The Job Search - What Not To Do

Here at the ECF, we have addressed the academic job search process, from providing a general overview of the process, to planning for your campus visit and job talk, and deciding whether to return to the market. As both job seekers and search committee members, we’ve been involved in numerous searches. Our previous posts have been geared toward providing advice on how to present your best self in the application process, but there’s another side of things: what you shouldn’t do if you want to advance in an applicant pool and wow prospective colleagues during a visit. With the hiring season in full swing, we wanted to take this opportunity to reminisce about some of the most memorable aspects of interviews and campus visits--those dreaded faux pas that get folks knocked out of the running.Don’t forget to proof your materials. Proof and proof again. Don’t be shy about enlisting assistance. If nothing else, be sure you check the university name in your cover letter. It’s not uncommon to be applying to several positions at a time, but it doesn’t go over well when candidates forget to change the university name in a form cover letter. Don’t be afraid to ask questions.It’s disconcerting to speak with a candidate who has no questions about the position, institution, or other aspect of the job. Although rare, it does happen. Not only is the search committee interviewing you for the position, but you also want to ascertain if the position is a good fit for you. One way to do that is to come prepared with questions about the position, program, department, college, and university. I’ve never minded having an applicant pull out a list of questions--indeed, I appreciate it because it communicates their interest and investment in the process. Don’t let your nerves get in the way of asking questions both for your own understanding of the position, but also to convey to the committee that you are genuinely interested. If you don’t inquire about the position, you may inadvertently send the message to the search committee that you are not serious about their position. Don’t make them wonder why you applied to their program.It’s common for us to ask, during interviews/meetings or meals with candidates, what drew them to our position, what they might be looking forward to, etc. It’s not very encouraging or endearing when the candidate can’t think of anything (e.g., I haven’t really given it much thought. I just don’t want to have to work in schools. I just really want to live in this city. I’ll take any job I can get if I can live here. I only applied because my advisor told me to.). Perhaps candidates get nervous and blank when asked these questions, but that makes it all the more helpful to prepare questions in advance.In this vein, be sure to keep the universities you are interested in separate in your mind as you prepare your materials and interview. It’s embarrassing for all involved when a candidate discusses people and contributions of another program/institutions not knowing those people and contributions don’t apply to us. It’s happened more than I’d like to admit.Don’t expect your advisors’/mentors’ successes to carry you. It’s great to talk about what you’ve learned from mentors and how you hope to extend past work in the future, but avoid excessive name dropping. It’s really hard to get a sense of a candidate who talks almost exclusively about their mentors’ work in both the job talk and other interactions. For instance, I get really worried about a candidate’s potential to develop a viable research agenda or show any independence when they only discuss projects where they’ve had a minor role or everything they say revolves around the mentor and not themselves. We’re not hiring the mentor. Show us who you are and what you bring to the table.Don’t be undermined by your own hubris. Recently, during a series of phone interviews, the committee asked what I thought was a softball question at the beginning of each interview, Why did you apply for this position? Respondents generally mentioned the fit of their scholarship with the posting’s research and teaching expectations, research environment, potential collaborations, etc. The applicant that most stood out stated that coming from the #X department in the country, our #Y department was close enough in rank to be a viable option for them, and we’d be lucky to have them as a soon-to-be grad of a higher ranked department. Given committees are generally looking for individuals who’ll not only be contributing members of the institution but be pleasant colleagues as well, such a response doesn’t bode well for the latter. Don’t forget to give the committee insight into where they can expect from you in the future. I suspect it’s fairly common for search committees to inquire about candidates’ aspirations and research goals, so it’s problematic to receive one of these responses to a question of where someone wants to be in 5 or 10 years: "I’ve never thought about that," or "I’m just trying to get through my dissertation/current project then I'll think about what might come next," or "I’m on a lot of projects/papers with my advisor and hope to be publishing those for years to come."Expect this type of question and prep for it! During a recent search, we were really impressed when a candidate was able to speak about the line of research she hoped to undertake, funding targets, and how she might leverage the collaborative opportunities and resources of our university to bring it all to fruition. That said, sometimes a detailed 10-year plan can be problematic -- as in the candidate who listed off accolades (i.e., honors, awards, appointments) they hoped to receive year-by-year but couldn’t really speak to any kind of program of research or other contributions to the field they’d like to make. Before you get to the phone interview or campus visit, it’s best to think about your short- and long-term plans and potential contributions to the program or institution.Don’t forget to leave the best impression possible before, during, and after your campus visit.Related to the point above, there may be many “downtime” moments throughout an interview day. These may seem like less formal opportunities for friendly banter, but they are still opportunities for you to leave an impression on your search chair and committee -- either favorable or not so much. Remain friendly but professional. Also, communication before and after your campus visit will leave an impression on the individuals ultimately recommending your hire. Be cordial in email and phone communication. Finally, consider emailing brief thank you notes to the search committee. It doesn’t take long and is often appreciated.Don’t be hard to give an offer to.When an institution decides to give you an offer, this is a big step. While it is important to take time to consider your fit, as well as possibly make a counteroffer, it is important to be respectful of the institution’s time and needs. As eager as you are to have a job, the institution is equally eager to fill their position with a good match. When given an offer, try to make your intentions known to take the position and your counteroffer requests within 1-2 weeks. If you are not going to take the offer, let the institution know as soon as possible so it can move on. I have been in positions where I have made offers to candidates, I was excited about, only to have them request weeks and weeks of time to consider the job. Certainly, we understand this is a huge decision and more time may be needed, but please don’t string us along if you have little to no intention of accepting an offer. Relatedly, I have had candidates make it to the offer stage who made counter offers that were way off base for our institution (e.g., $15,000 above offer; $50,000 in start-up without a clear plan for how funds would be used to support their scholarship). In the end, do your best to be gracious and tactful.Don’t give up!One of the best things about the school psychology academic job market is there are a number of job opportunities. It is not unsurprising to have over 40 announcements to come out each year; however, this does not guarantee you will get an offer. There are a number of qualified candidates not only looking to join academia, but also those interested in changing institutions for any number of reasons. Everyone has their own story as to how they ended up in academia, and not all of them start with landing their dream job on their first try. If your job hunt does not go as planned, consider academic or research post-docs, visiting professorships, or taking the job that might not check all your boxes, but gets you into the game.Do you have other recommendations for mistakes job seekers should avoid? Share them here.  

Reboot: Give Yourself the Gift of No

A reader recently suggested we reboot one of our early posts, Give Yourself the Gift of No, an entry from the 2015 holiday season. Vetting and sometimes declining opportunities is something many early career (and not-so-early career) scholars find challenging. As many of us enter into a new academic year, I offer this reboot of the post with updated content and invite our readers to share their recommendations for getting better at saying no.

Give Yourself the Gift of No (December 2015)

As an early career scholar, you have a finite amount of time so there reaches a point where saying yes to one thing means saying no to another—or where you risk overburdening yourself to the point where your performance in many or all areas of work suffers. Saying yes to x often means less time for y. This becomes problematic when x is a nonessential, unwanted task and y is a highly valued or necessary task (e.g., writing). Ideally, such decisions are driven by your professional and personal goals in conjunction with institutional expectations, especially if you are concerned about promotion and tenure. Maintaining any sense of balance in one’s professional roles and with one’s personal life will likely require accepting that we cannot and do not have to do everything. Often, this requires releasing ourselves of unrealistic expectations of personal perfection and pleasing everyone around us. Further, protecting the time needed to do well the things you need and want to do will require learning to say no to other nonessential opportunities and tasks.Learning to say no first requires identifying your priorities so that you can easily identify requests and opportunities inconsistent with those priorities. After identifying priorities it can be helpful to build time for necessary and desired tasks into you schedule and calendar. Just as you block out time for commitments to others (e.g., class, advising appointments, committee meetings), you should schedule time for commitments to yourself to better account for your time and to ensure necessary or desired tasks do not fall by the wayside. This is especially important with research and writing time since these are often the first to be sacrificed when faced with competing demands. Yet, for many scholars, these are also the highest priority. I routinely schedule writing time on my calendar. Treating these times as nonnegotiable helps to ensure you don’t abandon this priority. Few of us would accept competing appointments when we are scheduled to teach, but it is not uncommon to accept competing appointments when we plan to write even though it is counterproductive in both the short- and long-term.For those who have difficulty saying no, I have a colleague who admitted she notates writing time on her calendar as meetings with administrators so that others who view her calendar won’t consider infringing on the time and (perhaps more importantly) to remind herself of the importance of these appointments. A similar strategy may work for you if you are concerned that your commitment to research time won’t be accepted or respected by colleagues. The important thing is to carefully guard your time so that other activities don’t crowd out your priorities and prevent you from being productive and efficient. [Updated content] The necessity of guarding this time is something I continue to struggle with when I know the ramifications are unpleasant. With seniority comes a proliferation of competing demands that can easily encroach on my priorities if I let them. There have been times when I drop the habit of scheduling time for my own work and it’s invariably (and often seemingly immediately) filled with a variety of meetings and tasks that could have been delayed or avoided if I had been more intentional about my time. Another strategy that can make it easier to say no is giving yourself a minimum amount of time to consider any request or invitation. For instance, I know other EC scholars who wait at least 24 hours before responding to invitation or request for time or involvement. This disrupts an otherwise automatic tendency to say yes to everything and provides the time needed to reflect on whether an opportunity or request is consistent with one’s priorities and availability. Rather than blindly saying yes to everything, consider the potential benefits and costs, including the impact on your other work. Mentors and more senior scholars can provide valuable guidance in this decision process.You will also have to accept the need to practice pleasantly and unapologetically saying no. Some people are incredibly uncomfortable with the possibility of disappointing others or are so conflict-avoidant they would rather say yes to everything than risk any discomfort or awkwardness, only to fall short on their own goals. Still others are motivated by some mistaken belief that they are so important that others need them to the point that they cannot say no. This is very rarely the case. Once you’ve accepted that there are times when you can and should say no, do so simply and unapologetically. It’s okay to say no without offering any more justification than you are simply unavailable. That is generally all the requester needs or is entitled to know. Practice saying, “Thank you for the invitation, but I am not available at this time.” Or “Thank you for this opportunity, but I’m unavailable.” When justification is needed, it can be helpful to link you refusal to you job duties or tenure expectations, or to have a senior colleague–generally your program or area administrator–back up your decision (e.g., “My chair/director/supervisor advised me against taking on additional service activities at this time.”). Certainly some individuals may make requests that you shouldn’t refuse, but don’t assume every request they make is one of those. Instead, ask for time to consult with your colleagues and verify your availability and then speak with more senior colleagues and/or you program/area coordinator who can help you evaluate the request, and, when appropriate, plan your refusal. At times, your administrator may want to say no on your behalf depending on who the requester is in order to protect you from politics or more convincingly state your need to focus on your priorities.Another helpful strategy for people who tend to reflexively say yes is to remind yourself that no is the default decision unless you can identify sufficient professional or personal benefits to saying yes. For a few years, I posted a small note on my computer that read, “Just say no.” For me this visual reminder was needed to counter my knee jerk reaction to accept every research and service opportunity that came my way. It has saved me a lot of unwanted stress and time.[Updated content] A newer strategy I adapted from a book by Gretchen Rubin is to ask myself three questions when I consider an opportunity, particularly those that are more time intensive: (1) Do I want to? (2) Do I have time? (3) Is it in line with my values or goals? If I can’t say yes to at least 2 out of 3, or if the no for #2 overshadows the others, I know I need to say no. Sometimes it takes a while to work through these questions, and that’s okay, too. Recently, when faced with an unexpected opportunity, I spent nearly month reflecting on these questions because #3 was an easy, resounding yes but the others took more time. Ultimately, this reflection led me to say no to the opportunity but it also meant I was very confident in my eventual decision. My knee-jerk reaction was to say yes, but deliberating on these questions helped me see all the reasons why no was the right answer for me right now. I have these questions pinned by my monitors on campus and at home to prompt this much needed reflection.In the end, learning and practicing saying no is necessary to be strategic in managing your time and commitments and achieving your professional goals. Time management is key to being efficient and productive and avoiding overextension and burnout.  Chances are you’ll enjoy your work more when you are judicious with your time. Be kind to yourself by giving the gift of allowing yourself to say no when appropriate. It’s truly a gift that keeps on giving :)How do you give yourself the gift of no? What questions/concerns do you have about saying no?

Making the Most of Student Research Teams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maintaining Academic Scholarship in Administrative Roles

Contributors: Lyndsay Jenkins, Ph.D. (Program Coordinator; Florida State University), Gregory Fabiano, Ph.D. (Associate Dean of Research, University at Buffalo), Mark Swerdlik, Ph.D. (Program Coordinator; Illinois State University), Daniel Gadke, Ph.D. (Interim Department Head, Mississippi State University).While few faculty end up in administrative roles, it is certainly not uncommon for school psychology faculty to end up somewhere on the administrative ladder (e.g., coordinator, head/chair, dean, clinic director, etc.). Relatedly, it is also not unheard of for junior faculty to be asked to serve as a program coordinator or in other positions earlier in their careers than might have been expected. One of the biggest concerns with taking on administrative roles, is their perceived inverse relationship with maintaining scholarship. In any position, the pursuit of scholarship needs to be purposeful and protected. Fortunately, the field of school psychology is ripe with examples of successful scholars who have spent much of their career in different administrative roles. Below, Drs. Lyndsay Jenkins, Gregory Fabiano, Dan Gadke, and Mark Swerdlik lend their advice on how to maintain scholarship across different administrative roles.What is your current (or previous) administrative role and duties?Jenkins: Currently I am the program director for a NASP-approved Ed.S. program. As a program director, I am responsible for program data collection (for accreditation purposes), managing current students in the program, recruiting new students, communicating and meeting with prospective students wanting more information about the program, organizing interview days and the overall admission process, and miscellaneous tasks ranging from updating the program website to thinking about future changes to the program.Fabiano: I serve as the Associate Dean for Interdisciplinary Research in the Graduate School of Education at the University at Buffalo. Duties include meeting with faculty to support the development of programmatic research, support faculty who are engaged in strong, programmatic research, and planning and implementing training workshops related to submissions for extramural funding.Gadke: I serve as the Interim Department Head for the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Foundations at Mississippi State University. In this role, I have a diverse set of responsibilities, which all focus on maintaining the overall health of the department. This largely includes, managing the needs of all programs (5 graduate program areas, 1 undergraduate program, 1 non-program area), supporting faculty and students, monitoring the budget, coordinating hiring procedures, etc. In the role of Interim, I also maintain a 1/2 teaching load and 100% of my research responsibilities.Swerdlik: I have served as program coordinator since 1987. In addition, from 1987-2005 I served as director of our on-campus Psychological Services Center (PSC). Primary duties associated with the school psychology program coordinator’s role includes serving as program advisor to all of our specialist degree students, coordinating recruitment activities for both degree programs, admissions and practicum placements for both programs, serving as the university supervisor for doctoral level internships, consulting with the chair about course scheduling and assignments, and chairing the policy making body for the program-the School Psychology Coordinating Committee (SPCC). The coordinator is also the “point person” and lead writer (with input from program faculty) for all internal and external program approval activities and reports. Over my career as coordinator, I have been involved in numerous internal reviews mandated by the Illinois Board of Higher Education, numerous reviews by the Illinois State Board of Education, six NASP program reviews, and five APA accreditation reviews (Wow, it just doesn’t seem like that many J ). I have compiled a detailed list of all of the job responsibilities associated with the school psychology coordinator position at ISU and would be glad to share it with others by contacting me at meswerd@ilstu.edu.At what point in your career did you take on your administrative role? What was involved in your decision making process?Jenkins: I took on the program director role as an assistant professor after the previous director unexpectedly left in the summer, which of course is not an ideal situation. Given the abrupt departure and other personnel factors, I honestly did not have too much of a choice about whether or not to take on the administrative role. I have enjoyed having a deeper understanding of the program and I do sincerely enjoy working closely with current and prospective students. The outgoing and incoming department chairs were both very aware of the challenge of having a pre-tenure faculty member take over an accredited program, but were, and continue to be, very supportive and often check on me.Fabiano: I started in my role as an Advanced Associate Professor when my Dean at the time asked me to serve in the position. I was a bit apprehensive as it was my first major administrative role, but I was far enough along in my own research that I could afford to dedicate some time to administration. I would not have taken it earlier in my time as an associate professor because at that time I really had to work on moving my own research agenda forward.Gadke: I took on the role as Interim Head my first year at the Associate rank. While I had always considered the pursuit of administrative roles, I did not think the opportunity would present itself so early in my career. The possibility of taking on the interim role was brought to me several months before the decision was made, which gave me a great deal of time to seek out mentorship. I spoke to the current department head at the time about the role and associated responsibilities, as well as his impressions regarding my goodness of fit for the duties. Beyond that, I spoke to my mentors in the field outside of the my university, many who were in administrative positions and knew me well. Another important point I took under consideration was the health of the department (i.e., what was in inheriting and being asked to do). Fortunately, I was being asked to take on a healthy department and at the very least, keep it steady - a very different task than taking on an unhealthy department. At the end of the day, given my goals, the collective mentorship I received, the health of the department, and my Dean’s commitment to support me in the, I decided to take advantage of the opportunity.Swerdlik: Even as a graduate student at Western Illinois University where program director Dr. Tom Fagan was my first school psychology mentor and at Michigan State University where I was mentored by then program director Dr. Harvey Clarizio, I was interested in program development and administration. As a graduate assistant for Dr. Clarizio one of my assignments was to assist him in the development of the school-based field work program for MSU specialist degree students modeled after my experiences at Western Illinois. Upon becoming a faculty member, I became a NASP program reviewer and took interest in the development of the early NASP training standards in which my graduate school mentor Tom Fagan played a major role. Dr. Grupe was also my academic mentor and she had always encouraged me to “take over for her” when she retired. Further, here at ISU all of the other program faculty were senior and close to retirement so when Dr. Grupe retired they were not interested in moving into the coordinator/PSC director’s role so it fell to me -an assignment which I gladly accepted and which has contributed to a very satisfying academic career of over 40 years.How do you work to maintain your role as a scholar while fulfilling your administrative duties?Jenkins: This balance can be quite tricky at times!! Many times the administrative duties (i.e., student emergencies, requests from deans/associate deans) take precedence over research because they have immediate deadlines or are an urgent need. Scholarly activities often do not have the same sense of urgency. There are a few things that have helped maintain this balance:

1. First and foremost, I have had to accept that there will be some seasons/months where one of these roles will take a back seat. For example, in the months of January and February of this year, I have primarily worn my administrative hat. I played a central role in the admission process for two different programs, served on a search committee to hire two faculty lines (i.e., 6 on campus interviews!), written numerous letters of recommendation, and had four work-related trips. Scholarly activities have been extremely limited and primarily consisted of me apologizing to co-authors and asking for extensions for submitting revisions to a manuscript. Once the admissions and hiring season has wrapped up, there will be more time to prioritize research and writing. However, this past summer, research was a top priority and I submitted two grants and a number of manuscripts. By acknowledging these “seasons” when scholarship or administrative tasks take a back seat, it helps me with not feeling guilty for not prioritizing them equally.
2. It is important to request appropriate support from your chair and/or dean. This could be financial support, course releases, graduate assistant support, extra travel funds, etc. I have an absolutely outstanding graduate assistant who solely supports the Ed.S. program. I give the GA tasks that are tedious and/or time consuming, but extremely important. These tasks include organizing data sets for our upcoming NASP report, sending out the annual alumni, employer, and supervisor surveys, reminding students of upcoming deadlines, and managing social media content.
3. I have worked extremely hard to block off one day per week for research. Sometimes these research days are for running analyses, writing, IRB applications, or exploring grant opportunities. I fit in all non-research tasks on the other days, but keep this sacred research day completely blocked off on my calendar.

Fabiano: When I took the job, one of the things my dean said was that I should be a good role model in the position. I have tried to continue to do that, and I have also found that my own research has benefited from the new connections and professional contacts I have gained through my administrative work.Gadke: My current role has its own ebb and flow of demands similar to my faculty position. That being said, I use many of the same strategies (i.e., working with graduate students, protected writing time, collaboration with colleagues, etc.) I used before in a non-administrative role to keep up with my scholarship. Also, I gave up responsibilities (e.g., courses, supervision demands) to trade out time, which helped with being able to keep up with my research. The biggest difference with my administrative role is that I am required to be on campus more often and there are more “invisible” daily demands that pop up throughout my week. At the end of the day, I have to work hard and remain diligent to ensure my days do not turn into simply crossing off daily checklists; but again, this is important in any role.Swerdlik: For me, my research/writing activities have been stimulated by my administrative role as coordinator. Early in my career my research and scholarly writing activities centered exclusively around psychometric topics (measurement, reliability and validity of cognitive ability tests) but as I matured in my role as coordinator I wrote more on topics related to  professional issues in school psychology (service delivery initiatives such as Response to Intervention and training issues like internships) and supervision of preservice trainees including addressing problems of professional competence. My role as coordinator of the doctoral program lead to my active involvement in the Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs (CDSPP) and long-standing membership in the Trainers of School Psychologists (TSP). My involvement in these two organizations lead to networking opportunities with many of the most active scholars in our field. This networking resulted in opportunities to collaborate with colleagues across the country on a number of research/writing projects. I do find time-management is a critical skill for maintaining ones’ role as a scholar while fulfilling administrative duties. For example, the majority of my work is collaborative and I plan well ahead to complete writing projects (although I am writing this blog on the day before it is due!). Also contributing to my ability to continue my research/writing activities while fulfilling my administrative role is that I have been fortunate to have administrative support throughout my years as coordinator. I have worked with very supportive department chairs including Drs. Larry Alferink, David Barone, and currently, Scott Jordan. By compiling the list of required tasks to be completed by the school psychology coordinator (referred to above) my department chairs have been well aware of the variety of administrative responsibilities associated with the coordinator role and have supported me by providing 25% released time each semester plus a $5000 summer stipend.  I have also worked with supportive program colleagues who have shared many of the tasks with me. As I approach retirement and the responsibilities, including for “mining, compiling and summarizing performance data for a variety of accrediting bodies have expanded significantly, current program faculty have been thinking that the position should be shared by two people which would allow more time for each to continue their scholarly work.What advice do you have for faculty considering moving into an administrative role who hope to remain active scholars?Jenkins:

1. Get support from your chairs and deans! I had frank conversations with my chair and associate dean about the concerns I had about being a program coordinator so early in my career. I specifically came to an R1 institution to be able to do more research and a year later I was asked to be a program coordinator. They know that research is important to me, so they have been extremely supportive so that I can continue to do research. Though their support did not include giving the coordinator position to someone else J, they have supported me in ways that have made the job easier.
2. I would recommend waiting until you receive tenure and promotion and have a strong publication record before taking on an administrative role. Many scholars want to apply for grants and a strong publication record is part of that. It would be very challenging to build your publication record and be in an administrative role simultaneously.

Fabiano: The main advice I would say is that the role should be consistent with one’s own personal priorities and values. I have been able to stay with the Associate Dean role because it is consistent with my own individual priorities as a faculty member. This alignment has made the job fun rather than burdensome.Gadke: Prior to taking on any administrative role I think there are a few things to consider. First, Is it something that you want to do or are interested in? While some of us may be put in a position where we might not feel as though we have much of a choice, if you do, you should strongly consider how it maps onto your own interests and long term goals. At the end of the day, if you have the choice and you absolutely do not want to do it - don’t. Second, what is the health of the system you are being asked to run? When asking me to serve as Interim, my dean (who is a Texan) said, “Dan, I am not asking you to get the ox out of the ditch, just keep it in the field.” I am pretty sure he was telling me he thought my department was in a good place and I just needed to keep the ship afloat. Taking on a system that is healthy, running well, etc., is much different than taking something over that is broken (or breaking) and needs a major overhaul. As a recently promoted faculty member, I would have been less likely to take this role if the latter were true of my department. Consider this carefully. Lastly, how will the system support you in your new role? Specifically, the administrative chain (heads, deans, provosts, etc.). Having a supportive administrative ladder is essential to the success of any administrator.Swerdlik: My advice would to keep your chair informed of your responsibilities as coordinator. As I reflect back on my 30 plus years as coordinator, I could have done more to involve faculty in completing tasks for which I took sole responsibility. I am sure if they had been asked they would have assisted. My rationale for assuming more responsibility was feeling that I was the one receiving the released time and summer stipend but I could have done more sharing of responsibilities which would have lessened my load allowing more time for scholarly activities and also facilitating the transition for a new coordinator.As I referenced above, networking and collaboration contributed to my efforts to remain active.  School psychology colleagues across the nation are a very supportive group and I have found many eager to collaborate on various projects. Many of you have no doubt already experienced this by participating in such events as the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference (SPRCC). I have found the school psychology community of faculty who hold administrative positions and remain active scholars have the spirit of cooperation and collaboration rather than competition. This has certainly contributed to my feelings of gratefulness for my very satisfying academic career.If faculty are interested in pursuing administration, what steps would you suggest they take?Jenkins:

1. After tenure and promotion, if you still are interested in administrative responsibilities, you should consider the type of administration you would be most interested. Being a program director is a very different administrative role than being a department chair or dean.
2. You could ask to take on some administrative responsibilities to help you learn the ropes.  I know of someone who was interested in eventually being a program director and their program had an upcoming accreditation report. This person agreed to lead writing the report and received a course release in order to do it. They were able to learn more about the program and the way in which the curriculum and data systems were utilized to satisfy accreditation requirements.
3. Seek guidance from mentors or other faculty who have been an administrator. Discuss pros and cons and have them help you determine if this is the right time in your career to take on a new or expanded role.
4. If interested in program-level administration, attending CDSPP or coordinator/program reviewer events at NASP can be very insightful!!
5. Ultimately, if you are interested in pursuing administration, you should simply ask!! Maybe you could rotate the program coordinator role with someone or offer to be an assistant chair. If people know you have an interest, they will likely be able to involve you in projects to give you a taste of it!

Fabiano: I think the decision to take on administrative roles is a personal one, and one that should be weighed carefully by any individual. Decisions will also be impacted by stage of career, particular institution, how many other faculty are in the department/school, and personal priorities.  When in an administrative role, it is like many other aspects of work - you get out of it what you put into it and the best administrators make sure to listen to the other members of the department/school. For those interested in administration, beginning as committee members or in supportive roles may be helpful as a first step to ensure that they know for sure what they are getting into.Gadke: If you are interested in administrative roles, consider which ones? Coordinator? Clinic director? Head/Chair? Dean? Seek out mentorship from people in the field who are in the roles regarding their impressions of the job. Explore opportunities to better understand the duties and demands of role. Let individuals who can support you (e.g., current coordinator or department head) know about your interest so they can provide you with targeted mentorship opportunities. That being said, I would avoid these roles to whatever extent possible until you are through the tenure and promotion process and have a good handle on your own line of scholarship.Swerdlik: Based on my experiences I would recommend the following:

1. Benefit from mentoring. I have been fortunate throughout my career to have supportive mentors related to administration. Reach out to your current program coordinator/director and let them know of your interest and learn their roles and responsibilities.
2. Be sure the current coordinator has developed a list of coordinator tasks as referenced above.
3. If possible plan ahead and discuss your transition to coordinator well in advance with both your department chair, current coordinator and program faculty. Here at ISU we have been very fortunate to have a formal transition plan. As I approach retirement and with the strong support of the chair of our department the three senior faculty who are interested in assuming the position have or will each have a year to serve as co-coordinator. The chair is well aware of the complexity of the responsibilities of this role compared to other coordinators of graduate programs in the department primarily due to demands imposed by NASP and APA program approval/accreditation. Because of this need for a smooth transition the chair is providing to each co-coordinator during their year of service a one course release and we share the summer stipend. We will now have 3 additional program faculty in a position to take over as coordinator and who can also share in the workload in their roles as program faculty.
4. Attend TSP and CDSPP (if you are coordinating a doctoral program) meetings. I have found each to be most valuable in providing valuable ideas related to completing the responsibilities associated with being a program coordinator. Over the past several years, their conference programs have included an increased number of topics that reflect support of school psychology faculty assuming administrative roles. Further don’t hesitate to reach out (through phone or e-mail) to more veteran program coordinators for advice. I have certainly done this through the years and have found everyone very supportive and willing to share their ideas, forms, assessments etc. CDSPP, TSP, and NASP (as part of the Graduate Education Community) also frequently post these useful materials on their websites.
5. More personally, I am also certainly glad to support new program coordinators/directors.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any advice or materials. I am eager to “pay it forward” to others as a way to show my appreciation for a most satisfying academic career that has combined the teaching role of a faculty member with the administrative role of program coordinator while still being able to continue to contribute to the field through research and writing.

Straight talk about faculty careers: Opportunities and strategies for success. (NASP 2019 Handout)

Access the handout here.Citation: Sullivan, A. L., Harris, B., & Gadke, D. (2019, February). Straight talk about faculty careers: Opportunities and strategies for success. Symposium accepted for presentation at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.Description: This symposium provided an overview of faculty roles in school psychology and strategies to prepare for such roles as a graduate student or practitioner. The session was geared towards 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.

Hitting the ground running: Maximizing your early years in academia (NASP 2019 Handout)

Access the handout here.Session: Sullivan, A. L., Harris, B., & Gadke, D. (2019, February). Hitting the ground running: Maximizing your early years in academia. Special session at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.Description: This symposium provided an overview of strategies for success for prospective and new faculty.

Methods matter: The promise of empirical research to inform practice (NASP 2019 Handout)

Access the handout here.Session: Pendergast, L. L., Hier, B. O., Klingbeil, D. A., & Ysseldyke, J. (2019, Feb.). Methods matter: The promise of empirical research to inform practice. E. R. Van Norman (Chair). Symposium presented at the National Association of School Psychologists Annual Convention, Atlanta, GASummary: The purpose of this symposium was to gain insight from early career scholars and a senior scholar regarding: (a) how to acquire the necessary skills to perform empirical research, (b) strategies to establish a productive line of research using various methodologies, (c) pitfalls to avoid when preparing manuscripts that use a given methodology, and (d) the outlook for research conducted using each of the methodologies discussed. The focus of the symposium this year included latent variable modeling techniques (led by Laura Pendergast from Temple University), randomized control trials (led by Bridget Hier from the University at Buffalo), and single-case experimental designs (led by Dave Klingbeil from the University of Texas-Austin). Given the positive response from this session, the ECF plans to submit another symposium that focuses on three different methodologies for NASP 2020. Please feel free to contact erv418@lehigh.edu to recommend specific methodologies you would like to see discussed.

Post-convention productivity: Turning presentations into publications

By Katie Maki (Ball State University) and Ethan Van Norman (Lehigh University)You’ve returned home from NASP. You’re likely experiencing a range of emotions. In the back of your mind you have a creeping sense of anxiety as you take a look at your inbox for the first time in nearly a week. At this point it is great to take a step back and acknowledge a major accomplishment. You presented your research at a national conference! Although almost every university expects presentations at a national conference to demonstrate scholarly productivity as part of promotion and tenure decisions, the reality is that the priority for demonstrating scholarly productivity is the publication of your research in peer-refereed journals. As such, the purpose of this post is to offer advice to carry forward the momentum from NASP to transform those poster and paper presentations into peer reviewed journal articles.Curb Your Enthusiasm If you are like us, you left the NASP convention feeling professionally energized (although perhaps physically exhausted) and excited about new research projects and collaborations. Many of us spent the week networking, connecting with other scholars in the field, and attending thought-provoking sessions at the convention. These connections and experiences likely left you ready to jump into new project conceptualizations. There is a hardly a better feeling, perhaps especially as an early career scholar. Therefore, it may sound counterintuitive when we suggest that you consider pumping the brakes on diving fully into new projects at the expense of your existing projects. This is not to say that you should drop your new project ideas. On the contrary, record your new and exciting ideas by outlining your concept and any details you have already worked out. Consider setting up a meeting with colleagues in the next month or so. Then, switch your energy back to the projects on which you presented at NASP but have not yet written up. As we stated before, even if you are not at a research-intensive university, publications in peer- refereed journals are likely still part of how you will be evaluated for promotion and tenure. Thus, you want to be sure that you not only engage in research, but that your research projects come to completion through publication.Work Smarter Not Harder The good news is, you have already done much of the work for writing new manuscripts. Capitalize on the work and effort you already put into your projects by using the projects you presented at NASP as a foundation for manuscript preparation. If you presented studies at the NASP convention, you already outlined the method and results sections for your presentation that can then be translated into text for the study manuscript. Then, revisit the proposal you submitted for the convention back in June to begin writing the introduction of the manuscript. Your proposal should have included a rationale for, and purpose of, the study so take the arguments you already made in your proposal and expand upon them to develop the manuscript introduction. Finally, you likely already outlined implications and other sections of a discussion section for your presentation, which can be expounded for the manuscript discussion. Do not recreate your project for the manuscript; use the work you already put into the project to turn it into a publishable manuscript.Using Feedback Meaningfully  Finally, your presentation likely included a Q&A portion. Use information gleaned from this experience to improve your paper. That is, capitalize on audience feedback and ideas that may have arisen while preparing for the presentation while the information is still fresh. Was there a recurring theme that audience members noted as a strength? Emphasize that aspect of your investigation in the paper. Were there multiple questions about the methodology you used? Revisit and clarify what you did in the manuscript. Were audience members all too eager to point limitations of your project? Get out in front of potential reviewer comments by strengthening your paper or identifying said issues in the limitations section of your manuscript. Given that NASP is largely a practitioner-oriented conference, if your presentation for lack of better terms “fell flat,” consider journal outlets that have a less applied focus (see previous blog post on how to identify appropriate journals for your research). If your presentation lends to a practitioner-orientated publication outlet, consider turning your presentation into a manuscript for the Communique or other similar outlet, particularly if such outlets are appropriate for your promotion and tenure requirements.Planning Ahead Although hindsight may be 20/20, in our experience the best strategy to ensure that conference paper presentations do not stay conference paper presentations is prevention. We have found that submitting the paper you will be presenting for publication prior to the conference circumvents the nasty problem of post-conference procrastination. You will likely be playing catch-up in the weeks following a conference (responding to emails, prepping for a class on a shortened schedule, etc.). Similarly, you may be experiencing conference fatigue where the last thing you want to think about is the paper presentation you have spent substantial time prepping last month. Submitting a project for publication prior to the conference may also alleviate anxiety in having an idea “scooped” while presenting your project to peers. Submitting your work before the conference will also help “prime” you so you are not scrambling to finish a project before the convention or put together your slide show a few days (or hours) before you are set to present.You Can Do It! We hope that you found these pointers useful. A major challenge in academia is that we receive few and infrequent external prompts to encourage us to engage in the behaviors necessary to achieve promotion and tenure. In turn, we must be able to prioritize those things that are most influential in achieving our goals, sometimes at the expense of immediate competing demands. Although carving out time to write immediately after a conference may seem counterintuitive, in many ways it makes sense to strike while the iron is hot. If an email is responded to four hours later than normal, your class lecture has a few less graphics, or the mission statement you were assigned to help refine is a little less eloquent than you would like, all for the sake of preparing your NASP presentation for publication, the world will not stop turning. We promise.Do you have any thoughts about these points? Are there any other strategies you use that we did not mention? Please comment below!

"Revise and resubmit"...Now what?

Perspectives on Preparing Your Revised Manuscript from Associate Editors in School PsychologyBy Laura Pendergast, Temple UniversityContributors: Stacy-Ann January, University of South Carolina; Lyndsay Jenkins, Florida State University; Renee Hawkins, University of CincinnatiImagine that you are new author and you are ready to publish. You’ve worked hard to conduct your research and prepare your manuscript. You’ve carefully selected a journal. You’ve followed all of the instructions for publishing in said journal, navigated the online submission portal, and submitted your paper. You’ve waited patiently (or not so patiently) for weeks. Then, all of a sudden, an email from the journal with a subject line that reads “Manuscript Decision” pops into your inbox. You cannot wait any longer! You read the email discreetly (or not so discreetly) while holding your phone under the table during a faculty meeting. With a sigh of relief, you see that your manuscript was not rejected outright. However, it wasn’t accepted either….You received a “Revise and Resubmit.” Now what? If you are an early career scholar, and you recently received a “Revise and Resubmit,” you are in luck! Three Associate Editors from top school psychology journals have teamed up to provide advice for early career scholars on revising and resubmitting their work. Dr. Stacy-Ann January is an Assistant Professor at the University of South Carolina and an Associate Editor at School Psychology Review. Dr. Lyndsay Jenkins is an Assistant Professor at Florida State University and an Associate Editor at the Journal of School Psychology. Dr. Renee Hawkins is a Professor at the University of Cincinnati and an Associate Editor at the Journal of School Psychology. An overview of the steps for revising and resubmitting your work, along with key pieces of advice from each Associate Editor, is provided below.Step 1: Celebrate a little! But recognize that your journey isn’t finished yet. SAJ: First, celebrate a little! I remember feeling a little disappointed when I received my first Revise and Resubmit (R&R). But my mentor reminded me that this decision is typically what one can hope for, as manuscripts are rarely accepted on the first submission. An R&R means that the journal may be interested in publishing your manuscript, but that there are a number of changes you to need make before it is in a potentially publishable form.RH: A ‘Revise and Resubmit’ decision suggests that the reviewers and action editor see the potential for your manuscript to make a contribution to the literature, which alone can be reinforcing as it can reaffirm the significance of your research agenda. It is also important to keep in mind that how you respond to the feedback provided on your submission plays a critical role in determining whether or not your manuscript is ultimately accepted. There is no guarantee that a “Revise and Resubmit” will automatically lead to acceptance but if you are thoughtful with your approach to integrating the editorial feedback, you can greatly increase your chances for a positive outcome.Step 2: Read the reviews. Manage your emotional response to critical comments. Be ready to write your response to reviewers using a respectful, appreciative tone and to use the feedback to improve your work.RH: Don’t take the feedback personally. The reviewers aren’t out to get you. They are trying to advance our field by helping improve the quality of manuscripts published in our journals. Avoid being defensive in your responses to reviewer feedback.LJ: Feedback about your work from other researchers is an opportunity to make changes that can improve the quality of your paper.  Though it is tempting to get defensive or upset about the feedback provided, it is important to keep in mind that overall a R&R is good news!!RH: The tone of your response should be respectful. Remember the reviewers have provided a valuable professional service by taking their time to review your manuscript and provide their suggestions for improvements. Your response should reflect that you value their time and ideas, even if you do not agree with everything they have to say.Step 3: Revise the manuscript, and write the point-by-point response letter. In most instances, you should make the changes suggested by reviewers. SAJ: To the extent possible, try to make the changes suggested by the AE and reviewers. In your response letter, detail exactly what you did to address the suggested change. Reviewers may make several suggestions in one numbered comment; be sure to address each of them.RH: Take the feedback in the spirit it was intended – to improve the quality of your manuscript. In this spirit, try to incorporate as much of the feedback as you reasonably can, even if some of the suggested revisions seem unnecessary to you. If a revision does not substantially change the meaning of your manuscript, I would go ahead and make the changes. In my opinion, digging in your heels over feedback that does not impact the overall message and contribution of your manuscript seems to be a waste of energy that could potentially jeopardize the editorial decision on your manuscript.LJ: I would say one of the most common mistakes I see is that authors do not fully address an issue raised by the reviewers.  This mistake is particularly problematic when they say that they have addressed it. For example, an editor may note that References are not in APA style in the initial submission.  Upon resubmitting the manuscript, the authors may say in the response letter that they addressed the APA style issues in the References, but, in fact, many errors are still present. If you say you addressed something, be sure that you actually did address it.RH: It is helpful to reviewers if you describe specifically how and where in the manuscript you made revisions in response to the feedback. For example, rather than responding simply with, “We have incorporated this feedback in the manuscript,” provide a more detailed description of your revision with a statement such as, “On, p. 10, we have added the following paragraph…In many journals, the action editor will act as a filter for the comments provided by individual reviewers. The feedback highlighted by the action editor should be prioritized in your revision. Generally, these are the changes that the action editor thinks are most important for you to make in your revision. Given that the action editor will ultimately recommend to the editor whether or not to publish your work, it is critical that you attend to this feedback.SAJ: The number of revisions that are requested can be daunting. If you’re the lead author, don’t go at a revision alone! Review the suggested revisions and determine how you might engage your co-authors in revising and resubmitting the document.Step 4: Do not ignore feedback. If you choose not to make a suggested change, provide a thorough and respectful rationale explaining why you declined to make the edit. Provide empirical support if applicable. RH: One common mistake that authors make when revising and resubmitting their work is to ignore feedback with which they do not agree.SAJ: If you disagree with a change, you should have a strong rationale for not making it. Thank the reviewer for the comment, and eloquently provide the rationale (supporting your argument with science is always a good idea if you’re able to).RH: If the reviewers make a suggestion that you cannot address (i.e., you don’t have the additional information they are requesting), not only should you explain why you cannot integrate the feedback in your response but also consider raising the issue as a limitation or discussion point in your revised manuscript.LJ: Be nice: It can be easy to slip into a defensive tone when writing these response letters, particularly if you do not agree with some of the reviewer feedback.RH: Don’t use page limitations as a reason not to make a revision. This is a pretty weak excuse for not making a suggested revision. I would err on the side of making the revision as efficiently as possible and explaining to the action editor that, in your effort to be responsive to reviewer feedback, you are over the page limit.SAJ: When preparing your response letter, make it clear and easy to read.Step 5: Follow all instructions for resubmission, and proofread, proofread, proofread!  LJ: You should strive to submit an immaculate manuscript. You should spend a couple hours editing and proofreading before submitting a manuscript and ensure that you are following the journal’s formatting guidelines… Pay special attention to use of headings/subheadings, page numbers, references, and correct use of parenthetical and in-text citations.  Typos, grammar, English language issues, and the misuse of APA guidelines are distractions to the content of the paper!!! Even if you have done THE COOLEST study of all time, it will be rejected if it is poorly written.Follow all resubmission guidelines! Every journal has different guidelines for submitting a revised manuscript. Read the instructions in the editor’s letter very carefully before re-submitting.SAJ: Often when making revisions, you’re adding and deleting text. It is very easy to miss things, as you’ve been entrenched in it for so long. One of the best pieces of advice I got about writing from my mentor was to read my work out loud. I still read every manuscript I author/coauthor out loud before I submit/resubmit it, and I always catch something I previously missed. I also recommend having someone not involved with the writing of the manuscript read it as well.Other points to considerLJ: Though in general a R&R is good news, on occasion you may receive a Reject after submitting revisions. There are a number of reasons why this happens.  First, you may not have appropriately addressed reviewer feedback. Second, new reviewers may have been invited to review the new manuscript and these new reviewers may bring up issues not previously noted. Third, a statistical or methodological consultant may have reviewed the second version of the manuscript and identified problems that were not previously brought up.SAJ: Often, AEs will invite you to contact them with questions about the revision. Feel free to do so, if you have clarifying questions that the AE can address. It is better to ask for clarification regarding a suggested revision than to make an incorrect assumption.ConclusionsIn summary, a decision of “Revise and Resubmit” is something to celebrate – while recognizing that there is more work to be done. When you receive a “Revise and Resubmit,” you receive an important gift along with it: feedback. You have the opportunity to improve your work, and, often, to think about your research in a new way. I can honestly say that every manuscript that I have published is better as the result of peer review. Treat the feedback that you have received as a valuable resource. Respond to the feedback thoroughly and thoughtfully. In many cases, doing so will strengthen your skills as a researcher, improve your manuscript, will put you closer an ultimate decision of “Accept,” and, most importantly, enhance the impact that your research has on the field.Special thanks to Dr. Stacy-Ann January, Dr. Lyndsay Jenkins, and Dr. Renee Hawkins for their important contributions to this post.

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.