Managing Your Time During Your First Year of Academia

Garret J. Hall, Florida State University

Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Intentionally pursue collaborations within and outside of your university.

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

• Choose your service activities carefully.

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

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

• Identify optimal times for productivity and prioritize them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Kai Zhuang Shum

Dr. June L. Preast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responding to Reviewer Feedback that is Challenging

Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University

Receiving a decision of “revise and resubmit” on a manuscript is cause for celebration but also a signal to authors that follow-up work is needed. At times you may find that reviewer feedback is straightforward and readily addressed; at others, this may not be the case. This blog post describes some common scenarios in which addressing reviewer feedback can be challenging.  It also considers possible approaches to tackling this feedback as well as issues regarding oppressive publishing practices.

General Tips

Authors are often given substantial time to resubmit their papers (often anywhere from 1 to 3 months for a major revision), so take some time to process any challenging feedback you receive. Doing so may allow time for any difficult emotions (e.g., worry, frustration) to dissipate while also affording you space to develop constructive and targeted responses. When you are ready to respond, you might start by jotting down some preliminary reactions, thoughts, or possible approaches to addressing some of the more challenging comments and then refining and organizing your responses throughout the revision process. In fact, you may think of several different ways to respond to the feedback before deciding on one that feels right.

Aim to respond constructively to all feedback. Reviewers participate in the peer review process on a volunteer basis and generally aim to provide helpful suggestions for improving your paper regardless of whether they ultimately recommend publication. By fully considering all reviewer comments and responding thoughtfully and thoroughly, you increase the potential for constructive dialogue while also providing a more well-developed rationale for your work.

Scenario 1: When a reviewer recommends that you add content to your literature review or discussion but you’re questioning its relevance

Give thoughtful consideration to the feedback you receive. While you may not immediately see a connection between the recommended revisions and the contents of your manuscript, some further reading and research may help you understand how they are linked. Are there changes you can make that would indeed improve the manuscript? If so, make those changes and describe them in your response letter.

Sometimes it may not be disruptive to the flow of the paper to briefly address a point raised by a reviewer. If this is the case, you might consider incorporating the feedback. However, in other cases, you may feel the edits would negatively impact the flow or meaning of the manuscript. In this case, you might note this concern in your response letter. Moreover, if journal submission guidelines preclude such changes (e.g., you are at the top of your word limit and cannot find other places to trim your manuscript), you can note this as well:

We appreciate this feedback and agree that [AREA OF LITERATURE SUGGESTED] is an important area. However, we believe that this area is not as directly relevant to [FOCUS OF STUDY] as the other areas addressed in the review. Moreover, we are aware that the journal does not permit submissions that exceed 8,000 words. Given that a number of revisions were required for this manuscript, our word count will exceed this limit if we add more content to our literature review. Of course, we are open to further feedback from the reviewers and the action editor on this matter.

Scenario 2: When a reviewer requests a major overhaul of your study design/analyses

In some cases, a reviewer may recommend major changes to your study design or analyses. For instance, a reviewer might recommend the collection of additional data and/or a methodological approach that would require you to redo your analyses. As always, maintain a stance of openness to all feedback.

In determining whether to pursue the reviewer’s recommendations, you might first ask yourself, “Are the changes feasible at this point in time?” If they are not (and you feel your current approach is robust), you might respond to the reviewer by noting that their suggestion reflects a limitation of your study or an important direction for future research. A response such as the following may be appropriate:

Thank you for this feedback. While we were unable to [NOTE REVISION REQUESTED], we believe our findings have important implications for [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STUDY IMPLICATIONS]. However, we agree that this is a noteworthy limitation of our study and an important direction for future research. Thus, we have made changes to our discussion section to note the importance of this issue in future work.

If the changes are feasible, you might ask yourself some additional questions, such as: (a) Do I agree that these changes are warranted, and will they substantially improve the quality of my work? and (b) Do I or any of my co-authors have the necessary expertise to complete the revisions and/or bandwidth to complete them within the revision window? Should the answer to the first question be “no,” you might explain in your response letter why you feel the changes are not warranted. Alternatively, if the changes are warranted but you do not have the expertise or time to address them within the review window, you might consider reaching out to the action editor about adding a co-author with the necessary expertise (if that individual would be making contributions that warrant authorship) and/or extending your resubmission due date.

Scenario 3: When reviewers’ comments conflict with one another

This can be a tricky situation, particularly when the action editor does not encourage you to prioritize one reviewer’s comments over another’s.  In this case, you might choose to pursue one of the reviewers’ feedback or address the issue in a way that seeks common ground between the reviewers’ recommendations. If you choose to pursue one of the reviewer’s suggestions, you might note in your response to the other reviewer that the overall feedback you received contained conflicting recommendations.

We appreciate this feedback. However, we would like to note that it conflicts with Reviewer 1’s feedback that we should [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWER 1’s POINT]. Given these different viewpoints, we chose to [DESCRIPTION OF REVISION] because [REASON FOR YOUR CHOICE]. We welcome any further feedback you may have as well as any input from the action editor about this issue.

Scenario 4: When a you suspect a reviewer misinterpreted or missed details in your manuscript

As an author, you have likely been steeped in your study for quite some time; reviewers, on the other hand, are just reading your study for the first time and may be unfamiliar with its context, design, and other features. Because reviewers have quite a bit of new information to process in evaluating your work, there are times when a reviewer’s comments may not reflect the content of your study or manuscript.

As an example, a reviewer might request that you perform member checking in a qualitative study even though you have already done so and reported it in your manuscript. In this case, you might first ask yourself “Was my writing clear? Can it be strengthened?” If you can make changes to improve the clarity of your writing, you might consider a response such as the following:

Thank you for this comment. We would like to note that we did perform member checking (as described on p. # of the manuscript). We realize that we could have been clearer in describing our procedures and thus have made the following changes. [INSERT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW YOU MADE CHANGES TO MAKE YOUR WRITING CLEARER].

If you do not feel that you can improve the clarity of your work and suspect that the reviewer may have misread or missed relevant content, you might respectfully point this out while still conveying openness to further changes. A response such as the following may be appropriate:

We agree about the importance of member checking for this study and thus have described procedures for this process on p. #. We are open to any further feedback you may have about our methods.

Scenario 5: When a reviewer falls in an entirely different theoretical camp than you

            Again, always give thoughtful consideration to the feedback you receive. Even if (and perhaps especially when) a reviewer clearly falls in a different theoretical camp than you do, thinking through their comments and arguments can serve to strengthen your manuscript and possibly even your future work.

If you ultimately disagree with the reviewer’s feedback and are considering how to respond, you might ask: “How have other authors whose approach is similar to mine addressed these types of issues in the past?” Reading articles in your area that address similar types of arguments may help you think about how to respond to the reviewer’s comments.

We appreciate this perspective and have given thoughtful consideration to your points. While we agree that [DESCRIBE ANY COMMON GROUND YOUR AUTHOR TEAM MIGHT HAVE WITH THE REVIEWER], we ultimately/also believe that [DESCRIBE YOUR STANCE] because [DESCRIBE RATIONALE FOR YOUR STANCE.] However, we are open to any additional feedback you may have.

In addition, you might acknowledge directly in your manuscript that scholars have offered different theoretical perspectives in this area and briefly describe those perspectives; you can then note these revisions in your response letter.

To provide readers with some background on the range of perspectives on this issue, we have added some text describing [REVIEWER’S STANCE] while also describing [YOUR STANCE] as well. We are open to any additional feedback you may have.

A Note on Oppressive Publishing Practices

Peer-reviewed journals have a long history of marginalizing historically minoritized groups as well as modes of knowledge-building that diverge from Eurocentric standards. Such marginalization can and does show up in reviewer feedback.  Importantly, “constructive” and “professional” responding does not involve indulging feedback that intentionally or unintentionally perpetuates discrimination and marginalization. In fact, it is quite the opposite; constructive responding involves contributing to inclusive academic spaces and challenging harmful norms that devalue the identities of scholars and communities from marginalized backgrounds.

It is never the job of reviewers or authors from minoritized backgrounds to uproot norms in peer review practices that contribute to their own marginalization. Rather, those who hold privileged identities are responsible for this work (e.g., white scholars are responsible for undoing racism in academic publishing). For those who have experienced marginalization in the course of the peer review process, safeguarding one’s well-being is critical (and may look different for different scholars). Consulting with trusted mentors and colleagues may also be helpful for support. Overall, scholars with privileged identities (especially those in roles of power, such as action editors) must focus on dismantling oppressive practices in academic publishing, including the peer review process. To this end, several helpful resources are provided below.

Resources for Further Reading

Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in

psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905

Fallon, L., Grapin, S., Newman, D. S., & Noltemeyer, A. (2022). Promoting equity and social

justice in the peer review process: Tips for reviewers. School Psychology International, 43(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211070165

Malone, C. M. (2024). Moving school psychology beyond the clouds of Injustice: A Blue Sky

Discussion. School Psychology Review, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2330111

Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2021). Epistemic exclusion:

Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000174

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial Review of the Manuscript

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

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

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

Selecting Reviewers

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

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

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

Crafting the Decision Letter

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

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

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

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

Ensuring a Rigorous and Inclusive Review

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

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

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

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

Resources for Further Reading

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

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

Maximizing Research Productivity During Your First Year in Academia

June L. Preast, The University of Alabama

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

Publish Your Dissertation

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

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

Conduct a Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis

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

Turn Presentations into Publications

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

Turn Coursework into Publications

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

Conclusion

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

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

What to Know About Inclusive Syllabi

By: Geremy Grant Ph.D. NCSP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

Additional Resources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentoring Students to Present at NASP

Crystal Taylor, Appalachian State University

Lindsay Fallon, University of Massachusetts Boston

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

Benefits Presenting at NASP

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

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

Identifying the Appropriate Fit

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

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

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

Creating the Presentation 

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

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

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

Feedback on Revisions

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

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

The Importance of Building Confidence 

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

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

Supporting networking at NASP 

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

Concluding Thoughts 

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

Thinking About Tenure and Promotion: Advice from Tenured Faculty

Curated by Lindsay Fallon (University of Massachusetts Boston) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice from Tenured Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

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