promotion at their institution. What recommendations do you have for dealing with this possibility and outcome should it occur?Scott: Consider going to a university that places greater value on teaching.We thank all of our panelists for sharing their perspectives on this topic! What other questions do you have on tenure and promotion?

Playing the Long Game: Q&A with Dr. Dowdy on Planning Early for Full Professorship

May 29, 2018

by Daniel L. Gadke, Mississippi State University and Bryn Harris, University of Colorado Denver with Erin Dowdy, University of California Santa BarbaraAs early career academics, we are often hyper-focused on tenure and promotion from assistant to associate rank. Once tenure and promotion are obtained, the entire landscape of our academic position may change. With the time constraints often associated on the road to associate rank now gone, the path moving forward may look quite different for many individuals. Some academics may not be concerned with pursuing full, while others may not aspire to the rank. For those interested in the road to full professorship, reaching the associate rank may not even be the half way point. That being said, it is essential for early career scholars interested in full professorship to conceptualize their academic duties from a long-term perspective, setting themselves on a full rank trajectory early in their careers. Fortunately, as early career scholars we have models such as Dr. Erin Dowdy to show us how this is best done. Dr. Dowdy offers sound advice while answering questions on planning early for full professorship, as well as the difference between promotion from assistant to associate and associate to full.1. What advice would you give yourself as an assistant professor to best align your early career with a full professor trajectory?My best advice for a career in academia, regardless of rank, is to pursue what you are truly passionate about. In addition, find people that you enjoy working with and be a good collaborator and colleague. I find that working with people you enjoy, and working to solve problems that matter to you, is the best recipe for continued productivity with regards to all aspects of being a professor.2. What is something that you would have done differently as an early career faculty to prepare yourself for full professorship?I wish I had dedicated the time early in my career applying for grants, fellowships, and extramural funding opportunities that are only available to early career scholars. These early career grants provide rich opportunities for establishing a funding record, oftentimes accompanied by training or mentorship, that will set you up nicely for the continued funding and research productivity expected of a full professor.3. What were the biggest differences between going up for associate rank and preparing for full? Honestly, it is much less stressful. You already have reached a major milestone obtaining tenure so it feels less like your job is on the line.4. How did your program of research/teaching/service differ as an assistant professor prepping for associate and an associate prepping for full? As an associate professor, I had increased expectations for service and grant funding. I took on additional service activities that I hoped I would enjoy in addition to benefiting the profession (e.g., as Associate Editor for School Psychology Review), my department (e.g., chairing the Admissions Committee), and the University (e.g., serving on the university-wide Graduate Council). I also devoted more time to grant writing and working to establish international connections. There was always the requirement for research productivity, and teaching expectations remained relatively stable.5. Based on your own experience, what would you consider a reasonable timeline between associate and full? Why? I think this likely differs for everyone, but at my university we have a step system where you are expected to go up for review every two years as an associate professor. I think that 6 years between assistant and associate is a great goal, but it likely depends on expectations at your university. I’d recommend consulting with a full professor at your university that you trust.6. How did you know you were ready to apply for full?When I was up for review, I consulted with colleagues both at my university and at other universities. I asked them to candidly review my materials as they would for an external review and indicate if they would recommend that I apply for full. I also critically evaluated my productivity in terms of research, service, teaching, and mentorship….and basically, just decided to go for it. As I indicated above, it was a less stressful/high stakes decision so I figured the worst that could happen would be that I would just get to keep my job as an associate professor.7. Is mentorship as essential as an associate professor as it is to an assistant professor? If no, why? If so, how? How might the mentorship needs of an associate professor differ from an assistant professor?I still strongly believe in the value of mentorship and collaboration at every level. Now, with more junior colleagues in our department I am enjoying the role of mentoring others – even when I feel like I’m still the junior faculty in need of mentorship. As an associate professor, I started to feel like I was more in a role of collaborator and contributor rather than simply a mentee. But whatever you call it, try to work with people you like and who are willing and able to consult with you and offer you professional advice.8. What are reasonable expectations/responsibilities to assume as an associate professor still keeping in mind the need to reach full professor rank.A solid line of research and continued research productivity is highly valued at my university. For me, it was critical to protect a significant amount of time each week to be able to think and write. But beyond work, balance is key. I know that I won’t be happy and feel fulfilled if I don’t take plenty of time to recharge and enjoy time with family and friends. There are likely many different avenues to reaching full, so I would suggest playing your strengths and also realizing that you can continue to have a long career after reaching full professor. Professorship is a marathon, and you need to find ways to enjoy the run along the way.

Questions on Tenure and Promotion: Perspectives of Associate Professors

March 19, 2018

Many of our readers are graduate students and new faculty concerned about tenure. We queried our pre-tenure members for their questions about promotion and tenure, then sought the perspectives of midcareer and senior scholars in school psychology. In the first installment of our three part series on tenure and promotion, three associate professors respond to questions about preparing for the review process. Our respondents are Jamilia Blake of Texas A&M, Michael Sulkowski of the University of Arizona, and Amanda Sullivan of the University of Minnesota.1. Many pre-tenure faculty report receiving little guidance or conflicting information about how to craft compelling materials and wonder if the letters/statements should be a narrative recitation of one’s CV, an argument for one’s impact in the field, or something else. How did you approach the task of preparing your cover letter/personal statements for your tenure dossier? Jamilia: The candidate statement (personal statement) should highlight the key contributions your research, teaching, and service is making to the field and as such should be narrative document.  Your CV provides a quantitative account of what you have accomplished in a set amount of time.  I often think of my CV as my personal reference list.  However, your candidate statement is qualitative and provides the context for your work.  It should not merely be a narrative recount of your CV.  It is your opportunity to bring attention to themes in your work that you feel are important and will eventually have impact on the field.  It is your space to discuss how your work shows promise for changing school psychology practice and research.  Everything stated in your candidate statement should be supported by evidence from your CV or supporting documents (e.g., I have # articles that speak to this work; name specific articles; I received X grant/award for this work).  I also look at the candidate statement as a way to help your reviewers make sense of your CV, your candidate statement will help reviewers and your colleagues determine what you deem is important in your work and will influence what they will focus on. To prepare for this task, I asked my mentoring committee (two full professors) to identify individuals in my department who they felt like had a strong packet when they were being considered for promotion and tenure.  I then went to those individuals and requested to review their candidate statements (most agreed, some did not).  I reviewed their statements along with their CVs to see how they captured the essence of their work.  Beyond helping me determine what was important to focus on, doing so also gave me a general idea of how my department/college wanted candidate statements formatted.  I also looked at my CV and reorganized by publications by topic so I could more easily see the themes in my work.  From there, I decided which aspects of my work I was most proud of and fully captured my intellectual contribution to the field.  This helped me with selecting representative publications I would include in my dossier.  It also assisted me with more fully describing the quality of my work and contribution to the field in my candidate statement.  I must be honest in saying that some of the publications I identified as my representative publications were not my most well-cited publications, but they were the publications that I felt most proud of, fully demonstrated my ability as a researcher to independently engage in high quality scholarship, and I believed would eventually make an impression on the field.   Then I met with my mentoring team to discuss what I planned to include in my statement and the representative publications that I felt best captured this work.  Once I received their feedback, I began writing my draft. With each version of my draft, I asked my mentoring team and senior colleagues at my institution that I trusted (both within my department and outside my department) to review my candidate statement and give me feedback.  I went through multiple drafts (at least 5 or 6) before it was ready.Michael: I approached the task by trying to describe a clear line/lines of research and then describing how my teaching and service related to my research. Having an integrated statement makes it look like you’ve been intentional and organized with what you have done to be competitive for tenure, even if it feels like your research, teaching, and service efforts are a bit disjointed. Also, it is important to have several senior faculty who are not part of the T&P process review the statement and offer constructive feedback. Lastly, I think it helps to bolster the narrative statement by infusing it with quantitative productivity metrics such as the H-index, i-10 index, and total number of times your work has been cited.Amanda: I think it’s really important to tailoring the statement and other materials to your specific context. Together, the CV and statements should speak to tenurability in your current position. For me, that meant becoming familiar with my department tenure code, the college tenure guidelines, and the university tenure code, along with the department and college vision/mission. This is something I did very early on—before I accepted the position since it was part of my decision to join my current university. I had conversations during my campus visit about expectations for tenure and promotion. I’m fortunate to be in a place that has an annual review process in which the materials are very similar to those used for promotion (sans external reviews) so I was prompted to develop my statements early (October of my first year!) and revisit annually. This process may not be in place in  many institutions, but early career scholars can start early in crafting their story so that it can be a guide for activities pre-tenure rather than something crafted post hoc.That said, when I refined those materials for my tenure dossier, I revised the statements somewhat to speak to a broader audience since the documents were going to be read by many individuals outside my unit, including external reviewers, the college T&P committee, the dean, and university administrators as the dossier went through the process. Rather than writing exclusively to school psychology faculty or my department colleagues, I tried to gear the statements toward a general academic audience, many of whom I assumed would have no idea what school psychology was, let alone my position within the field. This forced me to think very carefully about how I worded things and how I described my contributions and potential impact. I tried to explain to a lay audience the goals of my work and the relevance to educational systems, situating my scholarship and teaching in particular in a broader social context for readers outside of my field. I also tried linking explicitly back to relevant elements of the unit and university tenure codes by using the phrasing from those documents and describing how my activities aligned with or embodied those expectations. As Jamilia noted, I tried to help readers understand the information provided in my CV, assuming that they wouldn’t necessarily draw the same conclusions that I would (or hoped they would) about what everything meant or how it fit together. Instead, I used my statements to explain activities and describe linkages between them—to tell the story I wanted them to take away from reviewing my materials.My department didn’t provide much guidance on structure or length so I tried to find a middle ground based on the requirements of other departments in my college (which ranged from a few hundred words per domain to a 10 page limit) and struck a middle ground. I started my research statement with a general description of my research interests/strands and the goals of that work, then for each of the three strands described, I explained the importance of the general area of scholarship, my specific projects with citations, and the value of it plus any recognition received. In my teaching statement, I briefly described my teaching philosophy, including specific practices used, then I summarized my activities in classroom teaching, advising/mentoring, and collaborations with students following a basic structure of goals, methods, and outcomes with a tables of supporting data for each subsection and links to my scholarship whenever possible. My service statement was much of the same—goals, activities, outcomes—with discussion of how activities were an extension of my scholarship and teaching.2. Pre-tenure faculty also often wonder what else to include in a dossier beyond these cover letters or personal statements. That is, how should one compile ‘evidence’ of accomplishments warranting tenure and promotion, particularly when faced with the seemingly daunting task of filling a file box, binder, or other vessel with tangible markers of ones’ professional accomplishments. How did you assemble your dossier beyond CVs, cover letters/statements, and representative publications?Jamilia: My institution had specific instructions regarding what materials to include in my dossier; however, there were additional items (which were optional) that I included to support the statements I made in my candidate statement. At minimum, you should include your CV, three representative publications that best captures your work and the eventual impact you will have on the field, and your teaching evaluations.  After including these essential pieces, I would review your candidate statement again and consider what items will further support the claims you make in your statement that are not listed on your CV.  For example, I might include a list of the impact factor of journals and rejection rates for the journals I publish in as well as my h-index.  For journals without impact factors, I would look into software that generates citation/mention indexes (e.g., a media-based form of google scholar) to see how often your work was mentioned/referenced/cited in non-peer reviewed outlets.  If I identified that I was doing an area of work that few have studied, I might summarize a literature search of the work in my area  (e.g., include a screen shot of the number of articles published on that topic in the last 5 years) to illustrate my contribution to this body of work. Another way of doing this is to reference recent meta-analyses/systematic literature reviews that have called for additional research in my area of expertise to illustrate how my scholarship fills this gap.  If I mention in my statement that I engage in high quality teaching practices, I might include sample student comments about my teaching from my teaching evaluations that speak to this or a copy of a peer observation and evaluation of my teaching.Michael: If you have them, it is good to include physical copies of written/co-authored books. Also, if allowed, adding collaborator letters can help augment external letters. Often, letters from students can be added to a teaching portfolio to give life to the TCE reports and selected student statements. Similarly, it can be helpful to include letters from senior faculty who have observed/evaluated your teaching effectiveness in class or at a workshop. Lastly, syllabi for newly developed/modified classes and novel teaching or instructional resources/curricula/technologies often can highlight innovative teaching.Amanda: I looked to the policies for mention of the type of activities considered under scholarship, teaching and service and basically kept those in mind as I went about my work. I created a folder in my email and on my drive where I could save anything relevant such as unsolicited feedback on teaching, scholarship, or service (e.g., notes/letters of appreciation students, users of research, presentation attendees, editors, etc.). Instead of it being a time consuming process in the summer before my dossier went forward, it was literally 3-10 seconds here and there over several years. If a reader sent a note of appreciation about an article, I dropped it into the T&P folder after replying. When an article was published, I saved the PDF to the T&P subfolder for pubs. Of course, I also had files of each project, grant applications, presentations, and course materials so I could draw from those when needed . Then, when the time came to assemble my dossier, I just printed and sifted into the appropriate file folders in my tenure box. Since my department didn’t provide much guidance on what to include, I erred on the side of putting in anything internal reviewers might want to see so for research I had file folders for peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, other pubs, presentations, grant proposals, and honors/awards/acknowledgment. For teaching, I had syllabi, student products, evaluation data, observations, and other feedback. Service was sparser by comparison, but had any certificates of appreciation/honors/awards, and any other miscellaneous documentation I’d accumulated (e.g., emails of appreciation from participants in events).3. Many scholars are especially stymied by the task of describing their teaching and service, particularly in institutions where research is the primary focus. Our readers are often concerned about supplementing teaching evaluation data, of which there are notable limitations, but are unsure of what types of data or documentation are appropriate to include. What did you do in your letter/statement to articulate your teaching effectiveness?Jamilia: Yes, this is perhaps the most challenging aspect of the dossier to address.  I recommend including peer evaluations of your teaching and statements from students about your teaching extracted from teaching evaluations to document the effectiveness of your teaching beyond traditional teaching evaluations. To do this, I would identify the faculty in your department who are deemed as the most accomplished teachers (e.g., received teaching awards, have high teaching evaluations) and request that they observe and provide an evaluation of your teaching.  I would use these peer evaluations a progress monitoring tool, if you will, to improve your teaching as well as a method to document your teaching quality.  I would include these peer evaluations of your teaching (one or two per class) as an additional attachment in your dossier.  I would reference not only that you voluntarily participated in peer teaching observations but how you used the information to improve/enhance your teaching in your statement. I would also conduct multiple teaching evaluations throughout the semester/quarter with your students (e.g., midterm and post-term) and for each evaluation, I would ask students to leave comments.  I recommend using midterm teaching evaluations for two purposes: as a form of formative assessment to identify ways to improve/enhance your teaching during that semester so long as it does not create an undue burden on students and as another method for documenting the quality of your teaching.  I would include a summary of student’s statements about your teaching in a table in your dossier and reference this table in your candidate statement as well.Michael: I created a table that compared my TCE ratings for various categories to the college mean ratings. Additionally, I talked about how I developed a new course consistent with my research/scholarship and modified existing courses to better approximate advancements in the field and best practices. It can also help to discuss how your teaching and service has helped with the health of the program, department, college, or academic unit. For example, you can highlight accreditation-related work, taking on additional advisement or teaching responsibilities, or committee work that you did to ensure that things continued to run smoothly.Amanda: At my institution, the tenure policy describes teaching as including classroom instruction, supervision, advising, mentoring, and professional learning provided to the community, so I oriented my teaching statement and documentation broadly in recognition of all of the different activities that are encapsulated. I included tables summarizing course evaluation data, student research activities (co-authored presentation and publications), and progress to degree. My tenure box included other documentation/certificates from any professional learning undertaken to improve teaching; syllabi; artifacts of student learning; and ratings and write-ups from teaching observations. A resource I found very helpful was a university webpage on evidence of teaching effectiveness, since our Provost for academic affairs discouraged reliance on course evaluation data and instead recommended other tools and artifacts to include (i.e., peer evaluation of syllabi, student artifacts, classroom observation). Even if your unit doesn’t provide guidance, seek info from higher levels of the university.4. Based upon your experience, what types of service were most valued when your materials were evaluated? To what degree did you emphasize service to the profession versus service to the university? Within your service to the university, at what level of service was viewed most favorably (i.e., program, department, college, or university)? Jamilia: I emphasized both.  My department goes to great lengths to protect Assistant Professors from over committing to service.  As such, my department values service to the program/department more so than to the college and University for Assistant Professors.  In terms of national service, my department saw memberships on journal editorial boards and participation in national service organization executive committees as appropriate level of service for an Assistant Professor.  I discussed my invitation to serve as an editorial board member and as ad-hoc reviewer for prominent journals as evidence of my national service in my statement.  I also explained in detail what my participation and leadership on program and department level committees within my institution entailed.  I described how my conducting in-service presentations for various community stakeholders and local school districts was a form of program/department, and University service because doing so fostered University-community relationships and collaborations that ultimately assisted the program and department in securing and maintaining practicum sites and supervisors for our students. Moreover, these presentations contributed the dissemination of knowledge regarding evidence-based practices.Michael: Regarding service, I’ve heard that non-university service should suggest that your work is having a state or national impact as you move up to the associate professor rank. Regarding university service, I think it is probably best to illustrate that you’re a good team player and were successful in the work you did.Amanda: In my department, both internal and external service are valued, but service to the profession, especially that related to scholarship (editorial activities, grant reviewing) and community engagement, are highly valued pre-tenure, and there’s some expectation that pre-tenure faculty are shielded from excessive internal service. That’s not the case everywhere. Hopefully, learning about service expectations happened early—as in before accepting a position or very early on so that activities would be somewhat aligned with expectations. I don’t mean to suggest that the tenure policy should determine all of one’s professional activities, but realistically speaking, I think there should at least be some effort to align activities and relative effort with expectations for tenure and promotion if you want to be successful at an institution. Institutions and units vary in the relative value placed on different kinds of service pre- and post-tenure, so it’s helpful to find out early and be strategic to the extent that makes sense for one’s broader, long-term career goals. My department’s tenure policy described a variety of kinds of service from international to departmental, but specifically highlighted discipline-specific and institutional service in evaluation of pre-tenure faculty, so I organized my service statement to describe discipline-specific service (e.g., professional organizations, journals, centers) and institutional (university, college, department).5. Candidates for tenure are often asked to identify potential external reviewers. What strategies did you use, or would you recommend, for creating a list of potential reviewers, particularly in light of university rules prohibiting reviews by senior scholars with whom the candidate has an existing relationship or mandating anti-tampering/non-contact with reviewers? Should tenure candidates include a mix of associate and full professors as potential reviewers? If appropriate, how did you (or would you have) handled asking certain scholars to be excluded as reviewers?  Jamilia: Again, this depends on your institution.  My proposed list of external reviewers were a mix of Associate and Full Professors, but mainly Full Professors.  I selected individuals who I felt had some expertise in my scholarship and so could speak to my contributions to the field with that respect. However, my program and department also offered a list of external reviewers.  Per my University’s process, I was not informed of the final list of external reviewers that were invited to review my packet.  My department head invited external reviewers to review my packet so I had no contact with the external reviewers throughout the tenure and promotion process.  However, after I was notified about the decision regarding my tenure and promotion, I was able to see who drafted my letters and all were full professors.Michael: I looked for full professors who I haven’t worked with who would still be aware of and likely think favorably of my work. In addition, I selected people who seemed like reasonable people that had positive reputations in the field. Furthermore, it is important to select people who are at universities with similar or higher Carnegie Foundation Classification rankings or people who are holding important roles in the field such as being the lead editor of a flagship journal or holding a distinguished chair position.Amanda: My college’s tenure guidelines specified that external reviewers should be full professors, but that exceptional associate professors could be included, and that individuals should be recognized scholars in the field from peer institutions. Former mentors and co-authors/investigators were excluded. I was also told that my department’s preference was for fulls with exceptional recognition or appointments (e.g., journal editors, endowed chairs, fellows, upper admin). Reviewers were going to be asked to comment on 4 prompts: the impact of my work, it’s quality, whether I’d met expectations for tenure, and performance relative to peers, so I kept all of this in mind when considering who to propose. I generated a list of potential reviewers who I thought would be well situated to review my scholarship (the first two prompts), as well as those I thought could review my overall career development (the latter two prompt).I wasn’t involved in requesting letters, and didn’t know who ended up being chosen until well after letters were received, so the expectation for no contact was easy. My institution also allowed opportunity to veto potential reviewers for conflicts of interest. In my case, I asked for an individual to be omitted because I knew the person had a highly contentious relationship with one of my mentors. In another case I asked for a person to be omitted because I thought our scholarship was highly dissimilar (topically, theoretically, methodologically)  and because they didn’t have the appointments sought to allow more of a birds-eye evaluation of my contributions and performance relative to peers in the field.6. After tenure dossiers are submitted, most candidates face several months’ wait before a decision will be rendered. What strategies do you recommend for navigating this process and the uncertainty it entails?Jamilia: I would advise any candidate who is waiting on their tenure and promotion results to continue to focus on their scholarship and to remember that there is a space for their work in the field.  I would encourage all candidates going up to consider what is in the realm of their control.  I believe that the only thing you have control over in your career, but especially during the tenure and promotion process, is your productivity (e.g., what you produce and how much you produce) and the way you present your work (e.g., journal outlets you choose). You cannot change what you did before you submitted your packet/dossier nor you can you control what reviewers will say or think about your work, so do not consume yourself with these matters.  Instead, focus on what you do have control over.  I would advise you to spend your energy and time on publishing and engaging in high quality research that is meaningful to you while you await your tenure and promotion decision.  This will do two things.  First, it will reinforce that you are a strong and committed scholar to those around you and two it will enhance your portfolio and CV for future opportunities that may come your way.Michael: Take a little time off, relax a bit, take up a new hobby, travel, start a new novel/TV series, etc.Amanda: One of my favorite pieces of advice received was “Just do good work.” This came from a senior scholar who’d joined UMN at the same time I did when we were chatting at our university’s new faculty orientation. Worried about starting a new position? Just do good work. Not sure how to handle department drama? Just do good work. Worried about measuring up to others? Just do good work. Anxious about P&T? Just do good work. Worrying won’t change anything, so I just focus on what I could control: continuing to do good work. I know ‘good work’ can be unpacked in a variety of ways and may mean different things to different people, but I like the simplicity of the idea of just doing what you believe is good work. Worst case scenario: you eventually go somewhere else to do that good work, but would that really be so bad if the current place didn’t value or recognize the work you’d been doing and presumably wanted to do?7. Some early career scholars may consider pursuing early tenure. What considerations would you offer for pre-tenure faculty who want to be evaluated for tenure before the end of their tenure clocks or probationary periods?Jamilia: I would speak to my department head/college level administration about what the timeline requirements are for submitting your packet/dossier for tenure and promotion to be sure that you are clear on your University policy.  Then I would speak to senior faculty to assess the culture/faculty attitudes surrounding people submitting their packets/dossier early.  From there, I would have someone external to your University who is well-respected in your specific area of expertise and who is from a comparable institution (e.g., based on Carnegie ratings/AAU membership) that will not be a potential external reviewer critique your packet/dossier. I would ask this person to evaluate your materials and give you an honest assessment of whether you would receive tenure at their institution. I would ask them to offer specific recommendations to strengthen your packet/dossier.  With this information, you can make an assessment as to whether you should submit your packet early or spend the additional time on your clock building a stronger portfolio.Michael: I decided to do this at the recommendation or my dean and through consultation with other senior faculty members (in school psychology and related fields). Also, before pulling the trigger, I compared my productivity to associate professors at peer institutions to see how I stacked up.Amanda: First, does institution allow it? Some don’t. But if the institution does allow it and decisions of tenure are to be based on meeting specific criteria, it’s important to be clear on what they are and how your record compares. It can be helpful to consider the profiles of recently tenured faculty and to consult senior faculty and unit and college administrators. Expect a diversity of perspectives and look for convergence. Know how you’ll be evaluated relative to tenure policy and what prompts external reviewers will be given so that you can self-evaluate relative to those. Before making the decision, I consulted senior colleagues, paid attention to cases from the few years before I was considering going up, including cases where tenure was denied in my college. It’s something I had at the back of my mind when I started my position having come from a few years at another institution, but beyond learning about the policies and expectations, my focus was just on doing good work. Then at my fourth year annual review, I asked for feedback on my readiness to go up. Since it was favorable, I did.Have you had a different experience at your institution? Do you have tips or strategies to share? Comment below.

Working with University Giving for Funding Opportunities

February 18, 2018

Daniel L. Gadke & Kasee K. Stratton; Mississippi State UniversityA part of an academic’s role is to find and secure funding. The ability to acquire funding may often play a large role in a scholar’s ability to earn tenure and promotions; however, many academics struggle with acquiring funding throughout their careers. Von Hippel and Von Hippel (2015) reported primary investigators put approximately 116 hours into each proposal and co-primary investigators account for approximately 55 hours in, with only about 3 to 20% of proposals being awarded across many agencies (e.g., IES, NIH, NSF). This is a great deal of time and effort for a low rate of return. With recurring news of federal budget cuts, limited funds, and programs drying up, it is unlikely we will see an upswing in the number of grants funded in the near future.Aside from the competitive nature of the granting world, many early career faculty have difficulty acquiring mentorship on the topic, despite the importance of establishing a track record of funding early in their careers. Fortunately, there are other avenues of funding available outside major scientific granting bodies. Here, we are going to explore one of those avenues: working with your university or college’s department of giving.University Giving All universities have a mechanism for soliciting funds, whether that be from private donors interested in a cause, corporations, or alumni. This mechanism may be called different things depending on the university you work for. Here, at Mississippi State, it is referred to as the Mississippi State University (MSU) Foundation (http://www.msufoundation.com); at my alma mater, Illinois State University, it is University Advancement (https://giving.illinoisstate.edu).  Elsewhere, it may be referred to as development, stewardship, endowments, or donor relations offices. Often, universities have a representative from this mechanism whose role is to work with your college to acquire funds.Given your place of employment, there are a number of ways you may be able to work with your university’s advancement unit to find funds to support your program, students, career, research, etc. Examples may include, scholarships, gifts-in-kind, or establishing a fund where monetary funds and donations can be placed. At MSU, this is referred to as an advancement fund. Let’s consider some important points and examples for working with your university’s advancement mechanism:Understanding giving at your university. Before doing anything, meet with a representative from your university’s giving unit. Given there is so much variance across universities, it is important to understand how the unit is able to provide support to you and your program. In some cases, there may need to be a minimum fund/donation amount (e.g., $5,000) to start, in others you might be given an account number and can start finding funding sources at a later time, and at some universities this may not even be a possibility. Here at MSU, any faculty member with an initiative can start an advancement fund and solicit donations start asking their family members to make charitable donations to if they want. Regardless, understanding this mechanism is essential to moving forward. Fortunately, one of my faculty mentors was fluent in working university giving and passed little nuggets of wisdom down to me. My first week on the job, I reached out to learn more about our College of Education’s giving representative.Educating your giving unit on school psychology. School psychology can be a confusing world for many; however, most of the things school psychologists do are attractive to donors, private giving entities, etc. Helping kids with academics, behavior concerns, various disabilities, trauma, working with English language learners, and so on; school psychologists are problem solvers who improve outcomes for children and their families in any number of ways. The representative is going to need to understand this and what it is you are doing to make that impact. Universities are regularly looking for ways to promote themselves, approach donors, and receive good PR. This could include highlighting your lab on autism, trauma, or school climate.What can university giving help with. University giving units can help in a variety of ways. Many may have ideas of private donors or foundations that may be interested in your work. They can also help coordinate fundraising and giving efforts. They might be able to coordinate a calling day or mailings to alumni from your program or college to let them know about the opportunity to support an initiative. If you run a fundraiser (e.g., a 5K walk/run, sale, etc.) they can promote and help with fund collection. On big university and nationwide giving days (e.g., Giving Tuesday; November 27, 2018), they can promote your campaign on a large scale as one of universities options of ways to give. Coordinating these events through your giving unit helps ensure all donors are also provided with appropriate tax paperwork. They can help write to organizations or corporations who have giving units, who may be interested in giving to you. For example, we wrote to a local steel mill with a foundation about the services we provide to children and were awarded $50,000. University units of giving are motivated to provide support for a number of reasons, one is they often get a cut of funds raised; here is it 5% off the top for any amount.Mississippi State has created a video to promote donations to our clinic, and created a commercial that was put out on the SEC network along with an entire campaign to promote one of our research labs on CHARGE Syndrome.How to pursue funds. There are a number of ways you can pursue funds to place in a university giving account. At MSU, we have done this a number of ways. First, consider simple fundraisers. We have 5Ks, t-shirt sales, work with local business to have days when portions of sales go to the fund. We have worked with student organizations to help coordinate these events, which has been wildly successful. Our universities Panhellenic Council does a great deal of fundraising for our Autism and Developmental Disabilities Clinic/School Psychology Service Center. Secondly, most large corporations have foundation branches that focus on giving to local initiatives and causes. Consider targeting these. As mentioned before, we wrote a small (i.e., 5 page) proposal of what we do to a local steel mill and received what will hopefully turn into reoccurring funds. Third, we have worked with actual state Foundations to receive funds. Finally, we’ve worked to attract private donors who are interested in supporting your work. While it took several years for us to get momentum and learn how to best cultivate a relationship with our MSU Foundation, in the last 6 months we have received around $200,000 in gifts from fundraising, corporate, and private donors, which require little front end effort and are often reoccurring.What can these funds be used for? This is an important question to ask your university giving arm, as it may vary. Here, there are little  estrictions on the use of the funds as long as they are supporting ourinitiative in some capacity; however, donors may restrict their use (e.g., have to use to pay for a graduate assistant). We have used funds to support students as graduate assistants, cover research materials, cover clinic and program overhead, cover the cost of travel for program related activities. Recently, we were even given funds to renovate a space on our campus to expand our clinical training. Given much of our research is tied to our clinical work, having a thriving training clinic only enhances our opportunities for research. Perhaps most importantly, these funds are protected by your university’s giving unit; our department head, dean, provost, etc. cannot touch the funds for any reason, only the account holder (i.e., you!).

Manuscript Rejected: Moving Onward and Upward

January 25, 2018

Laura Pendergast, Temple University“Are you done?” my mentor asked patiently. My beautiful manuscript had been rejected… again. My mentor had been listening to me complain for 15 minutes. I was starting a tenure-track position and needed to publish. I had conducted my analyses using the most current statistical techniques. I had painstakingly crafted my arguments and drawn careful, well-supported conclusions. Why didn’t these reviewers understand my paper?!My mentor looked at me calmly and shared a hard truth that changed the way I thought about my writing. She said, “The editor chose three reviewers who he viewed as trusted experts. These hand-picked experts didn’t understand your paper. If multiple, highly educated people didn’t understand what you wrote, whose fault is that?”She was right. Publishing manuscripts is not just about being technically correct and scientifically sound. It is about communicating with an audience. How is your manuscript useful to the readers? How can other researchers build on this information? How does your manuscript advance the field? I reviewed the comments carefully. Once I worked through my emotional reaction, I realized how useful the reviews were. I thought about how best to incorporate the reviews, and I decided to start over. I began by making a new outline. I kept my original results section but rewrote the rest of the paper in a way that was clear and conveyed why the work was meaningful. The revised paper was quickly accepted at another journal.Rejection: Perspectives from Four AcademicsMost, probably all, successful academics have stories like mine. Here, I have compiled advice on handling rejection from four highly productive scholars in school psychology at different levels in their careers: Dr. Desireé Vega, Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona; Dr. Stephen Kilgus, Associate Professor at University of Missouri; Dr. Renée Tobin, Professor at Temple University; and Dr. Randy Floyd, Professor and Associate Chair at University of Memphis.All four scholars indicated that, like most academics, they have experienced rejection many times. When asked if he had experienced rejection, Dr. Kilgus noted:“Far more than I would care to admit! I have had plenty of papers rejected, including plenty that appeared to be tanked by a single reviewer (with two other reviewers expressing high opinions of the work). There are certainly also those “zombie” papers, that have been shopped to multiple journals over multiple years. Some have found a home, others continue to wander the earth…”The respondents provided a great deal of advice for early career scholars. Themes and key supporting quotes are presented below:1. Have realistic expectations. Remember that rejection is the norm. RF: Know you must be tough to navigate through the peer-review process. Check out this cartoon from Nick D. Kim (http://www.lab-initio.com/) that conveys well these challenges that authors face in publishing in the strongest journals: http://lab-initio.com/images/fullsize/nz060.jpg. My guess is that the most prolific authors in our field (and psychology as a whole) experience rejection by handling editors (e.g., associate editors and editors-in-chief) at a rate at least double (and probably three or four times) their number of published journal articles. Based on loads of evidence, such as the annual APA journal statistics and operations reports (see http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics.aspx) and journal operations reports routinely published by school psychology journals like JSP (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440517300936) and SPQ (in the APA journal statistics and operations reports), your standard expectation when you submit a manuscript for publication should be rejection. Although the rates of rejection do vary substantially across journals, remember that rejection comes with the territory.2. Carefully consider when to read the feedback and how to respondDV: When I receive a rejection, I usually do not read through the comments immediately. Sometimes reviewers are harsh and unfortunately do not always provide constructive feedback, so I wait until I am in a better space to review the feedback.SK: Do not read the rejection letter right away! It’s just going to make you mad. Let the recognition of rejection be enough for the first day. The next day, once you’re a little calmer, go back and read the decision letter. Know going in that there are going to be opinions with which you vehemently disagree. Also know that there are going to be really strong suggestions that are worthy of your attention. Some of my manuscripts have become much better papers as a result of initial rejection and my (occasionally begrudging) response to reviewer feedback.(Note. All respondents agreed that lashing out or sending an emotional response to the handling editor is unwise. See Floyd (2018) for detailed examples of appropriate and inappropriate responses: https://www.routledge.com/Publishing-in-School-Psychology-and-Related-Fields-An-Insiders-Guide/Floyd/p/book/9781138645998).3. Manage your emotions and engage in self-careRF: More generally, if you engage in wellness activities on a routine basis—socializing, engaging in aerobic exercise, eating a healthy diet, enjoying mindfulness activities such as meditation, and getting plenty of sleep—rejection should be easier to face. Consider that collaborating in research and writing may also benefit you, as your co-authors can be there for you in coping with rejection, offering perspective, and problem-solving.SK: Once you have received the rejection, do not spend a lot of time coming up with arguments and counter points. That journal does not want your paper back and I have yet to hear of someone who has successfully lobbied for their rejected paper to be reconsidered by a journal. Expend your energy on revising the paper and resubmitting it to a new outlet…RT: It is easy to associate the project with the negative feelings that come with a rejection. Try not to let that linger. Get it back under review somewhere else so the negative feelings can be replaced with positive ones or at least something you can do about it (i.e., respond to the next round of reviews when you receive a revise and resubmit response).4. Think carefully and logically about your plan for revisions. DV:  After reading the feedback, I decide whether I am going to make any changes to the manuscript before I send it to another journal. There have been times where I have not made any edits to a manuscript after it has been rejected and send it off elsewhere as it is. And there have been times where I have made changes to the manuscript before sending it elsewhere. The positive side of a rejection is that at least two reviewers have taken the time to provide feedback (hopefully constructive) on your work to help you make it a stronger paper. Nonetheless, after a rejection, the decision to incorporate that feedback into your paper is ultimately up to you.SK: Once you are ready to review the rejection letter, look for comments indicating when reviewers either (a) explicitly indicated their confusion or (b) made statements or assumptions that imply such confusion. Some authors draw the unfortunate conclusion that the reviewer was not qualified to review their work. However, I try to remind myself that if a reviewer did not understand something, that is at least partially on me as the author. I need to do a better job of structuring my content and conveying my ideas.RT: Carefully construct an objective list of editor and reviewer criticisms and address them. Once you have done so, find another suitable journal and submit it. Take enough time in this process that are able to be as objective as possible, but not too long that you let this manuscript fall out of your production queue. RF: Recently, someone asked me to address reviewers’ direct or implied references to “fatal flaws” evident in manuscripts. Sometimes, reviewers are correct in identifying serious objective weaknesses in your study (e.g., very small sample size or lack of a comparison group in group designs and lack of experimental control in single-case designs). Strive to stay in the game and address them with careful reporting of study limitations or collection of additional data in order to submit the manuscript elsewhere. After facing rejection by three or four journals, you may decide that your time would be better spent abandoning that manuscript and trying to publish another stronger study. Often reviewers will offer more nebulous, subjective criticisms (e.g., “this manuscript does not contribute significantly to the literature in the area”) that are idiosyncratic when rejecting manuscripts. In these cases, give the criticisms close scrutiny and consult with a more senior colleague, an insightful peer, or even the journal’s handling editor. In most cases, careful responses to these comments and reframing of the study can, with time, lead to significant improvements in its quality and ultimate acceptance by another journal.5. Use the reviews to improve your writing. RT: Consider how you can make your manuscript clearer to avoid similar criticism. Did you spend too long getting to the main point of the article in the introduction? Were the details of your methods obscured by complex syntax? Did you omit key information assuming that the reader would have a deeper understanding of your data collection or analysis methods? Forcing yourself to generate an objective list of criticisms and then systematically addressing them helps take the sting out of rejection, makes revising more manageable, improves your product, and will ultimately lead to you finding a home for your manuscript.   6. Find the right “home” for your manuscript. DV: But the best advice I received from a senior colleague was that there is a home for your manuscript. It might not be the first, second, third, or even fourth journal that you send it to, but it will eventually find a home… After a rejection, I would suggest finding a new home for it as soon as possible!! On average, I wait no more than one month to resubmit the manuscript. This helps me maintain a steady stream of projects/manuscripts in progress and under review.RT: Early in my career, one of my colleagues noted, “Every project has a home. Your job is to find it.” Sometimes finding that home requires minimal revision and submission to another journal. Sometimes it requires a major overhaul of every section of the manuscript. Sometimes it requires that you collect additional data. Whatever it is, do not give up.RF: After time has passed, determine what you can control, and ponder ways to prevent the same decision from occurring again. Consider the manuscript that was rejected, generate strategies to address the critiques in a revision, and search diligently for a better-fitting journal (based on the structure and relative strength of articles published in that journal, the number of manuscripts submitted to it, its impact and reputation, the composition of its editorial board, etc.). More generally, file away the feedback and use it to guide your development of future studies and design of future manuscripts.7. Know the Habits of Productive ScholarsRF: Perhaps the best, most data-driven article on the topic of being productive as a scholar was developed by Rebecca Martinez for a special issue of JSP published in 2011. This article is “Strategies And Attributes Of Highly Productive Scholars And Contributors To The School Psychology Literature: Recommendations For Increasing Scholarly Productivity” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440511000835). Personally, I re-read it from time to time. A key finding was that the most productive scholars take peer reviews seriously, address revisions thoroughly, and learn from constructive feedback. Specific strategies included (a) not taking criticism and rejection personally and (b) rewriting, revising, and resubmitting without delay. Some of these scholars also suggested serving as a reviewer for journals in which you’d like to publish. Among other things, doing so gives you perspective by allowing you to see the review process from the other side of what you experience as an author. 8. Move Onward and UpwardSK: There is going to be plenty of rejection throughout your career – it’s the rule more than the exception. Of course, recognition of rejection’s commonality by no means makes it easy to take. Just do not get discouraged. Some folks end up playing it too safe and submitting their future work to lower tiered journals, just because they do not want to face tough criticism or because they do not think their work is worthy. Keep getting better at what you do and expose yourself to tough feedback. It is the only way we grow.In conclusion, rejection is part of academia. While many prefer not to talk about it, most of us experience it more than we’d like to admit. As an Associate Editor, I am often in a position where I need to recommend that a manuscript be rejected. When this happens, I always close my rejection letter to the author by noting that I have been the recipient of many rejection letters, and that I understand how disappointing the news can be – because it is true. I have received many rejection letters over the course of my career. But, while disappointing, the feedback that came with each rejection brought me one step closer to success.ReferencesFloyd, R. G. (2018). The peer-review process and responding to reviewer feedback. In R. G. Floyd (Ed.), Publishing in school psychology and related fields: An insider’s guide (pp. 45-61). New York, NY: Routledge.Martinez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 691–720.

Preparing a Job Talk: Maximizing Your Impact During Campus Visits

December 4, 2017

by Leandra Parris, PhD, Illinois State UniversityWhether you are seeking your first academic position or hoping to find a new one, tis the season for job searches. We’ve previously addressed the job search process here and here. Soon campus visits will begin (for some programs, they are well underway) and hopeful candidates will begin to experience the dread, worry, and excitement of preparing for the marathon of meetings, meals, and presentations. It can be easy to get overwhelmed by the process, particularly since it can sometimes last up to two days. From debates about drinking during your visit to what questions are (and are not) appropriate to ask, job candidates seeking advice will get a long, mixed list of do’s and don’ts. But one thing is consistent: the job talk is one of, if not the, most important part of the campus visit. Your skills in teaching, research, and presenting your expertise will all be evaluated in this 45-60 minute talk. But don’t stress (too much). We’ve put together a list of ideas that will help you prepare for and pull off your job talk.Know What Is Expected. A search committee likely has a fairly specific idea of what they want to see in candidates’ talks and these expectations can vary from position to position depending on the nature of the institution, unit, and program. A traditional job talk may focus exclusively on detailing a single study, but it’s increasingly common for committees to ask candidates to provide insight into their research agenda or a progression of studies. Some search committees will also ask for multiple talks, such as a research talk and a teaching demonstration, and some, depending on the nature of the position (e.g., heavy teaching), may only want a teaching demonstration. Identifying the exact nature of your job talk is a vital first step to preparing a compelling talk.If the search committee doesn’t articulate their expectations, don’t be afraid to ask. You might query their expectations or goals for the presentation, how much time you should leave for questions, and how specialized versus broad your audience will be. There are numerous questions you might ask depending on the information provided: Will you be presenting only to the faculty and students of the school psychology program, or to the faculty of the entire department/college? Do faculty like handouts? Is an extensive Q&A portion expected? If that’s the case, it’s a mistake to present for the full time. Find out how long they’d actually like you to spend on the presentation portion if it’s not already clearly identified in your visit agenda. You might also ask about the type of room you can expect, since you may choose to adjust your presentation style or materials if you are in a conference room as opposed to an amphitheater for 100 or more.Be knowledgeable but clear. When it comes to presenting your research, it is easy to give too much or too little. You have spent years dedicated to this line of investigation, while the same is unlikely to be true of your audience. This can cause applicants to forget that not everyone is familiar with the terms and processes that seem so second nature. Or the applicant is very aware of the complexity of the issue at hand and glosses over details in an attempt to simplify their presentation. According to Dr. Mark Swerdlik from Illinois State University, job applicants do not always “go into enough depth in their talk [which is] tricky because [they] are also talking to some in [the] audience that are not likely familiar” with their area of research. This is also true of your teaching philosophy and the materials you may choose to include in a teaching demonstration. When you practice your talk, don’t only rely on feedback from friends or peers who know your research area well—ask friends, colleagues, or even family members, unfamiliar with the intricacies of your research who can help you identify the aspects of your presentation that may be unclear, confusing, or overly dense.The importance of explaining your research without overburdening your audience rises from one simple assumption: people who are truly experts can explain their topic area to anyone with clarity. However you choose to demonstrate your research or teaching style, make sure the format is easily understood, uses laymen’s terms whenever possible, and makes complex phenomena, philosophies, and methods appear straight forward.Teach them something. If there is not a teaching demonstration as part of the interview process, then your skills as an instructor will be inferred from your job talk. As pointed out by Dr. Tara Raines from the University of Denver, “Your job talk is a sample of your teaching style.” You may not feel like it, but you are in fact the expert in your area of interest and this your chance to share what you know with the audience. Show them that you can not only be an expert, but you can help others become experts, too. You also want them to know that you can be an effective instructor through interactions with your students, which leads to our next bit of advice.Be engaging. Don’t be afraid to be enthusiastic, according to Dr. Swerdlik. Because this is your chance to show that you are sound researcher and excellent instructor, it is important that you show that you also like doing these things. There are multiple ways to be engaging, such as quick activities related to your topic, walking the room, or simply modulating your voice to convey passion and interest (pro tip: Your speaking style shouldn’t mimic Ben Stine’s). Try not to rely on notes or slides too heavily since no one attends your job talk to watch you read. Instead, allow your slides to supplement what you are saying rather than dictating or constraining your presentation. Make eye contact with multiple people in your audience, doing your best to draw them into the presentation the same way you would try to increase nonverbal participation while teaching. Let your personality show and don’t be afraid to throw in some humor to help you relax and connect with your audience—but not too much. Humor is subjective and may be off-putting to some members of your audience.Think about when you are the most comfortable explaining your research or instructional topic and do your best to emulate that throughout your talk. This will help you be clear, knowledge, and engaging. When you practice your talk, do it as you will for the real event and ask for feedback on style of you have a volunteer audience.Be responsive. You are going to have to read your audience. If it is clear that there are multiple people who are confused, stop and ask if there are questions. If they seem to have gotten a point that you are still trying to make, move on. If they are a more serious crowd, cut the humor. This may mean being flexible, expecting the unexpected, and staying cool under pressure should someone in the audience throw you off. From technology mishaps, scheduling issues, and people walking in and out of your presentation, there can be distractions and things that throw you off your game. But stay with your audience in the moment.Connect with the program/position. According to Dr. Celeste Malone of Howard University, one of the biggest mistakes candidates make is “not describing how their research fits with the department or program.” Whether it is linking to the mission or orientation of the program or college, an extension or expansion of current research being conducted by faculty, or a complement to ongoing research within the unit, make it clear what your contribution will be to this specific program and department or school. This also shows that you have done your research about the institution and demonstrates your interest in not just getting ajob, but getting this job. That’s important to search committees and your potential future colleagues.Show them where you’re going. In addition to failing to connect with the program, Dr. Malone pointed out that some candidates don’t make it explicit “how they plan to extend their research.” While having an excellent research study to discuss is wonderful, failing to outline next steps is much like conducting an evaluation then providing no recommendations. Those looking to hire you are using your current presentation to evaluate your potential scholarly contributions, and in many places, this concerns is implicitly or explicitly tied to tenure and promotion standards. Accordingly, your research agenda should be explicitly stated. This can be especially important if the research you present is exclusively your dissertation, or alternatively, the work you did your advisor or a center – you need to make clear the potential trajectory of your research program as an independent scholar. Think about what you want your research agenda or teaching development to look like over the next five years and highlight those goals for the audience.Know your limits. We all want to be fancy with our presentations. We want to awe our audience, make them laugh with us, and leave without any doubts of our competency and likeability. But this is not the time to try out a new teaching technique, activity, or technology. Stick with what you know, what makes you comfortable, and presentation methods that do not tax your cognitive processes. You will need bit of your brain focused on your presentation, not also trying to figure out a new clicker with fancy features or how to make certain graphics work. Also, make sure that your presentation is not so fancy that it cannot easily work on both a PC and a Mac. That last thing you want is for all your hard work to get lost in translation between software.  Be prepared to do a tech-free presentation should there be a hardware malfunction.Prepare answers. This one seems pretty obvious but it’s surprising how often candidates can be caught off guard by questions from the audience. Listen attentively, check for clarity if you are not sure what is being asked, and stall with phrases such as “That is an interesting question,” or “You know, I need a minute to think on that,” if you don’t readily have a response. You should also be prepared to answer as many questions as you can think of that may pop up. One way to help with this is to present to someone, or a group, that does not know anything about your topic area. This will help not only make sure you are clear in your presentation but the questions they have may help prepare you for possible questions during the job talk.Practice. As always, practice. This will help you rely less on your slides and notes, seem natural and clear in your discussion, and hopefully appear confident and relaxed. This, in turn, will help you be engaging and show your best self as an instructor, researcher, and future colleague. Practice in the mirror, practice with your friends, practice at the bar with strangers – whatever works for you.What other tips do you have for mastering the job talk?