The authorship determination process in student-faculty collaborative research.
Carnegie Foundation scholar Chris Golde (n.d.) stated that
the Ph.D., at its heart, is a research degree. It signifies that the recipient is able to ask interesting and important questions, formulate appropriate strategies for investigating these questions, conduct investigations with a high degree of competence, analyze and evaluate the results of the investigations, and communicate the results to others to advance the field. (para. 4)
Many doctoral education scholars have suggested mentoring as a method for cultivating the competencies described by Golde (e.g., Betz, 1997; Groomes, Leahy, Thielsen, Pi, & Matrone, 2007; Koro-Ljungberg & Hayes, 2006; Nelson & Neufelt, 1998; Okech, Astramovich, Johnson, Hoskins, & Rubel, 2006; Wester et el., 2009). In recent years, counselor educators have increased their focus on cultivating research competencies in doctoral students, as evidenced by revisions to the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) Standards and the formation of an Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) task force on research mentoring (Wester et el., 2009). The 2009 CACREP Standards include research as a new type of doctoral internship (Section III, Standard B), which entails supervised practice designing and facilitating a study, analyzing and disseminating results of a study, and/ or writing grant applications. In addition to a formal internship, doctoral students often engage in collaborative research with faculty as part of a graduate assistantship, an extension of a class project, or an extracurricular opportunity. Finally, all counselor education doctoral students collaborate to some degree with their advisers throughout the dissertation process.
All of these types of collaborations are opportunities for faculty to mentor students through active engagement in each phase of the research process. Although such collaborative research can be a positive experience for both the student and the faculty member, it is also inherently complex. Determining an appropriate division of responsibilities and appropriate authorship of resultant works may be difficult (Apgar & Congress, 2005; Louis, Holdsworth, Anderson, & Campbell, 2008; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2006). The process is even more challenging in student-faculty collaborations, given the intrinsic power differential (Aguinis, Nesler, Quigley, Lee, & Tedeschi, 1996; Geelhoed, Phillips, Fischer, Shpungin, & Gong, 2007) and likelihood of dual relationships. Dual professional relationships are often inevitable between counselor educators and doctoral students (e.g., course instructor, clinical supervisor, and research collaborator). Students may be unlikely to advocate for their own interests in the research
collaboration for fear of negative consequences in other aspects of their relationship (Aguinis et al., 1996; Endersby, 1996; Fine & Kurdek, 1993; Geelhoed et al., 2007; Kitchener, 1992; Kolbert, Morgan, & Brendel, 2002; Netting & Nichols-Casebolt, 1997; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2006). Given that it is difficult to assess the value of the contributions of each person, the student and professor may not have the same perception of work contributed or deserved authorship recognition. Therefore, guidance on student--faculty collaborations and the process of determining authorship of published works is extremely relevant to counselor educators and doctoral students who engage in research collaborations (Crespi, 1994; Fine & Kurdek, 1993; Netting & Nichols-Casebolt, 1997).
* Guidance From Ethical Codes
Relevant ethical codes provide some guidance on how to determine appropriate authorship for published works. The codes of ethics of the American Counseling Association (ACA; 2005), American Educational Research Association (AERA; 2000), American Psychological Association (2002), and Association for the Study of Higher Education (2003) all state that researchers should take credit for their own contributions only and that substantial contributions from all parties should be recognized. The codes of ACA and AERA hold faculty responsible for appropriate recognition of student contributions. The ACA ethical code and guidelines for research mentoring in counselor education programs developed by the ACES task force (Wester et al., 2009) further recommend that faculty initiate the authorship discussion at the beginning of the collaboration so that faculty and student expectations are clear. The AERA code of ethics includes concrete guidance as to which contributions earn recognition, specifically, that creative or intellectual contributions merit authorship and that clerical or administrative tasks do not. Although these resources are helpful, in practice, collaborative work is often more complicated than general guidelines can address, and therefore faculty and students may be unclear about the appropriate authorship arrangement even after consulting these resources.
* Authorship Decisions in Practice
Indeed, there is evidence that disagreement among collaborators about correct authorship recognition does exist. In two studies of psychologists, more than a quarter of respondents reported that they have experienced unfair authorship recognition (Geelhoed et al., 2007; Sandier & Russell, 2005). Similarly, Goodyear, Crego, and Johnston (1992) noted that some ethical issues seem to be intentional and others seem to be due to negligence or even misguided good intentions. Fine and Kurdek (1993) described two ethical violations in student-faculty collaborations: first, faculty who take authorship credit that was earned by the student, and second, students who are given undeserved authorship credit. Netting and Nichols Casebolt (1997) conducted focus groups of social work faculty members and doctoral students and found that faculty and students were unclear about how to determine authorship credit and that doctoral students reported receiving little guidance from faculty on how to negotiate such decisions. In a study of self-reported research conduct among counselor educators, Wester, Willse, and Davis (2010) found that 15% of faculty reported being very or extremely unlikely to have authorship conversations with students and colleagues before beginning a project and that more than 15% of faculty members would be somewhat, very, or extremely likely to insist on being the first author on a student's thesis, dissertation, or other student research project. From these studies of counselor education, psychology, and social work, it seems that authorship practices are at times unclear, unstated, or disputed.
Further evidence of disagreement about appropriate authorship is evident in two studies in which participants indicated their perceptions of appropriate authorship based on detailed collaborative scenarios (Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel, 1970; Welfare & Sackett, 2010). The specific division of tasks described in the scenarios is common in counselor education doctoral programs. For example, both studies included a scenario in which a doctoral student publishes an article based on his or her dissertation research. The scenarios described the contributions of the faculty adviser throughout the dissertation process. In both studies, approximately half of the participants indicated that the professor should be included as a second author of the article and half indicated that the student should be the sole author of the article. Similarly, both studies included a scenario in which a professor works with a student to revise and extend a class project to make it suitable for publication. Again, there was no consensus among participants as to whether the professor should be included as an author. Note that these two studies were conducted nearly 40 years apart. It seems that the consistency in authorship practices has not improved despite recognition of the discrepancies in practice and revision of ethical guidelines.
Perhaps we as counselors can improve the authorship determination process by better understanding what is happening in current student-faculty collaborative research. Such data would inform decisions made by counselor educators and doctoral students who engage in collaborative research. Thus, we explored faculty members' and doctoral students' perceptions of current and best practices in the authorship decision process. In addition, we asked participants to indicate how comfortable they felt about various components of the authorship determination process. We included counselors and participants from other education-related disciplines in order to understand the experiences of faculty and students engaged in collaborative social science and educational research. Inclusion of noncounselors in the sample also allowed for the comparison of counselors' practices with noncounselors' practices. We posed the following research questions:
Research Question 1: When and how is authorship determined in student-faculty collaborative research?
Research Question 2: How comfortable are doctoral students and faculty with various parts of the authorship determination process?
Research Question 3: Are there differences in counselors' and noncounselors' levels of comfort with the process of deciding authorship?
The list of institutions designated "Very High Research" by the Carnegie Foundation was the sampling frame for this study. Of the 96 universities with that designation, 80 had graduate studies in education. Graduate studies in education were targeted in order to reach respondents who engage in student-faculty collaborative educational and social science research. Names and e-mail addresses of four faculty and student leaders in the education divisions (e.g., dean, department chair, student organization president) were obtained from the websites for these 80 universities. An e-mail to each of the four individuals explained the purpose of the study and asked the recipient to share the invitation with students and faculty in his or her college, school, or department of education. Nonresponders to the e-mail were sent a reminder e-mail 1 week later, and a final reminder e-mail was sent 2 weeks later. Individuals replied to confirm participation. In the final e-mail, nonresponders were asked to give a reason if they declined to share the invitation with students and faculty at their school. Overburdened faculty and university policy not to use electronic mailing lists for research solicitations were the two most frequently cited reasons for declining participation. The invitation to participate explained the purpose of the study and included a link to a secure web-based survey. Data collection was closed 8 weeks after the initial invitation. No incentives for participation were provided.
We designed the instrument used to collect data in this study based on a review of the existing authorship literature. It included seven questions about academic position and demographic classifications, 75 multiple-choice and rating questions about authorship practices and perceptions, and one open-ended question in which the respondent could describe his or her experiences with collaborative research. The online survey was programmed to present items worded to match to the status (faculty or student) of the respondent to enhance clarity of meaning. As a way to provide evidence of construct validity (Messick, 1995), the instrument was reviewed by two doctoral students and two faculty members in counselor education prior to initiation of the study. The pilot reviewers were asked to complete the survey as if they were a respondent, note the time required for completion, and mark any confusing items. They were also asked to note any relevant topics or questions that were not included in the survey. Revisions were made based on the pilot feedback. The complete instrument is available from the first author.
Research questions were answered using participant responses to items about when and how authorship decisions are made and level of comfort with various parts of the process of deciding authorship. Participants were asked to answer six questions about the authorship determination process:
* In common practice, who typically initiates the discussion about authorship?
* Who should initiate the discussion about authorship?
* In common practice, who typically makes decisions about authorship?
* Who should make decisions about authorship?
* In common practice, when are decisions about authorship made?
* When should decisions about authorship be made?
The answer choices for the first two questions were the following: the professor, the student, and both are equally responsible. The answer choices for the second two questions were as follows: the professor, the student, and both contribute to decisions. The answer choices for the final two questions were as follows: When the opportunity to collaborate is first presented, When the complete manuscript is being submitted to a journal, When the article is accepted for publication in a journal, Authorship is reassessed after each stage of the research project or writing process, and Other:. To assess level of comfort with the process, we had participants indicate on a scale from 1 (extremely uncomfortable) to 7 (completely comfortable) how comfortable they would feel with the following five actions. The internal consistency reliability for these five items was .91 (n = 797).
* Initiating a conversation with a collaborator about authorship at the beginning of a collaborative project
* Initiating a conversation with a collaborator about authorship after a collaborative project has begun
* Participating in a conversation about authorship that was initiated by a collaborator
* Advocating for yourself to have greater authorship recognition on a collaborative project
* Confronting a collaborator about unfair authorship recognition on a collaborative project
A total of 1,009 faculty members (n = 455) and doctoral students (n = 554) from 36 universities participated. We were not able to calculate a response rate because the total number of students and faculty in the colleges, schools, and departments of education at responding institutions was unknown. Of the 455 faculty members, 109 (24%) were assistant professors, 117 (25.7%) associate professors, 147 (32.3%) full professors, 32 (7%) research faculty, 11 (2.4%) clinical faculty, 11 (2.4%) visiting or adjunct faculty, and 28 (6.2%) other types of faculty members (e.g., administrators). (Percentages in this section may not total 100 because of rounding.) Participants were from various disciplines within education, including counseling/counseling psychology/counselor education (7%, n = 71), educational psychology ( 11.2%, n = 113), educational research/methodology/statistics (11.8%, n = 119), higher education/student development (14.6%, n = 147), kindergarten through 12th grade all subjects and special education (26.8%, n = 270), educational leadership and policy studies (7.7%, n = 78), school psychology (3.7%, n = 37), educational technology (2.6%, n = 26), and other (14.7%, n = 148). Of the counseling/ counseling psychology/counselor education participants, 36 were doctoral students (50.7%) and 35 were faculty (49.3%).
Participants were asked how many student-faculty collaborative research projects they had experienced firsthand and how many they had observed. Approximately one eighth of participants (13.1%) had not participated in a collaborative research project, approximately one quarter (24%) had participated in one or two collaborative projects, one quarter (25.3%) had participated in three to five collaborative projects, one tenth (10%) had participated in six to eight collaborative projects, and one quarter (24.8%) had participated in more than eight collaborations (2.9% of participants omitted this item). Almost all the participants had observed at least one student-faculty collaboration (none = 4.2%, one to two = 11%, three to five = 17.5%, six to eight = 10.8%, more than eight = 52.8%, omitted = 3.5%).
Participants ranged in age from 22 to 98 years old with the mean age of 41.53 years (81 participants omitted this item). Thirty-two percent (n = 324) of the participants were male, whereas 64.3% (n = 649) were female (36 participants omitted this item). Of the 1,009 participants, 743 (73.6%) indicated their race/ethnicity as White, 62 (6.1%) as Black/African American, five (0.5%) as American Indian/Alaska Native, 57 (5.6%) as Asian, one (0.1%) as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific, 41 (4.1%) as Hispanic or Latino, and 55 (5.5%) as multiracial or other. Forty-five participants (4.5%) omitted this item.
Research Question 1
Descriptive statistics were used to explore the first research question about how and when authorship is determined (see Table 1). The majority of students and faculty members agreed that, in common practice, the professor initiates the discussion about authorship (65.3% of students and 90.7% of faculty). When asked who should initiate the conversation, most students suggested that both the student and professor are equally responsible (70.4%, n = 309) and most faculty participants said that the professor should be responsible (55%, n = 208). Students and faculty participants agreed that the professor usually decides the authorship arrangement (89.2% of students and 85.4% of faculty) but suggested that both the student and the professor should contribute to the decision about authorship (93.8% of students and 84% of faculty). Students and faculty reported that, in common practice, authorship decisions are usually made when the manuscript is being submitted for publication (46.2% of students and 39.6% faculty) or at the beginning of the collaboration (31.2% of students and 34.6% of faculty). They suggested that authorship decisions should be made at the beginning of the collaboration (45.5% of students and 47.3% of faculty) or be reassessed at each stage of the project (44.8% of students and 44.4% of faculty).
Research Question 2
Participants were asked to report how comfortable they would feel taking several actions with regard to authorship on a 7-point scale, with 1 representing extremely uncomfortable and 7 representing completely comfortable. Descriptive statistics were used to provide a snapshot of participants' perceptions, and chi-square analyses were used to assess for statistically significant differences between the faculty and students. For some of the analyses, responses of 1, 2, and 3 were used to represent relative discomfort; a response of 4 indicated neutral feelings; and responses of 5, 6, and 7 were used to represent relative comfort.
Doctoral students reported varying degrees of comfort with different actions related to the authorship determination process (see Table 2). More than a third of doctoral students were uncomfortable initiating a conversation about authorship at the beginning of a project, and almost half were uncomfortable initiating the conversation after the project had begun. However, only 14.7% of doctoral students said that they would be uncomfortable participating in the discussion if it was initiated by a professor. Nearly half said that they would be uncomfortable advocating for greater authorship recognition, and the majority said that they would be uncomfortable confronting a professor about unfair authorship recognition.
Very few faculty were uncomfortable initiating or participating in a discussion about authorship, but almost a quarter were uncomfortable advocating for greater recognition and approximately one third were uncomfortable confronting a collaborator about unfair recognition. Chi-square analyses revealed that faculty members were significantly more comfortable than were doctoral students with every component in the process: initiating the discussion at the beginning of a project, [chi square](6, N = 807) = 287.35, p = .00; initiating the discussion after a project had begun, [chi square](6, N = 808) = 250.29, p = .00; participating in a conversation that was initiated by the collaborator, [chi square](6, N = 806) = 96.07, p = .00; advocating for greater authorship recognition, [chi square](6, N = 805) = 88.20, p = .00; and confronting a collaborator about unfair authorship practices, [chi square](6, N = 803) = 191.06,p = .00.
Research Question 3
The third research question explored how counseling professors and doctoral students feel about the process of
determining authorship as compared with participants from other disciplines (see Table 2). Again, descriptive statistics were used to provide a snapshot of participants' perceptions, and chi-square analyses were used to assess for statistically significant differences between the counselor and noncounselor respondents. Almost one half (46%) of counselors said that they felt completely comfortable initiating a discussion about authorship at the beginning of the project, and only one seventh (14.3%) said that they felt uncomfortable doing so. In contrast, only 39.5% of noncounselors said that they felt completely comfortable initiating a discussion about authorship at the beginning of the project and more than a quarter (27.8%) said that they were uncomfortable doing so. Both groups were less comfortable initiating the discussion about authorship if the project had already begun. Less than one third (31.7%) of counselors and noncounselors (28.7%) felt completely comfortable. Again, fewer counselors than noncounselors were uncomfortable initiating the discussion--19% of counselors versus 30.1% of noncounselors. Very few counselors said that they were uncomfortable participating in a discussion about authorship that a collaborator initiated (only 8%), and more than half (52.4%) said that they were completely comfortable doing so. Among noncounselors, 12.1% said that they would be uncomfortable participating in a discussion initiated by the collaborator, and 41.2% said that they would be completely comfortable doing so. When asked about more contentious actions, both counselors and noncounselors were less comfortable overall. Approximately one third (31.7%) of counselors said that they felt uncomfortable advocating for greater authorship recognition, and nearly half (49.2%) of counselors said that they were uncomfortable confronting a collaborator about unfair authorship practices. More noncounselors than counselors experienced discomfort, given that 37.8% of noncounselors were uncomfortable advocating for greater recognition and 53.3% were uncomfortable confronting unfair practices.
Chi-square analyses were used to test if the differences between counselor and noncounselor responses were statistically significant. Before assessing the results of the research question, we ensured that the data were not confounded. Both the counselor and noncounselor samples are approximately half students and half faculty, which is important because of our previous finding of significant differences between students and faculty (Research Question 2). A chi-square test of independence confirmed that the ratio of students to faculty in the two samples is not significantly different, [chi square](1, N = 1009) = 0.55,p = .46. With this reassurance, the following analyses were conducted. There were no significant differences between counselors' and noncounselors' comfort with various parts of the authorship determination process: initiating the discussion at the beginning of a project, [chi square](6, N = 807) = 6.31, p = .39; initiating the discussion after a project had begun, [chi square](6, N = 808) = 5.15, p = .53; participating in a conversation that was initiated by the collaborator, [chi square](6, N = 806) = 11.36, p = .08; advocating for greater authorship recognition, [chi square](6, N = 805) = 5.95, p = .43; and confronting a collaborator about unfair authorship practices, [chi square](6, N = 803) = 2.79, p = .83.
Discussion and Implications
Student and faculty participants reported the common practice for determining authorship in student-faculty collaborative research is that the professor initiates the discussion when a manuscript is being submitted or at the beginning of the project and that the professor decides the authorship arrangement. Student and faculty respondents agreed that students should have more of a role in determining the authorship arrangement and that the discussion should start at the beginning of the collaboration (as recommended by ACA, 2005; AERA, 2000; Wester et al., 2009) and/or be reassessed throughout the life of the project. In addition, students reported that they should share in the responsibility to initiate the discussion about authorship.
The recommended authorship determination process is more thorough and more egalitarian in nature than the current practice. This may be a challenge to implement in light of the discomfort participants reported experiencing with the various aspects of the process. For example, students reported that they should share the responsibility of initiating the discussion about authorship, but many also reported that they would be uncomfortable doing so. Both students and faculty suggested that the authorship arrangement should be decided together, but approximately half of students and one quarter of faculty said that they would be uncomfortable advocating for greater recognition. Reaching a decision about deserved authorship will probably involve advocacy because of the likelihood of differing perspectives about the value of work contributed (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel, 1970; Welfare & Sackett, 2010). Furthermore, participants recommended that the authorship arrangement be reevaluated throughout the project. It seems improbable that collaborators will agree on the appropriate authorship arrangement at every stage of the project; therefore, advocacy would be essential in the revised process. On the basis of this sample, it also seems that counselors are no more comfortable with the process than are noncounselors. How, then, should counseling doctoral students and counselor educators best facilitate a thorough, egalitarian process for determining authorship in student-faculty collaborative research? The following guidelines are suggested.
Faculty should initiate a discussion about anticipated responsibilities and resultant authorship when the opportunity to collaborate is first presented. Students should expect this discussion and even feel empowered to initiate it if the faculty member does not. It is likely that the student and faculty member will have differing expectations about how the collaborative research will occur. The student may have little previous experience on which to base expectations, and even veteran researchers can underestimate the time and effort required for a project. As in the counseling relationship, unchecked assumptions and implicit expectations can cause problems; and, as in the counseling relationship, broaching the subject can improve mutual understanding (Day-Vines et al., 2007). Open, respectful discussion fosters trust and normalizes the challenges inherent in the process. Faculty should invite student questions and comments early and often.
At the beginning of the collaboration, faculty should initiate the establishment of a plan for ongoing discussion about responsibilities, accomplishments, and resultant authorship recognition. Students should be empowered to remind faculty when it is time for a reevaluation checkpoint. Reevaluation checkpoints could occur after each phase of the project (study design, data collection, data analysis) or each draft of the manuscript (presubmission drafts, revisions based on editorial feedback) and may increase collaborator accountability.
Conducting and disseminating research is a multifaceted process. It is impossible to predict the exact course of a project at its onset. Changes in the tasks associated with the project (e.g., data collection from additional sites), available resources (e.g., discontinued funding), strengths of the collaborators (e.g., new statistical competencies), or the desired time line (i.e., delay for work or life reasons) may result in contributions being different than initially expected. If collaborators acknowledge up front that change in responsibilities are likely and the authorship plan will be revisited incrementally, both faculty and student collaborators have anticipated opportunities to advocate for change. Predictable checkpoints may reduce some of the discomfort reported by both students and faculty and may mitigate some the risk students feel as a result of dual relationships with faculty.
Shared Decision Making
Students and faculty should begin the decision-making process with a review of ethical codes and other resources that describe how authorship should be determined. For example, the AERA (2000) ethical standards provide specific information about which contributions earn authorship and which do not (e.g., authorship should be based on intellectual contribution, not effort expended). Familiarity with the established guidelines for authorship determination will increase the likelihood of agreement between collaborators. Reviewing the scenarios in Spiegel and Keith-Spiegel (1970) and Welfare and Sackett (2010) might help collaborators predict areas of likely disagreement. Collaborators should discuss components of the project, choose responsibilities when possible, and discuss expected recognition for work contributed. Transparency in rationale and decision making fosters trust and models effective collaboration for students, who may soon be the faculty half of a student-faculty collaboration.
Limitations and Future Research
There are limitations of the instrument and limitations of the generalizability of these results. The instrument used to gather these data was developed for this study and underwent limited psychometric scrutiny. Because the research questions are descriptive in nature, the findings are valuable despite this limitation. Further psychometric analysis would be necessary before using the survey with another population. Faculty and student respondents were from 36 colleges, schools, or departments of education at research-intensive institutions. They were targeted for inclusion because of their likelihood of having experience with student-faculty collaborative research, and, indeed, more than 95% of our respondents had experienced or observed the phenomenon we studied. However, their perceptions may not be representative of the perceptions of faculty and students at institutions with lower research expectations. As stated in the Method section, we were not able to calculate a response rate because the total number of faculty and students was unknown. It is possible that those who responded to the e-mail invitation are systematically different from those who did not respond. The institutional participation rate was 45% (36 of 80). It is also possible that the institutions that agreed to participate are systematically different from the institutions that declined participation.
Additional research is necessary to better understand the perceptions and experiences of doctoral students and faculty who engage in collaborative research. The inclusion of noncounselors in this sample allowed for the comparison of counselors to others in disciplines that conduct similar types of research, but restriction of the sample to designated Very High Research institutions limited the number of counseling programs in the sample. A sample of CACREP-accredited doctoral programs would provide a better representation of current and suggested practices within counselor education. Qualitative analysis of the experiences of student and faculty collaborators would provide much richer information about the intricacies of collaborative research.
From these results, we can see that doctoral students and faculty believe that the common practices for authorship determination should progress to a more thorough and egalitarian process. Our recommendations for facilitating a thorough and egalitarian authorship determination process are not unlike the ethical codes in that they fall short of capturing the full complexity of the authorship determination process in collaborative research. Because collaborative research relationships are as varied as counseling relationships, we suggest that students and faculty focus on developing an effective process rather than attempting to learn the infinite possible combinations of responsibilities and resultant recognition. As faculty work to cultivate the development of new researchers by mentoring students through collaborative research, it is important to remember that in addition to learning about research methods and statistical analyses, students are learning about authorship, intellectual property, and the collaborative research process. A review of the ethical guidelines and other resources about how to determine authorship is as important as a review of statistical methods textbooks. Faculty who model open, authentic discussions about authorship teach students a more effective process, and thereby begin a legacy of transparency and informed consent in student--faculty collaborative research.
Aguinis, H., Nesler, M. S., Quigley, B. M., Lee, S. J., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1996). Power bases of faculty supervisors and educational outcomes for graduate students. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 267-297.
American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Educational Research Association. (2000). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
Apgar, D., & Congress, E. (2005). Authorship credit: A national study of social work educators' beliefs. Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 101-112.
Association for the Study of Higher Education. (2003). Principles of ethical conduct. Las Vegas, NV: Author.
Betz, N. E. (1997). Increasing research involvement and interests among graduate students in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 88-93.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Retrieved from http://www. cacrep.org/doc/2009%20Standards.pdf
Crespi, T. D. (1994). Student scholarship: In the best interests of the scholar. American Psychologist, 49, 1094-1095.
Day-Vines, N., Wood, S., Grothaus, T., Craigen, L., Holman, A., Dotson-Blake, K., & Douglass, M. (2007). Broaching the subjects of race, ethnicity, and culture during the counseling process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 401-409.
Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375-392.
Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on student-faculty collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141-1147.
Geelhoed, R. J., Phillips, J. C., Fischer, A. R., Shpungin, E., & Gong, Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: An empirical investigation. Ethics & Behavior, 17, 95-115. doi:10.1080/10508420701378057
Golde, C. (n.d.). Preparing stewards of the discipline. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives/preparing-stewards- discipline
Goodyear, R. K., Crego, C. A., & Johnston, M. W. (1992). Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: A study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 203-210.
Groomes, D. A., Leahy, M. J., Thielsen, V. A., Pi, S., & Matrone, K. F. (2007). Using a research apprenticeship model within a doctoral rehabilitation counselor education program. Rehabilitation Education, 21, 33-40.
Kitchener, K. S. (1992). Psychologist as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 190-195.
Kolbert, J. B., Morgan, B., & Brendel, J. M. (2002). Faculty and student perceptions of dual relationships within counselor education: A qualitative analysis. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 193-206.
Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Hayes, S. (2006). The relational selves of female graduate students during academic mentoring: From dialogue to transformation. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14, 389-407. doi: 10.1080/13611260600739241
Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2008). Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 88-112.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
Nelson, M. L., & Neufelt, S. A. (1998). The pedagogy of counseling: A critical examination. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 70-88.
Netting, F. E., & Nichols-Casebolt, A. (1997). Authorship and collaboration: Preparing the next generation of social work scholars. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 555-566.
Nguyen, T., & Nguyen, T. D. (2006). Authorship ethics: Issues and suggested guidelines for the helping professionals. Counseling and Values, 50, 208-216.
Okech, J. E. A,, Astramovich, R. L., Johnson, M. M., Hoskins, W J., & Rubel, D. J. (2006). Doctoral research training of counselor education faculty. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 131-145.
Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15, 65-80. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5
Spiegel, D., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1970). Assignment of publication credits: Ethics and practices of psychologists. American Psychologist, 25, 738-747.
Welfare, L. E., & Sackett, C. R. (2010). Authorship in student-faculty research: Perceptions of current and best practices. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 199-215. doi:10.1007/s10805-010-9119-7
Wester, K. L., Borders, L. D., Briggs, C., Chang, C., Haag-Granello, D., Hays, D., Spurgeon, S. (2009). Guidelines for research mentorship in counseling/counselor education. Retrieved from http://www.aces.online.net/aces-research-mentorship-guidelines/
Wester, K. L., Willse, J. T., & Davis, M. S. (2010). Psychological climate, stress, and research integrity among research counselor educators: A preliminary study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 39-55.
Laura E. Welfare and Corrine R. Sackett, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. Corrine R. Sackett is now at Department of Counseling and Student Affairs, Western Kentucky University. This study was supported in part by a grant from the Southern Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. Correspondence concerning this article, including requests for the instrument used in the study, should be addressed to Laura E. Welfare, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 309 East Eggleston Hall (0302), Blacksburg, VA 24061 (e-mail: email@example.com).
TABLE 1 Current and Best Practices Regarding the Author Determination Process Doctoral Students Faculty Question Response % n % n In common practice, The professor 65.3 286 90.7 342 who typically The student 9.1 40 1.6 6 initiates the Both contribute 25.6 112 7.7 29 discussion about to decisions authorship? Who should initiate The professor 28.2 124 55.0 208 the discussion about The student 1.4 6 0.3 1 authorship? Both contribute 70.4 309 44.7 169 to decisions In common practice, The professor 89.2 389 85.4 321 who typically makes The student 0.0 0 0.3 1 decisions about Both contribute 10.8 47 14.4 54 authorship? to decisions Who should make The professor 6.2 27 15.7 59 decisions about The student 0.0 0 0.3 1 authorship? Both contribute 93.8 411 84.0 316 to decisions In common practice, When the opportunity 31.2 134 34.6 130 when are decisions to collaborate is about authorship first presented made? When the complete 46.2 198 39.6 149 manuscript is being submitted to a journal When the article is 4.0 17 0.5 2 accepted for publication in a journal Authorship is 14.5 62 21.3 80 reassessed at each stage of the research project or writing process Other: -- 4.2 18 4.0 15 When should When the opportunity 45.5 195 47.3 178 decisions about to collaborate is authorship be made? first presented When the complete 9.1 39 6.9 26 manuscript is being submitted to a journal When the article is 0.2 1 0.0 0 accepted for publication in a journal Authorship is 44.8 192 44.4 167 reassessed at each stage of the research project or writing process Other: -- 0.5 2 1.3 5 Note. Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. TABLE 2 Levels of Comfort With Different Actions Related to the Authorship Determination Process All All Non- Students Faculty Counselors Counselors Action and Scale % n % n % n % n Initiating a conversation with a 436 371 63 744 collaborator about authorship at the beginning of a collaborative project. 1 11.9 2.7 3.2 8.1 2 17.2 1.3 4.8 10.3 3 14.7 2.7 6.3 9.4 4 14.4 3.0 11.1 9.0 5 13.1 6.2 9.5 9.9 6 13.3 15.1 19.0 13.7 7 15.4 69.0 46.0 39.5 Initiating a conversation with a 437 371 63 745 collaborator about authorship after a collaborative project has begun. 1 10.3 1.9 3.2 6.7 2 17.6 2.2 6.3 10.9 3 19.2 4.0 9.5 12.5 4 17.6 7.0 17.5 12.3 5 13.3 12.9 17.5 12.8 6 11.9 20.8 14.3 16.1 7 10.1 51.2 31.7 28.7 Participating in a conversation about 435 371 63 743 authorship that was initiated by a collaborator. 1 3.4 2.2 3.2 2.8 2 3.9 1.1 1.6 2.7 3 7.4 5.1 3.2 6.6 4 11.7 3.8 6.3 8.2 5 19.8 9.7 3.2 16.2 6 26.9 18.3 30.2 22.3 7 26.9 59.8 52.4 41.2 Advocating for yourself to have 436 369 63 742 greater authorship recognition on a collaborative project. 1 14.2 5.4 7.9 10.4 2 15.8 8.7 6.3 13.1 3 19.3 8.9 17.5 14.3 4 17.0 15.2 12.7 16.4 5 17.4 19.8 25.4 17.9 6 9.2 19.0 17.5 13.3 7 7.1 23.0 12.7 14.6 Confronting a collaborator about 435 368 63 740 unfair authorship recognition on a collaborative project. 1 37.0 5.7 19.0 23.0 2 17.2 10.1 14.3 13.9 3 17.2 15.2 15.9 16.4 4 10.8 14.4 11.1 12.6 5 10.3 16.8 14.3 13.2 6 4.1 14.7 14.3 8.5 Note. Scale from 1 = extemely uncomfortable to 7 = completely comfortable. Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Welfare, Laura E.; Sackett, Corrine R.|
|Publication:||Journal of Counseling and Development|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2011|
|Previous Article:||The contribution of self-efficacy in assessing interests using the self-directed search.|
|Next Article:||An evidence-based approach to reducing recidivism in court-referred youth.|