Springer Texts in Education

More information about this series at http://​www.​springer.​com/​series/​13812

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. Saracho

Writing for PublicationTransitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success

Mary Renck Jalongo

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

Olivia N. Saracho

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

ISSN 2366-7672e-ISSN 2366-7980

ISBN 978-3-319-31648-2e-ISBN 978-3-319-31650-5

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016940056

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG Switzerland

Introduction to the Book

A group of higher education faculty members from different colleges and departments were participating in a 3-day professional development institute on writing for professional publication. The pressure to publish was on at their institution, newly categorized as a university. Prior to the mid-morning break on the first day, the presenter asked the participants to write their concerns about publishing on Post-it notes and then read and categorized them before the group reconvened. The great majority of the participants were worried about their ability to fulfill the escalating expectations for faculty. Only a few had published previously and they wondered if they were capable of writing well enough to publish their work. As a way to allay their fears, the presenter offered to assess a short writing sample from each participant that evening and return it the next day. They had the choice of composing something during the afternoon, or they could submit just a few pages from an unpublished manuscript. The next morning, she announced, “Good news. All of you have achieved a level of skill that is sufficient to get you published.” The group’s response was relieved laughter and some skeptical looks so, while returning the papers with her written comments she said, “You realize, of course, that there is a huge selective bias operating in my favor here. All of you have graduate degrees and nearly all have doctorates. It’s doubtful that anyone could earn those degrees without solid writing skills. Plus, all of you volunteered to take 3 days out of your busy schedule to learn about writing for publication. This suggests that you are seeking out opportunities to learn or, at the very least, that you respond to helpful nudging from colleagues. You also were candid about your concerns and decided to meet the challenges of writing together. All of this bodes well for a successful outcome. I will do my absolute best to help you.”

Some of the concerns expressed by the participants in the professional development session are no doubt shared by readers of this book. This book’s purpose is identical to that of the presenter: to be helpful to academic writers from different backgrounds and at different levels of experience. For scholars across the experiential spectrum that ranges from a new graduate student to a professor emeritus, writing well and getting it published is a perpetually challenging, never-finished project. Two questions have guided our writing effort. The first one was: “What is the book that we wish we had found when first attempting to write for publication?” and second, “What book could meet the professional development needs of both aspiring and accomplished authors while simultaneously supporting senior faculty members who teach others how to write for publication?”

Unique Features of the Book

Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success has several features that distinguish it from most other books on the topic of writing for publication.

Practical strategies and resources . In the absence of clear direction, academic authors may waste time figuring out how to accomplish various writing tasks. To illustrate, when authors are unfamiliar with the general structure of, expectations for, and importance of writing an abstract, they may produce an abstract that does not represent their work well. The review committees of major conferences routinely reject proposals with poorly worded abstracts, and if the abstract for a journal article does not communicate effectively, negative comments from reviewers are the predictable outcome. Many books about writing for publication tell the reader what is expected from scholarly writing; this book does more showing than telling. Each chapter is replete with visual material that helps the reader to see how academic writing tasks are structured, provides illustrative examples, leads readers to online tutorials and other resources, and offers evidence-based advice.

An interdisciplinary approach . Too often, when a diverse group of doctoral students or faculty members assemble they put on their “disciplinary blinders” and assume that other scholars in their field are the only ones who can help them publish their work. While it is true that input from scholars within one’s discipline plays a key role, it is equally true that publishable scholarly writing—like effective university teaching––has dimensions of quality that transcend subject-matter boundaries. The main sections in an empirical research article, for instance, are not discipline-specific. Publications on various aspects of academic writing—such as reviewing the literature or reporting the results of qualitative research—are produced by researchers from very different disciplinary backgrounds yet have something of value for scholars in various fields. We have explored sources across the disciplines to broaden the scope of the book and make it applicable to a wider readership.

A “paper mentor” purpose . The fiscal realities of many postsecondary institutions have diminished institutional support for faculty professional development. The expense of bringing in consultants capable of supporting scholars’ writing for publication—or even the travel funds to gain access to these supports at professional conferences—is very limited. Under these circumstances, many faculty members who are being urged to publish will need to teach themselves this skill set with the help of colleagues and print/nonprint resources. This book is designed to be a “paper mentor” that guides scholars in improving their writing.

A transitions perspective . The thesis of this book is that growth as an academic author relies on important transitions in writing behavior that transform aspiring authors into accomplished ones. When carefully matched to the individual, these changes increase confidence, bolster motivation, extend skill repertoires, and yield new opportunities. For example, an author may seek to write a practical article for fellow professionals advocating a practice that will improve effectiveness. This book includes a template that can be used to generate a first draft and make a successful transition from a graduate student paper to a publishable practical article ( Chap 6 ).

A career-wide goal . Even within a group of doctoral candidates enrolled in a seminar that emphasizes academic writing, writers will operate at varying levels of sophistication where scholarly publishing is concerned. One student may have collaborated with a faculty member to present at a national conference. Another may have been the newsletter editor for the local chapter of a professional organization for many years. Still another might be a graduate assistant who is collaborating with a faculty mentor on a final report for a grant project. Learning to communicate effectively through published writing spans a continuum from those first attempts to “break into print” (VanTil, 1986) all the way to books written by emeritus faculty during “retirement.” Therefore, each chapter offers support to aspiring authors as well as to experienced scholars seeking continuous professional growth as authors.

Rationale for the Book

For scholars at all levels across the disciplines, the expectation that they write well is inescapable. Whether it is writing a class paper, generating dissertation chapters, developing curriculum, producing an accreditation document, preparing a grant proposal, applying for a sabbatical leave, or publishing articles and books, scholars’ success rests on skill in written communication. There are at least five trends that make this an opportune time to produce a new type of book on writing for professional publication.

Expectations for Publication

Each successive generation of university faculty quickly becomes acquainted with the expectation that professors publish. What they may not realize is that publication is expected to occur, not after a faculty member is well established, but during doctoral study (Lee & Aitchison, 2011; Nettles & Millett, 2006). Many times, when the prospect of writing for publication is discussed with doctoral students, their initial reaction is some version of “Wait! I haven’t even finished my degree yet!” Yet one of the most consistent recommendations from the research on scholarly writing is that doctoral students need formal coursework, mentoring opportunities, and guidance in publishing prior to the dissertation phase (Kamler, 2008; Nielsen & Rocco, 2002). One explanation for these trends is international survey data that identifies publication while still in graduate school as the single, most powerful predictor of publication later on, after they become professors (Dinham & Scott, 2001). In addition, publication during doctoral study is a common characteristic of who will become the most prolific scholar/authors (Pinheiro, Melkers & Youtie, 2014). As a result, doctoral program alumni frequently find that, when entering the higher education job market, search committees tend to give hiring preference to applicants with some evidence of academic publication (Kamler, 2008).

Despite the obvious importance of academic publishing for contemporary doctoral students, acquiring the skills of scholarly writing presents an interesting paradox. Although a record of successful publication is widely recognized as a survival skill in Academia, most doctoral programs neglect this learning in their established curricula (Lovitts, 2008; Nolan & Rocco, 2009). The problem with this “ad hoc” approach is that it is not sufficiently inclusive and systematic. If faculty responsible for delivering doctoral programs fail to teach the skills of writing for professional publication in an inclusive and systematic way, “then we help to foster an invisible elitism, charisma based, favouring those who ‘just know’ what the right thing to do might be—or who have family, friends and experienced or influential advisers to help them” (Morris, 1998, p. 499). Writing for publication needs to become an integral part of the doctoral curriculum for every student (Kamler & Thomson, 2006; Lee & Kamler, 2006) because:

doctoral publication is not a given. It flourishes when it receives serious institutional attention, and skilled support from knowledgeable supervisors and others who understand academic writing as complex disciplinary and identity work… Emerging scholars need to be supported in more explicit, strategic and generous ways than currently happens, so that we produce more confident graduates who know how to publish in a wide variety of contexts, including international refereed journals. (Kamler, 2008, p. 284, 292)

Yet it is not only students but also experienced faculty members who need support in writing for publication. Even at institutions with strong traditions of emphasizing effective teaching only, such as community colleges, there is a trend toward encouraging faculty to publish (Rifkin, 2016).

Increases Educational Attainment

Educational attainment—defined as the level of education achieved—has increased dramatically in the United States. By 2022, the number of positions requiring the terminal degree in the discipline—the doctorate—is expected to increase by 20 % while the number of professional positions requiring a master’s degree will increase by 22 % (Sommers & Franklin, 2012). Furthermore, due to the “graying of the professoriate” in the United States, postsecondary teaching is ranked 10th on the list of occupations with the largest projected growth. A 17 % increase—from 1.8 million jobs in 2010 to 2.1 million jobs in 2020—is predicted (Sommers & Franklin, 2012). First-time enrollment of international students in the US graduate programs has increased approximately 8 % annually in recent years. As larger numbers of graduate students pursue the terminal degree and more postsecondary faculty are hired, the demand for skills in scholarly writing and publishing can be expected to increase accordingly.

Needs of Academic Authors

Learning to write effectively is a lifelong endeavor for scholars but can be particularly challenging for new faculty members. As one assistant professor put it, “I feel like my life is a see saw—with me at both ends always threatening to go way off balance in responding to professional or personal demands.” The challenges that newly minted PhDs confront in writing for publication are formidable. First of all, they need to recoup their energy after wrestling a dissertation into being. They typically need to prepare for several different courses that are new to them, all the while knowing that both students and colleagues will be evaluating their teaching performance. In addition, they have to contend with a steep learning curve to understand various dimensions of their role, such as student advisement, committee service, and program development. They may conclude that it is better to “figure it out for themselves” than to pester busy colleagues with questions; they also recognize that the person to whom they expose their ignorance about writing for publication today might be evaluating them tomorrow.

Under these conditions, writing for publication can sink low on the list of priorities, particularly if professors have not published previously andfew institutional supports are in place. Little do these new faculty realize that misgivings about writing for publication persist, even among their most prolific colleagues, particularly when the latter encounter unfamiliar writing tasks. For example, the first time I was invited to write the Foreword for a book I realized that I did not know how to do this. I pulled at least a dozen books from my personal library to locate examples and re-read the forewords, attempting to infer the purpose and structure. Then I e-mailed the editor to gently inquire if the publisher happened to have a particularly good example of what was expected. The editor obliged by sending a scanned copy of a published foreword with her handwritten comments about the purpose and structure in the margins; it became my “textbook.” That short piece of writing was a challenge and, because I was a beginner, exceptionally time-consuming. Thus, at every stage of the academic author’s professional life, there are times when guidance and support are needed in order to initiate writing, sustain momentum, improve efficiency, and produce better manuscripts. This book was written to shepherd scholars through these important transitions.

Qualifications for Teachers of Scholarly Writing

Who is qualified to teach others how to write for scholarly publication? Some may conclude that is must be one of the most respected academic authors in their field. However, that individual may not necessarily know how (or particularly want) to guide others in writing for professional publication. Others may conclude that they should turn to a teacher of writing, such as an English professor. However, those who teach composition to freshmen, a class in creative writing, or theory in Rhetoric and Linguistics to graduate students––while possessing knowledge about ways to teach writing––are not necessarily knowledgeable about the world of academic publishing. Still others might conclude that a professional editor is the person most qualified to teach scholars to write. However, many editors employed by large publishing companies are not teachers or writers themselves; they are business people whose continued employment depends on correctly forecasting which books will sell. Ideally, those who presume to teach others scholarly writing would have:

1.

Experience as a widely published scholar

2.

Commitment to the professional development of adults

3.

Understanding of the voice and style of academic discourse

4.

Extensive and varied background in reviewing and editing

5.

Skill in providing individualized feedback to authors that leads to manuscript improvement

6.

A track record of reciprocally satisfying collaborative publications with students, colleagues, and scholars from different disciplines and countries

Our anecdotal impression from speaking with other faculty members who teach courses in scholarly writing is that they often find it difficult to locate suitable textbooks and tools for teaching and learning the skill set of an academic author. Some books about scholarly writing consist of advice from an eminent editor. One limitation to books of this of this type is that they tend to rely on personal anecdotes and helpful hints as their main claim to authority. Another drawback is that, even though these individuals have been successful, this does not mean that their personal work habits would be particularly instructive or appropriate for others. Other books on scholarly writing are limited to a single writing task, such as an empirical research article, when aspiring and experienced authors need a more expansive introduction to the many ways they might contribute to the professional literature. Still other books about writing for publication are very focused on a single discipline, rendering them less suitable for the most common teaching situation in which the backgrounds of the graduate students or faculty members interested in publishing are diverse. The overarching purpose of Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success is to blend theory, research, and practice to support the teaching and writing efforts of diverse groups of scholars involved in academic writing.

Audience for the Work

The audience for a book on writing for publication consists of novices and experts across the disciplines. Academic authors at all levels need clear, practical, research-based guidance from author/editor experts to achieve their publication goals. The new graduate student might need to learn how to write a proposal to get on the conference program for a state-level meeting while the student who has successfully defended a dissertation needs assistance in producing a concise journal article based on the study. At the same time, a newly hired professor will need a respectable list of writing achievements to advance while a senior colleague from the same academic department might be seeking advice on how to propose and edit a volume for a book series. Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success operates simultaneously on two different levels—as a resource for scholarly authors at various career stages as well as a resource for those who teach—informally or formally—other scholars to write.

Organization of the Book

The book has been structured to correspond to a typical semester; each of the thirteen chapters describes a key transition that needs to be accomplished in order to become a successful scholar/author. We begin with the people and the process—academic authors ( Chap.​ 1 ), expectations for and ethics in scholarly writing ( Chap.​ 2 ), and how to work more efficiently ( Chap.​ 3 ). Chaps. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and 9 focus on major types of writing tasks for scholars. The first is the conference proposal ( Chap.​ 4 ). Then there is a section (Chaps. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , and 9 ) on major categories of professional journal articles––literature reviews, practical articles, quantitative research articles, qualitative research, and mixed-methods research articles. The third and final section of the book focuses on making the transition from novice to expert. It includes writing monographs, book chapters, scholarly books, and textbooks ( Chap.​ 10 ); grants and multiple writing projects ( Chap.​ 11 ); anonymous peer review and editing ( Chap.​ 12 ); and co-authorship and professional development ( Chap.​ 13 ).

Goals for Readers

Through this book, we aim to help academic authors as we:

Demystify the process of writing for publication

Provide authoritative answers to questions about scholarly publishing

Build readers’ confidence that publication is within the realm of possibility for them

Encourage readers to initiate, sustain, and complete academic writing tasks

Help authors to acquire the voice and style of academic discourse

Guide writers in transitioning to the varied genre demands of scholarly publications

Offer evidence-based advice on how to accomplish a wide range of writing projects

Illustrate key ideas with helpful templates, examples, and activities

Recommend print resources and online tools for writers

Writing for Publication: Transitions and Tools that Support Scholars’ Success represents a capstone experience for both of us. We have invested decades of our professional lifetimes in becoming better teachers, mentors, speakers, writers, researchers, reviewers, and editors. We draw upon those practical experiences, support them with interdisciplinary theory and research, and show how to make key transitions that yield better outcomes for scholars seeking to contribute to their fields by publishing their professional writing.

Mary Renck Jalongo

Indiana, PA, USA

Contents

Part I Professional Roles and Publishable Writing

1 From Aspiring Author to Published Scholar 3

Who Is an Author?​ 4

Metaphors for Academic Writing 5

The Perquisites of Publishing 6

The Challenges of Scholarly Writing 8

Personal Writing Habits 10

Counteracting Obstacles to Scholarly Writing 12

Implement Evidence-Based Strategies 13

Deal with Impatience and Uncertainty 15

Cope with Time Constraints 15

Get Past Procrastination and Avoidance 16

Address Aversion to Writing 17

Put Perfectionism on Hold 19

Be Realistic About Criticism 20

Seek Out More Knowledgeable Others 20

Use Higher-Order Thinking 22

Nonnative and Native Speakers of English 22

Additional Resources for International Scholars 26

Conclusion 26

2 From Unpublishable to Publishable 27

“Fast, Easy and Brilliant” Versus “Clearly and Warmly and Well” 29

Purposes of Nonfiction Written for Professionals 32

Argument in Academic Writing 32

Voice in Academic Writing 35

Unpublishable Writing 37

Publishable Scholarly Writing 39

Preventing Plagiarism 41

Responsible Conduct of Research 44

Policies Concerning Simultaneous Submissions 45

Conclusion 46

3 From Trepidation to a First Draft 47

Creativity and Authorship 48

Identifying and Narrowing a Topic 48

Locating Suitable Outlets 51

Generating a First Draft 52

Seeking Feedback from Others 55

Why Manuscripts Are Rejected 55

Coping with Rejection 57

Getting the Writing Started 61

Conclusion 67

Part II Conference Proposals and Article Types

4 From Attending to Presenting at Conferences 71

About Professional Conferences 72

Five Steps from Presentation to Publication 73

Locating Suitable Venues for Making Presentations 74

Writing the Title and Abstract 76

Writing the Proposal 77

Distributing Materials to Session Participants 82

Writing and Presenting a Conference Paper 83

Preparing a Speech or Keynote Address 83

Reflecting on Outcomes 85

Generating Publications from Presentations 86

Ethical Issues in Conference Presentations 87

Conclusion 89

5 From a Class Paper to a Publishable Review 91

Understanding Literature Reviews 94

Purposes for a Literature Review 95

Types of Literature Reviews 97

Developmental Sequence in Reviewing 97

Errors in Reviewing 98

Indicators of Quality in Literature Reviews 99

Thoroughness and Authoritativenes​s 99

Synthesis 101

Evaluative Criteria 102

Publishable Literature Reviews 103

Additional Resources on Writing Literature Reviews 107

The Position Paper 108

Examples of Position Papers 109

Literature Reviews from Dissertation Chapters 109

Conclusion 110

6 From Professional Experience to Expert Advice 113

The Practical Article as Continuing Professional Development 114

Planning Strategy for Practical Articles 115

Template for the Practical Article 122

Writing the Body of the Manuscript 123

Writing the Introduction and Conclusion 125

A Doctoral Student’s Publication of a Practical Article 125

Conclusion 132

7 From a Research Project to a Journal Article 133

Criteria for Quality in Quantitative Research 134

Structured Format and Content 135

Guidelines on Writing Each Section of the Quantitative Manuscript 137

Developing a Title 137

Writing an Abstract 138

Writing the Introduction for a Quantitative Study 139

Writing the Methodology Section 141

Data Analyses 142

Statistics 144

Reporting Results in a Quantitative Study 144

Discussion 146

Citations and References 146

Appendices 147

Acknowledgements​ 148

Overall Evaluation of a Quantitative Study 148

Preparing the Manuscript for Submission 150

Choosing Suitable Outlets 151

Conclusion 154

8 From Qualitative Research to a Journal Article 157

Understanding Qualitative Research 159

Qualitative Research Methodologies 162

Writing the Qualitative Research Report 162

Emergent Design 163

Writing the Introduction 164

Writing the Review of the Literature 164

Reporting on Sampling Strategies 165

Explaining Data Collection 165

Describing the Data Analysis 166

Writing About Findings 168

Writing the Discussion and Conclusion 169

Writing the Abstract 170

Evaluating Qualitative Studies 171

Conclusion 173

9 From Mixed-Methods Research to a Journal Article 175

Mixed Methods Research:​ The Third Paradigm 177

Approaches to Writing a Mixed Methods Research Study 181

Writing a Mixed Methods Research Report 182

Writing the Introduction 185

Review of the Related Literature 186

Methodological Framework 188

Writing the Methodology Section in Mixed Methods Research 190

Writing the Data Collection Section in Mixed Methods Research 191

Mixed Methods Research Data Analyses 192

Writing the Results Section of a Mixed Methods Study 192

Writing the Discussion 193

Validity Issues in Mixed Methods Research 193

Evaluating the Quality of Mixed Methods Research Reports 195

Mixed Methods Research Journals 196

Conclusion 196

Part III Writing as Professional Development

10 From Consumer to Producer of the Literature 201

Getting Involved in Book Projects 202

Reviewing Book Proposals and Book Manuscripts 203

Writing a Book Chapter 203

The Edited Book 204

Becoming a Book Author 207

Fulfilling the Author’s Role 209

Selecting a Publisher 210

Proposing a Book 212

Securing a Book Contract 221

Conclusion 223

11 From a Single Work to Multiple Scholarly Spin-Offs 225

The Concept of Scholarly Productivity 226

Assessing the Creative Potential in Projects 227

Maximizing Scholarly Output 234

Grants as Writing Opportunities 238

Writing Tasks Associated with Grants 242

Building in an Assessment Plan 243

Ethical Aspects of Multiple Projects 244

Conclusion 246

12 From Outsider to Insider in Scholarly Publishing 249

Indicators of Quality in Publications 250

Quality Control Measures During Manuscript Submission 253

Serving as a Peer Reviewer 254

Identifying Reviewers 254

The Reviewer’s Role 255

Misconceptions About Anonymous Peer Review 256

Rendering Decisions About Manuscripts 258

Responding to Peer Review 258

Revising a Manuscript 259

Interacting with Editors 263

Evaluating Other Scholars’ Work 264

Fraudulent Publication 265

Becoming an Editor 268

Conclusion 271

13 From Novice to Expert 273

Meeting the Challenges of Writing 274

Levels of Concern Among Authors 275

Becoming an Academic Author 277

Scholarly Writing as a Project 279

Publishing During Doctoral Candidature 280

Increasing Opportunities to Publish from the Dissertation 281

Setting a Research Agenda 283

Collaborative Writing 285

Allocating Credit for Authorship 287

Dealing with Irresponsible Co-authors 289

Supports for Scholarly Authors 290

Writing Groups 290

Improving as a Writer 291

Conclusion 292

References295

Part I
Professional Roles and Publishable Writing

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_1

1. From Aspiring Author to Published Scholar

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

This chapter orients readers to the rewards of writing and publishing, both extrinsic and intrinsic. The metaphors that prolific authors use to capture the essence of the writing task, as well as novice authors’ personal metaphors for writing are examined. Readers will progress through a number of different exercises designed to address obstacles to effective writing, such as lack of confidence, concerns about writing skills, procrastination/avoidance of writing, time constraints, counterproductive habits, and challenges faced by academic authors writing in English as a second language.

Each year, a leading professional organization sends out a letter to authors who have contributed a book to their association publications. Tucked inside the envelope is a blue ribbon with the words “book author” stamped in gold capital letters; the top edge of the ribbon has an adhesive strip, suitable for affixing it to the conference name badge. At the annual conference, these ribbons frequently are flanked by others that read “presenter” or “board member” and they are just as eye-catching among academics as medals and ribbons are among military personnel. Yet even for these recognized and accomplished scholars, becoming a published author was once a faint, distant possibility. At one time, they were intimidated by the process, assumed that publishing was for reserved for intellectual giants of the discipline, and felt that they had little to offer by comparison. This chapter is all about more positive, productive ways of grappling with such misgivings by addressing the angst, risks, and rewards of scholarly writing. It begins by exploring understandings of what it means to be an academic author—defining the role and examining metaphors that capture the essence of the experience. It then turns to the rewards and challenges of writing for publication and the writing habits that support authors in overcoming obstacles. The chapter concludes with advice on working with a writing mentor and the types of reasoning that are necessary to advance thinking in a field.

Who Is an Author?

How is the word “author” defined? Originally, the word was used more generally; it meant anyone who was the originator of something: Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defined authorship as “One who produces, creates, or brings into being.” Over time, definitions of the word author have become much more sharply focused on written composition. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language online defines an author as: “The original writer of a literary work. One who practices writing as a profession” and adds “to assume responsibility for the content of a published text.” In Academia, authorship conforms to all of these meanings; it also becomes part of the job description for students and faculty. Yet writing something original for publication and taking responsibility for it can be a daunting task.

Many times the papers produced while an undergraduate could best be described as “stringing pearls” of wisdom that have been gleaned from other sources. While students are taught to cite those works appropriately, their assignments seldom reflect much in the way of original thought. Even at the master’s level, there is understandably more emphasis on acquiring familiarity with leaders in the field than in generating something new. Many students, academics, and first time authors worry that they are pretenders who will be unmasked at some point.

Activity 1.1: Feeling Like a Fraud

Do you sometimes worry that your ignorance will be exposed? Many times, scholars seeking to publish fear that their performance on a task or in a particular situation will expose just how incompetent they are beneath the façade. These feelings are so commonplace that it has had a name since the 1970s: the imposter phenomenon (IP). Take the Clance IP Scale and get feedback on your responses by clicking on the arrow at http://​www.​gradpsychdigital​.​org/​gradpsych/​201311?​folio=​24&​pg=​26#pg26. Read the article by Weir. What strategies did you get for addressing the IP as it relates to scholarly writing and publication?

As Brookfield (2015) explains, authors can be particularly susceptible to this “imposter phenomenon”, believing that their ideas do not matter and that they lack the requisite intellect, talent, and right to go into print. Such misgivings may be intensified for those from working class backgrounds (Muzzatti & Samarco, 2005) or first generation graduate students (Davis, 2010; Ward, Siegel, & Davenport, 2012). Reflecting on her graduate school days, Gabrielle Rico (1991) writes:

Writer. I knew the word did not apply to me; inside my head was chaos I could not untangle in my own words; I was only a cutter and a paster, a borrower, a fake. While real writers shaped form and content, I felt little more than a hopelessly tangled fullness where ideas should be. (p. 4)

Yet if scholars pursue the doctorate and higher education, the single, most important expectation for their writing is that it “makes a contribution” and “advances thinking in the field.” Little wonder, then, that so many doctoral candidates falter at the dissertation stage and university faculty members balk at the pressure to publish.

Metaphors for Academic Writing

Metaphors are a tool for capturing the essence of experience (Cameron, 2003; Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). Noller (1982), for example, used the metaphor of “a voiced scarf” to describe mentoring. Just as a scarf surrounds the wearer in warmth and offers protection from the elements, a mentor can help a protégé to attempt new challenges and to avoid beginners’ mistakes. When the idea of voice is added to the scarf, we can visualize it close to the wearer’s ear, whispering encouragement, offering suggestions, or advising caution. This captivating metaphor conveys what the best mentors do for their protégés.

Effective metaphors can provide a fresh perspective, suggest similarities, offer insights on how to redefine a problem, and effectively communicate a complex idea to others (Hadani & Jaeger, 2015). Where academic authors are concerned, the metaphors that they choose to represent their writing process frequently encapsulate their major concerns. A doctoral candidate from the English Department chose a bulldozer at a landfill as her metaphor. She likened the process to grim determination, plowing through, rearranging heaps of ideas, and periodically backing up to bury useless material, with the warning beep sounding off the entire time.

Activity 1.2: What’s Your Metaphor for Writing?

The symbol that you choose to represent your image of self as writer speaks volumes about how you view experience the writing process. What, then, is your metaphor for writing? What is it about this metaphor that aligns with your writing experience?

In a focus group study of doctoral students conducted in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, doctoral students were invited to choose a metaphor to represent their writing process (Jalongo, Ebbeck, & Boyer, 2014). The students ranged in experiential level from those enrolled in their first doctoral-level course to students who had recently defended their dissertations. Among their choices were: a circle, a brick wall, a tree, an egg hatching, a milestone, and tending a vegetable garden. Some additional metaphors for scholarly writing proposed by higher education faculty and doctoral students have emphasized the hardships associated with writing: giving birth, burnt toast, and a jail sentence. In their interview study of doctoral students, Nielsen and Rocco (2002) concluded that, because doctoral candidates generally are accustomed to getting positive feedback on papers, they struggled with constructive criticism of their written work. These graduate students had not yet learned that real colleagues read for one another, not to seek uncritical approval, but as way to strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript.

With time and experience, representations of the writing process often change as well. After the English major who once viewed writing like operating a bulldozer experienced success in academic writing, first by publishing an article in College Composition and Communication and later by transforming her qualitative dissertation into a university press book about women in Appalachia (Sohn, 2006), her bulldozer metaphor no longer pertained. As skills and confidence with professional writing are built, the process becomes less onerous and the metaphors, more positive. For example, a doctoral candidate who had successfully defended a dissertation now regarded writing as “a prestigious membership”, explaining that it was an honor and a pleasure to be able to share research with others. As authors begin to relax with the process more, play with ideas, and learn which instincts to trust, new metaphors emerge:

Writing was hard, but I gritted my teeth and plowed ahead. During those exhilarating and difficult years, I became aware of odd moments in which the less I plowed, the more the words flowed. I had only inklings, but these moments seemed to coincide with a tacit rejection of what I was taught. I began to pay attention. The flow seemed to be triggered only when I gave myself over to that disconcerting chaotic fullness inside my head, acknowledged the untidy, sideways leaps of thought, let go of logic and prescriptions. I liked the feeling, though it came all too rarely, like dreams of flying that cannot be forced. (Rico, 1991, pp. 4–5)

Prolific authors have identified metaphors for writing as well; writing expert Peter Elbow (1973) for example, has likened writing to growing plants, fishing, and cooking while E. L. Doctorow has said, “Writing is like driving at night in the fog. You can only see as far as your headlights, but you can make the whole trip that way.” Two metaphors used specifically with scholarly writing are detective work (Wallace & Wray, 2011) and putting together a complex jigsaw puzzle (Nackoney, Munn, & Fernandez, 2011). A recurring theme in the metaphors and processes associated with writing is that, for many people, writing is a task they find difficult to control; as Rocco (2011) asserts, “Writing can be a miserable chore, a difficult undertaking, and a challenge that produces growth and satisfaction—all at the same time” (p. 3). The process can be particularly arduous for writers who lack confidence in their command of sophisticated academic writing skills (Swales & Feak, 2012).

The Perquisites of Publishing

Writing for publication is widely recognized as an imperative for faculty members in different departments housed in colleges and universities throughout the world (Glatthorn, 2002; Wellington & Torgerson, 2005). In 1998, sociologist Morris cautioned graduate students, “your prospects later in life may depend on having a convincing number of refereed publications on your CV…sooner or later the moment will come when a selection committee will start counting your refereed articles and comparing them to those of other candidates” (p. 501). Expectations for publication have increased considerably since these observations were made. This pressure to publish not only affects faculty members; it also has trickled down to doctoral students who are urged to publish during doctoral candidature. Indeed, some doctoral degree-granting institutions throughout the world accept publication in top-tier scholarly journals in lieu of the traditional dissertation as evidence of the candidate’s ability to plan and conduct research (Badley, 2009; European University Association, 2005; Francis, Mills, Chapman, & Birks, 2009; Lee & Aitchison, 2011).

Consider the case of a faculty member has been employed for 4 years at a state university since she earned the doctorate. Within 3 years, a tenure decision will be rendered. As she reads the letter written by departmental colleagues that will go forward to the Dean with her portfolio, she feels proud of her achievements in teaching and service. However, as she comes to the final paragraph on scholarly work, her face flushes with embarrassment. The letter is accurate; it states that she has made several presentations at conferences. However, the final paragraph concludes with: “The committee urges Dr. X to identify a research agenda and publish in the leading professional journals in her field.” Her first reaction is to protest with thoughts such as, “But, my student evaluations were excellent; I’ve been concentrating on teaching well and it shows.”, “I am serving on so many committees—unlike some of my colleagues—and just don’t’ have the time.”, and “What if I’m denied tenure? Maybe I should start applying at other institutions, just in case.” Why should she heed the committee’s advice?

Because it will contribute to expertise

When someone raises a question and the respondent just happens to have written a paper on that topic, a well thought-out answer is much easier to formulate. That is because writers have organized their thinking on the subject and understand the information in a deeper way. The same dynamic holds true when teaching a class; if a professor has written about the topic already, that is a huge head start in preparing for class. Although nonwriters take the stance that research competes with effective teaching that need not be the case (Hattie & Marsh, 1996; Lindsay, Breen, & Jenkins, 2002). A research agenda—defined as a short- and long-term plan for inquiry, writing, and publishing—can be deliberately planned to correspond to teaching responsibilities so that teaching and writing enrich and enlarge one another (Boyer, Moser, Ream, & Braxton, 2015; Jalongo, 1985). In fact, there is a whole line of research referred to as “the scholarship of teaching and learning” (SoTL) that aims to strengthen linkages between research and teaching (Starr-Glass, 2015). (For more detail about the research agenda, see Chap.​ 13).

Because it is attached to the rewards system

Publication in a respected journal demonstrates that authors have thought through an issue and presented it in scholarly way and that their peers are willing to hear them out, through writing. While publishing in top journals also has a statistically significant effect on income (Hilmer & Hilmer, 2005), many new scholars are surprised to find out that—unlike newspaper reporters or writers for popular magazines—they are not paid to write professional journal articles. There are several reasons why this is the case. First of all, journals often are published by nonprofit professional organizations; they refer to their authors as “contributors” for good reason; they are freely sharing their work as a service to the profession. Secondly, the financial rewards that university faculty get for publishing typically emanate from their employers; scholarly works subjected to anonymous peer review play a pivotal role in tenure and promotion decisions (Rocco & Hatcher, 2011). Third, there is a long tradition of expecting scholars to pursue the truth rather than be influenced by the promise of compensation. When scholars write books for commercial publishers, there is compensation in the form of royalties; however, unlike a New York Times best seller, the audience for scholarly publications is quite small, so book royalties are almost never a major income boost or a route to early retirement. Nevertheless, if a book is successful, it frequently leads to other forms of compensation—such as supported travel to deliver a keynote address at an international conference or university support for a sabbatical leave.

Because it creates positive energy

Academic life can be exhilarating; it also has many disappointments. Success with writing is an achievement that bolsters confidence and increases motivation; it also opens up new possibilities. The doctoral candidate whose research poster was accepted for a conference starts to imagine success with a presentation at a research forum while the professor who has published articles in a respected journal starts to consider editing a book and contributing a chapter. At its most basic, education is about widening opportunities and, as each writing milestone is attained, possibilities for professional development expand.

Because it will build satisfying professional networks

Throughout a career, department colleagues can be helpful and supportive—or not. If a student relies on classmates and a professor relies exclusively on departmental colleagues as a source of validation and support, it is bound to be lacking at some point. Affiliating with like-minded individuals through scholarly work offers a professional safety net. These people can support professional goals and are capable of providing a fresh perspective on troublesome issues. While it is important to be regarded as a responsible university citizen at the home institution, establishing a professional network beyond the local context can exert a powerful, positive influence on career satisfaction. Across their professional lives, faculty members who have learned to balance teaching, writing, research, and service not only exhibit high levels of publication productivity but also enjoy their careers more than colleagues who focus on just one facet of academic life (Boice, 1992). These advantages cannot be realized, however, unless scholars make a plan to meet the challenges associated with various writing tasks.

The Challenges of Scholarly Writing

Without a doubt, writing for publication is a challenge whether the scholar is new or experienced. While some individuals may have strength in verbal/linguistic intelligence (Gardner, 2006) they will need much more than raw talent in order to succeed. To illustrate, there are many instances of athletes or singers who obviously possess talent yet do not accomplish much with it. That is because success relies on wide range of influences such as social capital, work ethic, resilience in the face of failure, and responsiveness to coaching. Talent alone will not suffice; creativity also depends on variables such as motivation, interest, effort, and opportunity.

By definition, a craft is a repertoire of skills that is honed by intensive effort and deliberate practice. It is for this reason that many experts on writing regard it as a craft rather than a talent. Ernest Hemingway, the great American novelist once said, “We are all apprentices in a craft where no one ever becomes a master.” What makes mastery so out-of-reach, even for those with a widely acclaimed flair for writing? Evidently, for most of us, it has to do with a destructive combination of ingredients: negative attitudes toward writing, fear of taking a risk, and low expectations for success.

Research on writing anxiety and writer’s block suggests that negative feelings about writing are most intense when we are transitioning to a different writing task (Hjortshoj, 2001). Unfortunately, the influences that increase writing anxiety are demanded of academic authors all at once: writing about new topics, with a different author’s voice, in an unfamiliar format, and for a more public audience. These new task demands are apt to yield at least some of the negative feelings identified by writing experts (Elbow, 2002; Flower & Hayes, 1981) in Fig. 1.1.

Fig. 1.1

Negative feelings frequently attributed to writing

Another downside of writing has to do with what might be considered vagaries, a term that the Cambridge Dictionaries defines as “unexpected events or changes that cannot be controlled and can influence a situation.” They give the example of “The success of the event will be determined by the vagaries of the weather”. At times, the outcomes of scholarly writing can seem almost as difficult to control as the weather. Scholarly writing can be such unpredictable enterprise that, out of sheer desperation, authors sometimes resort to bizarre rituals to bring a manuscript into existence (see Becker, 2007; Belcher, 2009).

Part of the explanation for feeling overwhelmed by writing is that multi-layered internal “scripts” are running as we write. An author can be simultaneously wondering if he is going off on a tangent, deciding if a word is spelled correctly, making a mental reminder to track down a citation, worrying that the structure of the piece isn’t working very well, or thinking that he definitely needs to invest in a new office chair. All of this input can lead to cognitive overload as authors to decide which thought to act upon first, which to silence, and how to push forward. Responses to these feelings can be as different as writers themselves. It is common to feel “nervous, jumpy, [and] inhibited” when we write because we are trying to edit and write at the same time (Elbow, 1973, p. 5). More often than not, the feeling tone of writing is grim determination rather than the liberating sense that the words are flowing and the writing is going well. Little wonder, then, that writers can come up with so many excuses and ways to escape. Replacing less productive habits with more productive ones is a major hurdle.

Personal Writing Habits

Each prospective academic author arrives with a set of strategies for producing a manuscript and coping with negative feelings associated with writing. They bring along some assumptions about “what works” for them—which may or may not be accurate. For instance, a student may have managed, in the past, to procrastinate and use the pressure of deadlines to generate a passable paper; however, manuscripts prepared in haste do not compare favorably with others submitted for publication that were revised and polished. It is no mistake that the word “flow” is used to describe effective writing; it means that the words and the logic proceed smoothly, in the manner of a fluid. Writing that flows moves the reader along without stalling, stopping, going off on a tangent, or leaving unanswered questions in the reader’s mind. It has a definite beginning, a satisfying conclusion, and a clear line of reasoning that connects the two. Use the information in Table 1.1 to assess your composing style.

Table 1.1

Composing styles

Heavy planners—“plan their work and work their plan”; they invest the greatest amount of time in mapping out the manuscript in advance. They often are capable of mentally planning their work while engaged in other activities and invest the bulk of their writing time in the preparation

Heavy revisers—write as if their words were on the surface of a sphere and roll them around to arrive at the “right” way to tackle the manuscript. They devote less time to planning or, may make a plan but not follow it. They revise a manuscript into being by continually cutting, pasting, and experimenting with ways to communicate ideas. They sometimes feel that their writing is never really finished

Sequential composers—devote approximately equal amounts of time to the various phases of writing—planning, drafting, and revising. They derive their confidence from adhering to a linear, well organized approach to writing

Procrastinators—rely on an imminent deadline to force them to get the manuscript written. They believe they do their best work under pressure and enjoy the thrill of averting disaster

Discovery drafters—seek to capitalize on unexpected ideas because they regard these as the source of creativity in their work. They use writing as a tool for discovering original ideas and write to discover what they have to say

Adapted from Richards and Miller (2005)

Which of the approaches best describes your general approach to producing a manuscript? What changes do you anticipate will be necessary to become a published author?

Activity 1.3: A Diagram of Your Writing Habits

Think about the process that you normally use to write a paper. Make a diagram that illustrates that process. Which part of that process is the most time-consuming? Does tackling a new type of writing (e.g., writing a practical article, creating a poster session on a research project, writing a book chapter) change that process and, if so, how?

Of course, the nature of the writing task influences approaches to writing as well. For example, one of my doctoral advisees had studied parent/teacher conferences for her dissertation so I* proposed that we write an article for the National Parent-Teacher Association that could also be produced as a brochure for families on how to make the most of these important meetings (Brown & Jalongo, 1987). We found that the task required a very tight, sequential organization because everything we wanted to say needed to fit on a tri-fold brochure. The fact that I tend to be a “discovery drafter” made this difficult. Situations such as this explain why writing expert Donald Murray (2001) argues that writers first need to “unlearn” many of the rules they have been taught in school. Contrary to common teaching practices, his perspective on the writing process can be summarized as follows:

Authors do not need to know, in advance, what they want to say before they begin to write; rather, they should begin writing right away to discover what they have to say.

Writing does not have to begin with an outline; rather, a detailed outline can be produced from the work after it has been written well.

Correctness is unimportant in the first draft; rather, focus on the content while drafting and address errors during revision and the final edit

Editing for spelling, grammar, and typos does not count as revision; rather, revision is rethinking/rewriting in substantive ways.

Academic authors should not imitate the verbose, difficult to read writing they sometimes see in print. They should strive make their writing clear, accessible, and suited for the intended audience.

There is not one, linear writing process to which all writers ought to conform; rather, there are as many writing processes as there are authors.

*Note: Throughout this book, I refers to the first author’s experience.

Online Tool 

Listen as writing expert Thomas Newkirk discusses the concept of “unlearning writing at: http://​creativewritingi​namerica.​weebly.​com/​unlearning-to-write.​html What will you need to unlearn?

Given all of the unlearning that you need to do and the challenges associated with publishing your work, where should you begin? The next sections advise you on meeting the challenge and strategies for counteracting common writing problems.

Counteracting Obstacles to Scholarly Writing

There are many fears associated with writing for publication. “The fear that grips someone who wants to write is usually not undifferentiated and monolithic but a composite of smaller fears. With time and thought, some can be resolved; others can be shooed back under their rocks or even coaxed into harness and put to work” (Rhodes, 1995, p. 8). The more that these writing tasks are high-risk and connected to the attainment of an important professional goal, such as doctoral program completion or tenure and promotion, the more unnerving they can become.

Fear, risk, and worry are associated with writing in the minds of many an academic author (Thesen & Cooper, 2014). During writing for publication professional development workshops for academic authors, the deterrents to writing for publication they identify tend to echo that fear/risk/worry theme. They harbor worries that the work will be rejected, misgivings about the time invested, concerns that they had nothing of importance to say, uncertainty about how to write for publication, or lack of confidence in writing skills. Perhaps most paralyzing of all is the nagging doubt that all of the effort will come to nothing if the work is rejected. Risk creeps in as writers realize that the stakes have been raised, for now it is more than “just writing”, it is the quality of their thinking that is being judged. Finally, there is the worry that, after their attempt at writing is shared with peers, they will look foolish and others will talk about them (Richards, 2007). Such worries may be intensified when scholars have a disability.

Online Tool 

Worries about writing often are exacerbated when the author has a disability. Read the advice of Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, “Writing for Publication: An Essential Skill for Graduate Students with Disabilities” http://​www.​apa.​org/​pi/​disability/​resources/​writing.​aspx

The first step is acknowledging that everyone—from the first day of a graduate program to the conferral of emeritus status—grapples with self-doubt when it comes to writing. Studies have found that, particularly for doctoral students, the more important the writing task is, the greater their apprehension, anxiety, and tendency to procrastinate (Nielsen & Rocco, 2002). Even when graduate students have confidently produced class papers for many years, for example, the assignment of writing a paper in the style of a journal article can derail them. Even authors who have been highly successful and widely worry that their latest writing attempts will disappoint.

Those who are published have developed effective coping mechanisms that propel their professional growth rather than being paralyzed by fear. Even as we wrote this book, we found ourselves sending encouraging e-mails, based on the coping strategies we had learned over the years, such as “write the part you are most excited about first” or “let’s exchange chapters and edit for one another.” As Christensen (2000) notes, both with writing and with teaching, “there are victories to celebrate and inevitable gaps to mourn… as in life, a luta continua: the struggle continues” (p. x). Strategies that will address the most common misgivings about writing for publication follow.

Implement Evidence-Based Strategies

If you honestly feel that your writing abilities are comparatively rudimentary then go back to the basics. For instance, a meta-analysis of research on improving secondary students’ writing identified several powerful, positive influences on the improvement of writing (Deane, Odendahl, Quinlan, Welsh, & Bivens-Tatum, 2008) that we have clustered together here:

A change in writing habits: replacing less productive planning, revising and editing habits with more practical and effective strategies

Modifications to the writing context: participating in writing workshops in which authors write together and review one another’s work rather than working in isolation

More emphasis on idea generation: using prewriting activities to organize ideas before beginning to write

A focus on the process: setting specific, attainable, intermediate goals for a piece of writing rather than being preoccupied with the finished product

Use of writing models: studying examples of the genre that merit emulation

Table 1.2 suggests some writers’ tools that can help to break away from less productive habits.

Table 1.2

Strategies for getting started

Play with titles—Many authors make the mistake of working without a title for an extended period of time. If you get a precise title to begin with, it can save quite a bit of rewriting and wasted effort. Remember that your title should be consistent with the manuscript’s purpose, avoid repeating words, and should not exceed 12 words

Interview—Pretend that someone is interviewing you about the manuscript you are preparing. Generate a list of questions that require critical reflection and be certain to answer the “so what?” question—why others should care about this topic/focus (Nackoney, Munn, & Fernandez, 2011)

Cubing—Generate six ideas for each side of a cube—but don’t evaluate them at first. This brainstorming technique is designed to jumpstart idea generation. As a final step, go back to select the best ones to pursue

The Five Ws—To begin generating ideas, use the journalist’s Who, What, When, Where, and Why questions and answer each one

Clustering—Go through notes to identify groups of related ideas and cut and paste them into a semblance of an organization. Might these clusters suggest the main sections of your manuscript? If so, write headings for them

Plus/Minus/Interesting (P/M/I) chart—Analyze your topic in three columns: the positives (plus), the negatives (minus), and the puzzling or surprising (interesting)

Choose the best sentences—Ask someone else to read for you and highlight the best sentences. Take a look at the ones they selected and analyze their characteristics. You may find, for example, that these sentences are shorter. Go back and modify or cull out several sentences that were not identified

Read aloud—Reading aloud—to yourself or in the company of a writers’ circle—is a good check on cadence, variety, pacing, punctuation errors, and sentence length

Chronological—Look at a specific topic from the perspective of past/present/future to organize thinking

Smart art—On the toolbar in Word, click on Insert and then SmartArt. Here you’ll find many different ways to generate visual display for ideas, categorized by type (i.e., process, hierarchy, relationship). Try organizing your ideas for a manuscript or a table or figure for the manuscript with one of these tools

Conclusion/introduction swap—It sometimes is the case that ideas about the paper become much clearer as you go along. Try moving what was your conclusion to the beginning as a way to focus and cut down on a lengthy introduction

“Invisible” writing—If you cannot break the habit of editing as you write, turn off your monitor display and just type your ideas freely to get some text generated. Do not “edit as you go”; the goal is to get ideas down on paper

Argue for/against—To support the goal of producing a balanced argument, begin by generating a list of reasons for and against an idea that you are suggesting. If you anticipate objections and generate responses to them from the start, you can provide a stronger argument

SCAMPER—is an acronym used to stimulate creativity and introduce more novel ideas into your work. It stands for substitute, combine, adapt, modify/magnify/minify, put to another use, eliminate, and reverse or rearrange (http://​www.​mindtools.​com/​pages/​article/​newCT_​02.​htm). The purpose is to break out of linear thinking

Adapted from: Jalongo (2002) and Strickland (1997)

Deal with Impatience and Uncertainty

One nearly certain way to give up on a writing session is to allow thoughts such as, “What right do I have to speak?” or “Why am I wasting my time? I’ll never get published!” to creep in. Authors need to banish “the psychological carnivores that prey upon confidence” and have “Faith in our subject matter, faith that needed language resides in us, faith that our meaning making through writing is worthwhile” (Romano, 2000, p. 30, p. 20). Successful authors have learned to stay in the moment rather than dwelling the other things they might be doing instead. Convince yourself that writing is what you are doing now and commit yourself to doing only those tasks that will support the writing effort. When the composing process is stalled or unproductive, switch to a different task. Go back and search the literature or check references, for example, rather than stare at a blinking cursor waiting for inspiration. Many people mistakenly assume that “real” writers need only write down the brilliant, perfectly worded sentences that spring to mind. However, one reason that writing is categorized as a process and a craft is that writers write (and revise) ideas into being.

Another way of subduing impatience is to decode your optimal work habits. Relegate tasks with fewer cognitive demands (for example, answering routine student questions about assignments) to less-than-peak mental performance times and reserve writing for times when your brain feels “fresh”. Instead of setting unrealistic goals (e.g., “I’m going to write a publishable article this weekend”), set very modest objectives (e.g., “I’m going to take some notes on what I’ve read and categorize them”, “I think I’ll reread and experiment with a different organizational structure today.” or “I’m going to play around with article titles because I have to be at this boring meeting.”)

Cope with Time Constraints

After I was encouraged to submit a proposal for a book on controversial issues in education for practitioners, I contacted doctoral candidates and recent program alumni to contribute chapters. Publication was just about guaranteed and all of students and former students delivered the chapters on time and in good shape, even though all of them were busy professionals with full-time jobs. This example illustrates that time is not the issue. Every human being on the planet, no matter how accomplished, has the same 24 hour day to work with; the difference is in how that time is allocated. Consider a study of faculty in the field of dentistry; the number one reason that unpublished faculty gave for failing to write was lack of time (Srinivasan, Poorni, Sujatha, & Kumar, 2014). Yet if time is the only variable, are we then to assume that those who publish aren’t as busy as their unpublished colleagues? Clearly, there are other variables at play because, when authors are convinced that they can succeed, they suddenly “find” time for writing.

Nevertheless, time management is important for authors as it is for any professional. To maximize writing efficiency, plan writing sessions for a place that is well-equipped, a time that is free of distractions, and a time of day when you do your best writing (Gonce, 2013). Chances are, no one is going to “give” you time to write—that is, until after you have a track record of success and qualify for a sabbatical leave.

Most scholarly writing is accomplished between classes, over the weekend, in the wee hours, and during breaks when no one takes notice. Try keeping a log of how you actually spend your time; many people watch television for several hours throughout the week and this might be a place to begin. Look also at otherwise wasted time, such as sitting in a doctor’s office, making a long commute, or waiting at a sporting event. Keep a “writer’s bag” with whatever you need—voice recorder, tablet computer, note paper, laptop, or paper copy of a manuscript draft—so that you can use this time productively. Consider doing two things at once, such as reading and marking passages with post-it notes while riding an exercise bike or dictating ideas while on a treadmill. Even the hugely successful children’s book author of the Harry Potter series, J. K. Rowling, observes: “The funny thing is that, although writing has been my actual job for several years now, I still seem to have to fight for time in which to do it. Some people do not seem to grasp that I still have to sit down in peace and write the books, apparently believing that they pop up like mushrooms without my connivance.” Another way to “make” time for writing is to approach your writing as you would any other important appointment. A highly successful university professor once said, “The best advice that my mentor/colleague gave to me was to put writing time on my calendar and guard it just as zealously as classes, meetings, and other important appointments.” Accept the simple fact that scholars do not experience success with a manuscript unless they first lavish time on it. Time is a precious resource. When writers are stingy with their time, their results tend to be paltry.

Get Past Procrastination and Avoidance

Most people are reluctant to attempt a task unless they think they have a better than 50/50 chance of succeeding (Brim, 1992). Writing is the focus of considerable procrastination and outright avoidance because expectations for success may be low. Little wonder, then, that if you wait until the task is insurmountable—such as writing a dissertation a few months before the 7-year time limit expires or producing a book during a one-semester sabbatical leave—you cannot bring yourself to sit down and write. That is because what psychologists refer to as “appraisal emotions” have been activated and the assessment is that the task is categorized as having a low probability of success. The predictable response is that writers quickly convince themselves that there’s something else that demands immediate attention—such as sharpening pencils when they never even use them to write.

After panic about scholarly writing sets in, a plan to write nonstop often emerges, yet such “binge writing” rarely yields the desired results (Boice, 2000). First of all, as with cramming for exams versus studying all semester, it probably will not yield the best possible outcome. Secondly, plans for big blocks of time are easily disrupted by other, more urgent (or appealing) tasks. Published authors have learned to break writing down into smaller sub-tasks—what Murray (2013) refers to as “snack writing”—that can be accomplished in shorter time frames, from as little as a few minutes to a few hours. They also “chip away” at writing tasks by beginning immediately because this affords the greatest opportunity to complete multiple revisions and get critical feedback.

Where time is concerned, another common mistake is to wait for the mythical “someday”; that time after the children are grown, after the degree program is finished, or release time is offered. Yet waiting to begin ultimately limits opportunities to improve as a writer and, if “someday” does arrive, the skill set may not equal to the task. Over the years, I have attended many a retirement event where an unpublished professor indicates that he or she will now have the time and start writing. To date, that has never happened. The reason for this is that writing is not some simple leisure time hobby that can be casually pursued. If professors have not written when there were extrinsic rewards attached to successful publication and pressure to publish then it is highly unlikely that they would be intrinsically motivated to write. Becoming a published scholar is founded on genuine engagement with the discipline and a deliberately developed set of skills (Starr-Glass, 2015) not free time and serendipity.

The harsh reality is that, where university faculty members are concerned, any substantial form of support for writing occurs after faculty members demonstrate that they know how to publish in their respective fields. Model your writer’s work habits, not after famous novelists or the most celebrated contributors in your field, but based on what you can realistically tolerate at any particular point. A new assistant professor, for instance, worked on a single article throughout the fall and spring, obtained feedback from several readers, and finalized the work during the summer when his teaching load was not as heavy. It was not until several years later that he had sufficient confidence and skill as an academic author to juggle multiple writing projects. Yet because he had started early and persisted, his confidence and skill were built.

Address Aversion to Writing

People who see themselves as poor writers typically have had some bad experiences as learners. One strategy for overcoming this is to intentionally avoid writing—at least at first. For example, when a doctoral student and school superintendent confessed to “hating to write”, the instructor recommended that he read, interview fellow administrators, and dictate into a voice recorder to motivate himself to write a practical article. The article was published in Principal magazine and earned a national award from Educational Press Association. Rather than allowing echoes of past writing failures to inhibit future efforts, implement some new approaches. Someone may have told you that: You must have a perfect first sentence. You have to begin at the beginning. You need to use all of the jargon and multisyllabic words you can think of to impress others. Try breaking all of these rules that have been inflicted on others by nonwriters. Begin by reflecting on your past as a writer using the questions in Activity 1.4.

Activity 1.4: Your Personal Writing History

What do you remember about being taught to write as a child, an undergraduate, and a graduate student? How would you characterize the feedback that you received on your writing from teachers? What types of writing tasks are you now expected to do in your professional life? How did you learn to accomplish those writing tasks? Are there some writing habits that you need to change or acquire?

Those who hate writing tend to view the process in a very simplistic way: they turn in a hastily prepared manuscript, someone in authority identifies all of the deficiencies, and then the manuscript is returned to them with a negative evaluation. One of the best ways to confront an aversion to writing is to recognize that, while the process used in the past was inadequate and unsatisfying, writers are capable of dramatic change. Rather than approaching the writing task as a collection of rules, accept that scholars are expected to revise their work and find their own mistakes. Technology certainly can support these efforts, yet many writers do not take the time to run the spell or grammar check feature of their word processing programs or, worse yet, ignore the wavy green underline that identifies possible errors. Another issue that surfaces is resisting recommendations for improvement in the manuscript. Doctoral students may be unwilling to let go of the way that they wrote to get through their master’s degree programs and protest with, “But, this is the way I write”. Likewise, the majority of scholars who submit their work to a publisher are asked to revise and encouraged to resubmit. Henson (2007) estimated that nearly 70 % of the manuscripts that were revised and resubmitted were accepted for publication; for those who withdraw the manuscript, the publication rate is zero. A recommendation for revision is an invitation, not a rejection. It means that the editor and reviewers see publication potential and are giving you another chance to make the work even better. Nevertheless, personal experience with editing a journal since 1995 suggests that the vast majority of authors fail to follow through when they get recommendations for revision.

Online Resource 

For more advice on rethinking writing, see www.​discoverwriting.​com.

Put Perfectionism on Hold

The instructor for a doctoral seminar on writing for publication taught the course for over 20 years and was well known for giving a very different kind of feedback on students’ papers. At the first class meeting, students were advised to “erase the expectation” that the way they had written in the past would suffice, to expect numerous rewrites, and to be patient with the process. Yet year after year, all of the students arrived with the experience of submitting papers and getting them back with an “A” grade. When comments were returned on their first attempts to produce a journal article, consternation reigned. Some argued that other professors had evaluated their work to date as excellent; a few professors even had written the heady comment, right on their papers, “You should try to get this published.” Were the other faculty members too lenient or was their current instructor just too demanding? It could be a bit of both. Sometimes, professors are responding to an exceptionally good student paper and, if the person who wrote this comment is not an active scholar with knowledge of publishing then yes, it is a compliment but it might not be an accurate appraisal of the work’s publication potential. In any case, authors need to develop a “thick skin” rather than taking criticism personally. Approach rewrites as ways to improve an already good manuscript and make yourself look smarter. Too often, students equate many written comments with poor evaluation rather than a sincere commitment to supporting their growth as writers.

Perfectionism also causes writers obsess about the finished product. They erroneously think that “good” writers blithely churn out articles and books and that they must be “bad” writers because they struggle. Clarity, coherence, insight, and brilliance are not where writers start but they are a destination they can reach through many, many rewrites. It is rare to produce even one paragraph of scholarly writing that is ready to be published, just as it was originally drafted, without editing. Authors capable of doing this are like people who can do mathematical computation “in their heads”—they complete quite a bit of mental editing before committing it to paper.

Another issue has to do with abundance. One high school English teacher (Keizer, 1996) made this point to his class by cutting into a tomato. He noted that, while just one seed is necessary to produce another plant, there are hundreds of seeds inside. In nature, as in writing, abundance is the starting point. Sometimes, writers assume that, if the goal is to write a journal article of about 20 double-spaced pages, they should not write more than 20 pages at the outset. However, fluency—the sheer number of ideas generated—is a key characteristic of creative thought. When too much time is invested in generating a restricted number of words, the author becomes more wedded to them and is reluctant to revise as needed (Elbow, 1973). Thus, authors first need to generate quite a bit of text and then set about deciding what keep and what to toss away. Fortunately, with time and experience, this process becomes more efficient.

Online Tool 

Read Jim Hoot and Judit Szente’s (2013) advice to new authors on “avoiding professional publication panic”.

Be Realistic About Criticism

Academic authors would do well to abandon the fantasy that the editor’s and reviewers’ responses to their manuscript will be, “Please, don’t change a word”. An editor with 25 years of experience editing a journal reported that she could recall just five occasions when this was the response of three independent reviewers to a manuscript and, in every case, the author was one of the most highly regarded experts in the nation. Accept that the act of submitting a manuscript invites critique and that a recommendation to “revise and resubmit” is a positive outcome. Too often, authors allow their feelings to be hurt, withdraw the manuscript rather than make the requested revisions, or fire off an indignant, defensive e-mail to the editor. Just as a professor does not expect a standing ovation at the conclusion of each class taught, writers should not expect uncritical acceptance of each manuscript submitted. Accept that writing is not the most time-consuming part of the process; it is rewriting a manuscript and revising it significantly 15 times or more that is the most challenging. Those disappointing early drafts can be revised into something publishable, but all of this needs to occur before the work is formally submitted to an editor and reviewers.

Online Tool 

Read “Writers on Rewriting” for some quotations from some of the most celebrated authors on About Education at: http://​grammar.​about.​com/​od/​advicefromthepro​s/​a/​rewritequotes.​htm

Too often, the same authors who are reluctant to share a manuscript face-to-face with a respected colleague are emboldened by the anonymity of peer review. With the technology tools now used by most professional publishers, authors truly can submit a manuscript at the touch of a button. It is easy to get sick and tired of a manuscript and want to check it off the “to do list”. It almost never works to submit what is admittedly a very flawed manuscript in the hope that reviewers and editors will tidy it up or lead the author out of muddleheaded thinking. Perhaps the two most important things writers can do to improve chances of publication success are to: (1) let the manuscript “sit” for a while, return to it, and revise—even after it shows every indication of being ready to submit—and (2) solicit the input of a known audience before the work is sent to an unknown audience.

Seek Out More Knowledgeable Others

When learners are determined to achieve mastery, they can be expected to ask questions, watch demonstrations, participate in simulations, conduct observations, seek coaching, and practice. Many academic authors treat writing as a form of self-imposed isolation that keeps them away from family and friends. While it is true that there will be times when authors need to be free from distractions and work alone, writing has a social aspect to it as well. Successfully published authors have learned to capitalize on social support. The opportunity to work with a person who has been highly successful with the task you are tackling for the first time and wants to help you is a boon to growth as a writer. Just as sea faring sailors relied on others to literally “show them the ropes”, less experienced authors can turn to more experienced writers to figuratively show them the ropes of scholarly publishing. Although it may be assumed that mentors are older and protégés are younger, age is not the important variable, experience is. So, an untenured professor might be mentoring a tenured faculty member on the use of technology or grant writing because the younger person has more experience with these tasks.

Academic authors often experience their first success with publishing through co-authorship. For students, this collaboration frequently is with the supervisors of their graduate assistantship or dissertation and for faculty members, the collaboration often is with a more experienced departmental/university colleague or a co-author from another institution identified through networking (Levin & Feldman, 2012). Just as it is easier for many people to follow a GPS than a road map, mentoring by more experienced academic authors calculates that route. Table 1.3 outlines the mentor/protégé relationship as it pertains to academic writing.

Table 1.3

The mentor/protégé relationship in academic writing

Criteria for selecting a writing mentor

 Is trustworthy, respected, and has a reputation for treating others fairly

 Has successful experience with publishing

 Wants to support the protégé in achieving writing/publishing goals

 Provides candid evaluation of the work

 Offers specific, constructive criticism rather than generalized praise

 Provides guidance at various stages of manuscript completion

 Understands the intended audience for the work (e.g., practitioners, international scholars)

 Accepts the agreed upon role (e.g., second author, an acknowledgement)

Protégé’s responsibilities

 Produces written work rather talk alone

 Submits work that truly represents the best of her or his ability

 Expects both positive and negative comments

 Views criticism as a route to manuscript improvement

 Does not complain or quit when more work is required

 Responds appropriately to recommendations for revision

 Submits rewrites in a timely fashion

 Recognizes the level of the mentor’s contributions appropriately (e.g., in an acknowledgement, as a co-author)

 Informs the mentor about publication, thanks him or her, and supplies a copy

Research conducted by Cho, Ramanan, and Feldman (2011) concluded that outstanding mentors: (1) exhibit admirable personal qualities (enthusiasm, compassion, and selflessness); (2) guide careers in ways tailored to the individual; (3) invest time through regular, frequent, and high-quality interactions; (4) advocate achieving balance in personal/professional lives; and (5) leave a legacy of mentoring through role modeling, standards and policy-making.

Activity 1.5 Working with a Writing Mentor

Working with a writing mentor is an informal contract that must be built on reciprocal trust and respect. As you review the guidelines in Table 1.3, identify one or more people who would be effective writing mentors.

Online Tool 

Check the University of Michigan’s pdf’s for protégés How to Get the Mentoring You Want www.​rackham.​umich.​edu/​downloads/​publications/​mentoring.​pdf and, for mentors, How to Mentor Graduate Students www.​rackham.​umich.​edu/​downloads/​publications/​Fmentoring.​pdf

Writing arrangements between scholars should not be entered into lightly. The best advice is to check up on people before agreeing to work with them and to choose any writing partner very carefully.

Use Higher-Order Thinking

In all of the conversations about writing for publication, the types of thinking that are required are sometimes eclipsed by the worries about the little things, such as spelling, punctuation, grammar, and proofreading. Table 1.4 highlights the reasoning processes that undergird successful academic authorship and make a contribution.

Table 1.4

Thinking processes used to present a logical argument

Identify an issue and explore it; explain why it matters to answer the “so what” question

Summarize to arrive at a “state of the art”—what we know thus far, how we know it, and the evidence that supports it

Synthesize and critique the research evidence to suggest new directions

Compare and contrast different ideas to weigh the positives and negatives in each

Challenge taken-for-granted thinking and lead others to question assumptions

Interpret the current perspectives and expand/extend the discussion to different viewpoints

Prioritize to assess the relative importance of various influences on the situation

Probe the phenomenon under study to identify possible underlying causes

Hypothesize about what might occur under a different set of conditions to provide a fresh perspective

Investigate possible solutions to a problem

Propose a call to action in response to a situation

Apply theory and research to practice

Evaluate the best available evidence to suggest a better course of action

Adapted from Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005)

Nonnative and Native Speakers of English

Nonnative speakers of English frequently have additional concerns about writing and publishing scholarly work. While efforts to publish scholarly work exist around the globe, English has become the language, not only of business and industry, but also of research (Lillis & Curry, 2010). Even scholars located outside of Anglophone contexts may be required to publish in high-status English journals in order to advance professionally (Kwan, 2010). In fact, so many scholars whose first language is not English are now required to use English for research and publication that there is terminology for it: English for Research Publication Purposes (ERPP) (see Flowerdew, 2014). While just 5–9 % of the world population has English as their first language, nearly 80 % of the scientific articles world-wide are published in English language journals (Montgomery, 2004). However, in some ways, even those whose first language is English venture into a “new language” when they make the transition from everyday English to academic language. Whether students are native or nonnative speakers of English, neither can depend on what has worked for them in the past. Therefore, many of these recommendations are equally applicable to native speakers of English.

Suggestions for international academic authors seeking to surmount obstacles to publishing their work in English include:

1.

Practice English in context. Many times, due to the methods of teaching English to international scholars, conversational skills in English may lag behind reading and writing proficiency in English. Therefore, it is important to gain experience talking with native speakers as a way to build confidence in speaking English. International graduate students may be reserved about doing this but it helps to consider that even native speakers of English need to practice using the specialized vocabulary associated with their field of study as well as the language of research. One context in which English can be practiced, of course, is during class meetings. For international scholars, the conversations that occur during class may be quite a departure from what was experienced in a different country, culture, or university. For example, some professors teach by asking many questions rather than delivering a lecture. Conversations may be very animated, with students disagreeing with the instructor or interrupting one another to be heard. This may seem disrespectful to some students. However, it is important to learn how to join in lively conversations, contribute ideas, and raise additional questions. When class presentations are scheduled, international students might consider volunteering to do this rather than waiting to be assigned or being the last presenter in every class. If students are to work in small groups, choosing to work with different classmates often affords the greatest opportunity to learn from and with one another.

2.

Understand expectations. Expectations for behavior may differ dramatically from one instructor or supervisor to the next. For international scholars who are accustomed to situations in which professors are unquestioned authority figures who direct the students’ work, Western ways of giving students choices and expecting greater independence can be unnerving. Conversely, when experienced faculty members from other institutions are visiting scholars, doctoral candidates or postdoctoral fellows, just the reverse may pertain—these individuals may now need to heed the advice of a dissertation or departmental chairperson. Also, in some other cultures, men are authority figures while women are not, so international scholars may need to adapt to that change as well. Finally, when communicating with editors of journals published in English, realize that editors do not tell authors what to write about. On the other hand, when editors share reviewers’ comments and recommend changes to a manuscript, authors should comply if they want to pursue publication in that outlet (Flowerdew, 2000, 2001).

3.

Realize that scholarly writing is different from previous writing. Sometimes, international scholars attribute all of their communication difficulties to working in English as a second language (Craswell & Poore, 2011). One struggling author from Taiwan called it, “the problem of my Chinesey English”, meaning that her writing sounded more like a literal translation from Chinese than the way a native speaker of English would write. Actually, all students and faculty need to do some “translating”; for example, from research to evidence-based recommendations for practice, from class notes and activities into a college textbook, and so forth. Becoming a scholar requires a transition from a consumer/user of the literature to a producer of/contributor to knowledge in a field. This demands higher-level thinking skills and more complex cognitive processes (Deane, Odendahl, Quinlan, Welsh & Bivens-Tatum, 2008). To illustrate the importance of high-level conceptualization to scholarly writing, one leading professional journal has as its first criterion for evaluating manuscripts, “What is the quality of thinking behind the manuscript?” Thus, not all of the challenges faced by international authors have to do with knowledge of the English language. Many of the issues have more to do with knowledge of the discipline, mastery of the writing style expected by English language journals, and an understanding of the review process.

4.

Seek out all available resources for authors. Consider also the various forms of institutional support for writers. Many institutions have centers, institutes, or courses to support writing and proficiency in English. Increasingly, there are online resources to assist all scholars with writing, such as training on how to use library resources, webinars on the use of data analysis software, or sessions on formatting a thesis or dissertation. Some instructors of graduate courses will offer to look at an outline or draft of a manuscript before the final work is turned in, so students would do well take advantage of this opportunity and revise on the basis of individualized feedback. Many colleges and universities offer research forums where scholars can share their ideas with a local audience; some offer travel support to graduate students presenting papers at conferences. Professional organizations also provide opportunities for scholars to meet others who share their interests and collaborate on research projects. International scholar/authors need to consider unique contributions that they can make to a research team, such as: (1) cross-linguistic and cross-cultural experiences, (2) a fresh perspective on the issue, and (3) access to different research sites.

5.

Learn about publishing. Even though some international scholars have prior experience translating books from their first language into English, this experience, while valuable, does not provide require them to produce something original through writing. A study by Gosden (1992) invited editors to identify the most frequent flaws in the scientific research articles submitted by nonnative speakers of English. The most often mentioned issue was that the results and the discussion sections were not written in a way that effectively communicated the contribution of the research. Another issue had to do with differences in generally accepted ways of writing articles in various countries (Burrough-Boenisch, 2003). For example, some international authors’ articles did not include a thorough, current review of the literature—possibly due to lack of access to scholarly sources. Finally, just as their native English speaking counterparts, some international scholars persisted at writing in thesis or dissertation style rather than professional journal article style. They also appeared to be unfamiliar with the argumentation style and level of formality preferred by the specific publication (Baggs, 2010). For an in-depth discussion of the issues and advice on becoming published in English, see Curry and Lillis (2013).

Online Tool 

Review the PowerPoint “9 Errors that Cause Taiwanese Research Papers to Be Rejected” from Dr. Steve Wallace www.​editing.​tw/​download/​Newest_​SpeechA.​ppt

6.

Seek support prior to manuscript submission. Another critical time at which international authors may need support occurs after a manuscript has been carefully crafted and is nearly ready to submit. The manuscripts of faculty members who are nonnative speakers often can benefit from the input of a native speaker, particularly if that individual has expertise in the discipline and editorial experience. Scholars are sometimes reluctant to ask someone to assist them in this way, fearing that it is an imposition on their time. However, there are many ways to reciprocate, such as making a guest presentation in a class, demonstrating how to use a technology tool, or assisting with data entry/analysis. Whether writing in English as a first or as an additional language, academic authors need the input of knowledgeable colleagues prior to submitting manuscripts for publication.

Additional Resources for International Scholars

Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cargill, M., & O’Connor, P. (2013). Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps. New York, NY: Wiley.

Osman-Gani, A. M., & Poell, R. F. (2011). International and cross-cultural issues in scholarly publishing. In T. S. Rocco, & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 262–273). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2012). On second language writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Online Tool 

Visit The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) (2014) site at www.​ease.​org.​uk/​publications/​author-guidelines. It offers Guidelines for Authors and Translators of Scientific Articles to Be Published in English and An Author’s Toolkit with 15 modules on topics of interest to international scholars.

Conclusion

As you approach the task of publishing academic writing, accept that practically everyone has had work rejected at one time or another and, that when it happens to you, it will hurt your pride. Remind yourself that writing is a “plastic art” (Smith, 1994) that can be shaped to your purposes, that you do have the wherewithal to improve as a writer, and that somewhere amongst the thousands of outlets, there is a place where you can publish a well-conceptualized and carefully prepared manuscript. With writing, as with physical exercise, there are some who can never seem to “find the time” to do it, some who do the minimum, others who make it part of the daily routine, and still others who are positively addicted to it. Instead of assuming that widely published authors write with ease, realize that they are comparable to athletes who compete in the Olympics; they have trained extensively, built endurance, worked with expert coaches, and learned the rules of the game. When the challenges of writing for publication are under discussion, people are much more curious about possible shortcuts to fame and fortune rather than the drudgery part, just as most people are more interested in seeing the gold, silver, and bronze medals awarded to Olympians than to watch athletes’ practice sessions. Expect that you can become a successful author, but, as the Latin motto on the gates of the Govan Shipyard in Scotland so succinctly states, Non sine labore—not without effort.

References

Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor-rated: The Ph.D. by published work. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 331–342.CrossRef

Baggs, J. G. (2008). Issues and rules for authors concerning authorship versus acknowledgements, dual publication, self-plagiarism, and salami publishing. Research in Nursing & Health, 31(4), 295–297.CrossRef

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boice, R. (2000). Advice for new faculty members. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boyer, E. L., Moser, D., Ream, T. C., & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (expanded 2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brim, G. (1992). Ambition: How we manage success and failure throughout our lives. New York: Basic Books.

Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 223–243.CrossRef

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. New York: A&C Black.

Cho, C. S., Ramanan, R. A., & Feldman, M. D. (2011). Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: A qualitative analysis of the characteristics of outstanding mentors. The American Journal of Medicine, 124(5), 453–458.CrossRef

Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the power of the written word. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

Craswell, S., & Poore, M. (2011). Writing for academic success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2013). A scholar’s guide to getting published in English: Critical choices and practical strategies. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Davis, J. (2010). The first generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and strategies for improving persistence and success. Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.

Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Elbow, P. (2002). The cultures of literature and composition: What could each learn from the other? College English, 64, 533–546.CrossRef

European University Association. (2005). Doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society: Final report. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.CrossRef

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the non-native English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 127–150.CrossRef

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 121–150.CrossRef

Flowerdew, J. (2014). Academic discourse. New York: Routledge.

Francis, J., Mills, K., Chapman, Y., & Birks, M. (2009). Doctoral dissertation by publication: Building scholarly capacity whilst advancing new knowledge in the discipline of nursing. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 97–106.

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York: Basic Books.

Glatthorn, A. A. (2002). Publish or perish—The educator’s imperative: Strategies for writing effectively for your profession and school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gosden, H. (1992). Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 123–139.CrossRef

Hadani, H., & Jaeger, G. (2015). Inspiring a generation to create: Critical components of creativity in children. Sausalito, CA: Center for Childhood Creativity.

Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.CrossRef

Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 781–786.CrossRef

Hoot, J. L., & Szente, J. (2013). Avoiding professional panic: Advice to new scholars seeking to publish in the field of early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 5–11.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (1985). Faculty productivity in higher education. The Educational Forum, 49(2), 171–182. doi:10.​1080/​0013172850933583​2.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jalongo, M. R., Ebbeck, M., & Boyer, W. (2014). Writing for publication as “tacit” knowledge: A focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 241–250.CrossRef

Keizer, G. (1996). No place but here: A teacher’s vocation in a rural community. Lincoln, NE: University Press of Nebraska.

Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59, 55–68.CrossRef

Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2011). Working with tensions: Writing for publication during your doctorate. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 62–74). New York: Wiley.

Levin, R. F., & Feldman, H. R. (2012). Teaching evidence-based practice in nursing. New York: Springer.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.

Lindsay, R., Breen, R., & Jenkins, A. (2002). Academic research and teaching quality: The views of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 27(3), 309–327.CrossRef

Montgomery, S. L. (2004). Does science need a global language? English and the future of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Murray, D. M. (2001). The craft of revision (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt College.

Murray, R. (2013). Writing for academic journals. Boston: Pearson.

Muzzatti, S. L., & Samarco, C. V. (2005). Reflections from the wrong side of the tracks: Class, identity, and the working class experience in academe. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Nackoney, C. K., Munn, S. L., & Fernandez, J. (2011). Learning to write: Wisdom from emerging scholars. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 26–43). New York: Wiley.

Nielsen, S. M., & Rocco, T. S. (2002). Joining the conversation: Graduate students’ perceptions of writing for publication. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​citeseerx.​ist.​psu.​edu/​viewdoc/​download?​doi=​10.​1.​1.​426.​1270&​rep=​rep1&​type=​pdf

Noller, P. (1982). Channel consistency and inconsistency in the communications of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 732–741.CrossRef

Rhodes, R. (1995). How to write: Advice and reflections. New York: William Morrow.

Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing academic writing in education: Connecting the personal and the professional. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richards, P. (2007). Risk. In H. Becker (Ed.), Writing for the social sciences (pp. 108–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rico, G. (1991). Writer: Personal patterns in chaos. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Writer’s craft, teachers’ art: Teaching what we know (pp. 3–20). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Rocco, T. S. (2011). Reasons to write, writing opportunities, and other considerations. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 3–12). New York: Wiley.

Rocco, T. S., & Hatcher, T. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. New York: Wiley.

Romano, T. (2000). Blending genre, altering style: Writing multi-genre papers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Smith, F. (1994). Writing and the writer (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Sohn, K. (2006). Whistlin’ and crowin’ women of Appalachia. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press

Srinivasan, M. R., Poorni, S., Sujatham, G., & Kumar, S. N. (2014). Research experiences, attitudes, and barriers to publishing among the dental postgraduate teachers: A cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Dental Research, 25(4), 454–458.CrossRef

Starr-Glass, D. B. (2015). Wild pansies, Trojan horses, and others: International teaching and learning as bricolage. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2). Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​digitalcommons.​georgiasouthern.​edu/​ij-sotl/​vol4/​iss2/​24

Strickland, J. (1997). From disk to hard copy: Writing with computers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRef

Thesen, L., & Cooper, L. (Eds.). (2014). Risk in academic writing: Postgraduate students, their teachers and the making of knowledge. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782.CrossRef

Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2011). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students: Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Wellington, J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2005). Writing for publication: What counts as a ‘high status, eminent academic journal’? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 35–48.CrossRef

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_2

2. From Unpublishable to Publishable

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

There are many persistent myths about writing for publication. Inexperienced authors sometimes hold on to the vain hope that there is a facile way to generate manuscripts that earn positive evaluations from reviewers and editors. It is a common misconception that successful authors generate manuscripts with ease and that their success is attributable to innate talent. Yet, as this chapter documents, highly regarded authors report that writing well is a persistent challenge that demands a considerable investment of time and mental energy. Chapter 2 explains the distinction between ordinary writing and publishable academic writing in terms of voice and style. It uses illustrative examples to clarify these important attributes and includes a variety of activities that assist authors in moving beyond the “writer’s block” stage. The chapter concludes with ethical issues in scholarship, including: intentional and accidental plagiarism, policies concerning simultaneous submissions, and the responsible conduct of research.

Practically everyone is familiar with the “publish or perish” dictum of higher education (Gray & Birch, 2001). The premise is that anyone without an extensive, impressive list of publications will be denied tenure and fired. Yet this is not an accurate portrayal of what actually occurs. Studies have found that approximately half of all doctoral program alumni publish and the majority of those who do first published to a small extent while still enrolled in doctoral studies (Mallette, 2006). In their review of the research literature on publication by faculty, McGrail, Rickard, and Jones (2006) concluded that, rather than being evenly distributed amongst the entire faculty at colleges and universities, a small minority of academics publish a great deal while others publish “just enough” or perhaps not at all. They cite a number of deterrents to publication supplied by academics for failing to write; interestingly, they are quite similar to those given for failing to write the dissertation: lack of momentum, motivation, and confidence as well as the absence of a framework or formal structures to sustain and support writing. Erkut (2002) estimated that 20 % of the faculty produced approximately 80 % of the publications.

Thus, while “publish or perish” may be accurate at major research universities, it generally is less so at many other postsecondary institutions. A more common scenario is that those who are competent in teaching and service activities will retain employment but perpetually remain at the lower ranks, so “publish or languish” might depict the situation more accurately. Either way, the implication is that the impetus to publish resides outside the individual as proverbial rewards and punishments of “carrots and sticks”. Writing for publication is not some onerous expectation inflicted by others on unsuspecting faculty members. The truth is that some combination of teaching, service, and research is a nearly universal and widely understood job description for higher education faculty. Stated plainly, this is the job professors have signed on for and a major reason that they are not found standing in front of a class all day, Monday through Friday. Teaching well is roughly one-third of the role; the other two-thirds are scholarship and service. So, begin with this perspective if you aren’t already there: View publication as an intrinsically motivated professional goal rather than something that is imposed upon you by others. If your graduate program does (or did) not socialize you into the values of scholarship, then it has failed you in a fundamental way. Joining in the professional dialogue of their disciplinary specialization is an important and expected behavior of anyone who claims to be a scholar. If you never contribute your profession through writing, you are no more of a scholar than an armchair quarterback is a professional football player. It is necessary, but not sufficient, for a scholar to be conversant with others’ published work. Unless or until faculty members subject their work to critical review by peers, they have not fulfilled the role of a scholar.

This does not mean, however, that the first piece ever written while still in graduate school is expected to be a seminal work in the field and skyrocket the student to eminence in the field. In fact, having such ambitious (and generally unattainable) expectations too early on can be paralyzing. For those of us who are mere mortals, a “begin early, start small and build” strategy is more likely to be effective. However, it isn’t just the “earlier” part that makes it better, it is the diligent practice and determined attitude, as reflected in self-efficacy beliefs.

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s appraisal of her or his ability to affect outcomes. So, if I have high self-efficacy beliefs as a college instructor, I would agree with a statement such as “I can improve my teaching effectiveness through careful planning.” On the other hand, if I have low self-efficacy beliefs, I would regard teaching effectiveness as attributable to forces outside my control, such as the time of day when the course is scheduled and whether or not I happen to get a “good” group of students.

A professor who had applied for promotion and been denied twice once remarked, “I just keep sending out my manuscripts. After all, you can’t win the lottery without a ticket.” This fatalistic outlook on publishing reflects low self-efficacy beliefs about scholarly writing. Worse yet, because this faculty member attributed success entirely to luck, he did not change the manuscript based on the reviewers’ feedback, thus depriving himself of an opportunity to improve the work and eventually earn acceptance. Contrary to the perspective of this very frustrated professor, writing for publication is more of a meritocracy than a game of chance. The lives of celebrated, highly creative individuals are characterized, not as much by stunning innate talent as by huge investments in deliberate practice (Shavinina & Ferrari, 2004). It is estimated that it takes, on average, at least 17 years of training and preparation to contribute to a field (Duffy, 1998). Most readers of this book would have academic writing experience during 4 years of undergraduate study, 2 years at the master’s level, and possibly four or more during doctoral study; they also would have some years of professional on-the-job training. Yet they still may have a way to go in terms of making published contributions to a field that earn the acceptance of their peers.

Interestingly, even academic authors who have succeeded in publishing their work will sometimes attribute that outcome to good fortune rather than their deliberate effort. They will diminish their work with statements such as, “Just lucky, I guess.” “They must have really needed something on that topic,” or “I really didn’t do that much, my dissertation chair did all of the work.” Part of becoming an academic author is to be realistic about time, effort, expertise, and the nature of the contributions made.

When people inquire about how someone became a writer, they typically are referring to the achievement rather than the process that was used to get there. They don’t want to hear about waking up every day at 4 a.m. to make time to write or that a short editorial was revised significantly 20 times. Accept the fact that, just as the person who wants to see the world devotes far more time to grappling with all of the annoyances associated with travel than to arriving at exotic destinations, academic authors devote much more time in transit to publication than in gathering up accolades for a published work. The celebrated novelist, James Michener, once said “Many people who want to be writers don’t really want to be writers. They want to have been writers. They wish they had a book in print.”

“Fast, Easy and Brilliant” Versus “Clearly and Warmly and Well”

As faculty members who have worked with doctoral students for decades, we sometimes meet prospective students who are eager to begin proposing dissertation ideas. They evidently have heard that getting stalled at the “all-but-dissertation” stage is a common problem or heard a failed doctoral candidate opine that the solution is to start on the dissertation sooner. They are under the misapprehension that merely talking about dissertations—even before they are admitted to the program and have completed a single course—will somehow accelerate the process. These students are walking examples of what Boice (1990) concluded from his longitudinal interview study of academic authors. He dubbed it as “the unsuccessful writer’s motto” and it was: “I want my writing to be fast, easy, and brilliant.” Published writing that earns the respect of peers is none of the above. Rather than being “fast”, the reality is that highly respected authors probably invest more time in and attention on their writing than many other writers. Instead of being easy, acclaimed authors are those who wrestle with collections of ideas and shape them into keen insights. Being brilliant is entirely incompatible with fast and easy because brilliance is the brainchild of being steeped in the literature, not some fortuitous event. As a doctoral student once put it, just as a chef needs a pantry of ingredients, a scholar needs a “well stocked mind” as a starting point—and getting there is neither fast nor easy. Very little of what is written is brilliant from the start; in fact, this is so much the case that writer William Stafford advises authors to “Lower your standards and write” (Christensen, 2000, p. 72).

As Pamela Richards (2007) notes:

For a long time I worked under the burden of thinking that writing was an all-or-nothing proposition. What got written had to be priceless literary pearls or unmitigated garbage. Not so. It’s just a bunch of stuff, more or less sorted into an argument. Some of it’s good, some of it isn’t. (p. 120)

Rather than expecting immediate brilliance, expect that first drafts will make a poor showing but can be rewritten many times and reviewed by others until they are forged into well-wrought ideas. One advantage of writing is that it is malleable and can be shaped to the author’s purpose with time and effort. Accept that the fast/easy/brilliant dream is just about as likely as winning a multi-million dollar lottery. Replace that fantasy with a more humble-sounding, yet surprisingly difficult challenge, the one proposed by editor William Zinsser (2016) in his classic book on writing for publication. He recommends that every author aspire to write (1) clearly, (2) warmly, and (3) well.

Online Tool

Read Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published (Bourne & Chalupa, 2006) at http://​journals.​plos.​org/​ploscompbiol/​article?​id=​10.​1371/​journal.​pcbi.​0010057

“Clearly” is the opposite of what is sometimes seen in the literature; too often, the writing is difficult to wade through. Yet, as Casanave and Vandrick (2003) have questioned, who is academic writing for? It is for the authors to showcase their facility with language or, is it to communicate a message to the readers? Writing expert Ken Macrorie (1984) answers that question through the title of his book, Writing to Be Read. We should write in a way that makes it accessible to other scholars rather than trying to impress; we definitely should not succumb to puffery and present simple ideas in convoluted prose so that they seem more profound. One editor’s favorite example of simple language was “To be or not to be, that is the question” because each word in that phrase is part of everyday language and only the final word is more than one syllable. Nevertheless, the message conveyed is profound.

Some scholars might take issue with the notion of academic writing being “warm”; after all, we are supposed to unbiased, scientific, and let the data speak for themselves. As one widely published researcher explained, however, she thinks about not only the “hard facts” (i.e., statistical analysis) but also some “soft effects” (i.e., the people in the process): “in order for publication to fulfill the promise of affecting the field, we have to look at both the statistical significance and the practical significance. In other words, both statistics and the human factors are important” (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 70). The warmth comes, not from emotionally-charged rhetoric or “all about me” ruminations, but from a sincere effort to make a contribution to the field each scholar represents.

Unlike journalists who are “on assignment”, academic authors have the luxury of pursuing their interests and investigating topics about which they are truly passionate. So, while the empirical study is rigorous, there is a warm undercurrent of what prompted the study in the first place. A good example of this was a program evaluation that included a questionnaire completed by adults enrolled in literacy courses. All of the participants had faced one of their worst fears—being labeled as unintelligent and failing as readers—to undertake a huge self-improvement project: earning the General Education Diploma, or GED. The evaluation report was written and presented to various stakeholders, yet many years later, what remains in memory was a comment from one participant. In response to the question “What is the one, best thing that learning to read has done for you?” the person wrote, “It really helps with the medicine bottles for the kids.” There’s the “warmth”—to be reminded, so cogently, that literacy is much more than a set of skills, a score on a test, or a personal goal. Being able to read can support people in caring responsibly for others. Literacy can, quite literally, be a matter of life and death.

Zinsser’s (2006) third criterion, writing well, is another consideration. Students sometimes overlook a very powerful influence on what they write: what they choose to read and the other types of writing they have produced (Bazerman & Prior, 2004). In order to write anything—from a children’s picture book to an entry in an encyclopedia of research—authors need to immerse themselves in examples of that genre. While academic authors may not realize it, they arrive with distinctive writing habits they have “absorbed” from what they read. To illustrate, a group of master’s degree students enrolled in a principal’s program wrote in ways similar to what they had internalized from reading about school and community events in the media. Another group of students—social workers—reflected some of the stylistic features of case reports that they needed to read and to write. Just as the old adage “you are what you eat” applies to health, “you are what you read” applies to writing.

If you doubt that this is true, try this. Suppose that you are starting a writers’ group and want to advertise through a memo, posters, or on social media. What has to be included? Somewhere along the way, you have learned that publicizing the event needs to include who the event is for, what the event is, how it will be delivered, when it will occur, where it will be held, and why someone would benefit from participation. While your fifth grade teacher may have taught a lesson about this long ago, you really came to understand it by reading—and composing—examples of the who/what/when/where/why/how format. So, if you are attempting to write research as a dissertation or an article, you must first read many, many examples of the genre. Those who, in the interest of saving time, skipped over the research methods and procedures to get to the results and discussion section surely will find themselves at a loss for words when attempting to “write research”. This happens because they have not internalized the structures and mentally catalogued many examples that they can draw upon when attempting to write. Stated plainly, you cannot write research unless you have studied research—not just as content memorized for a test, but as a genre of writing. I suspect that much of the so-called “writer’s block” associated with dissertation writing has less to do with the absence of inspiration from the Muse and more to do with an insufficient collection of examples, cases, and models absorbed from the literature. Thus, achieving writing and publication goals calls upon scholars, first and foremost, to form appropriate expectations for the purpose, structure, and language of scholarship (Richards & Miller, 2005).

Purposes of Nonfiction Written for Professionals

There is a useful distinction between writing about (a topic) and writing for (an audience). Writing about is like making the menu; writing for is more like preparing and serving the meal. In their classic studies of composition, Flower and Hayes (1981) found that the degree of audience awareness was a critical variable that differentiated effective and ineffective writers. Kenneth Henson (2007) has been interviewing editors for decades and reported, “I always ask the editors to tell me the most common, serious mistake that their contributors make that leads to rejection, and they always say that it is their contributors’ failure to know their readers” (pp. 781–782). Effective writers answer the question, Why bring this specific audience and material together? Respond to the questions in Activity 2.1 as a way to identify some general characteristics of the audience for scholarly publications.

Activity 2.1: Readers of the Professional Literature

Imagine that you are looking through the latest issue of a professional journal. Are there some authors whose writing you admire so much that you would read just about anything with their name on it, even if it were well outside your area of interest? What characteristics of writing would cause you to:

Stop and read the entire article?

Become annoyed and move on to something else?

Request permission to duplicate the article and use it in your work?

Write a letter to the editor?

Compare these thoughts with Table 2.1, major reasons to read the professional literature.

Table 2.1

The purposes of professional literature

Reason to read the professional literature

Implications for writers

To keep current in the field

References need to be up-to-date (e.g., most references published within the past 5 years and a few classic sources)

Sources need to be authoritative and primary; for example, textbooks are considered to be secondary sources

Review of the literature is thorough, yet selective

To use in work (e.g., teaching, research, service)

Resources are critically evaluated and relevant to the audience

Practices that are endorsed are supported by theory and research

Recommendations are clear, concise, and accessible to practitioners in the field at various levels of training (e.g., avoid excessive jargon)

To stimulate thinking and have something to talk about

Writing reflects originality and advances the conversation on the subject

Manuscript presents a logical argument

Resources are critically evaluated and synthesized for the reader

The focus of the manuscript is matched to the readership of the outlet

Argument in Academic Writing

Over the years, some of our undergraduates enrolled in writing courses have been confused by the word “argument” because they define the word as a contentious disagreement. Gradually, they come to realize that “argument,” as it is used in scholarly writing, refers to a logical progression of ideas supported by evidence. In general, scholarly writing relies on a logical argument that depends on an “assert, then support” style (Rhodes, 1995). Wallace and Wray (2011, p. 47) use the following equation to explain argument in scholarly writing:

They go on to say that readers will want to know such things as:

Why do you think that? How do you know?

So what? What do these different pieces of evidence together imply?

Does this reasoning add up? Aren’t there other, more plausible conclusions?

What causal relationship between the factors are you suggesting?

Is the evidence adequate to justify the extent of the claim? Is the evidence appropriately interpreted? (Wallace & Wray, 2011, p. 52)

The argument is what distinguishes scholarly writing from other forms of written composition. Fulwiler (2002) identifies these key attributes of scholarly writing:

Beliefs and persuasion

Writers must believe in what they write and persuade readers that it is true through a series of assertions that form a logical argument. The argument is supported by such things as professional experience, observation, experimentation, statistics, or interviews as well as a careful account of where the information was found.

The research imperative

The expectation of the academic community is that even practical advice is based on research. For example, when doctoral candidates in education are first interviewed, most of them are classroom teachers seeking to become university faculty members. They tend to support their assertions with “In my school district, we …”. As they pursue doctoral study, they grow in the ability to identify authoritative support for their ideas in the literature and, by the time that they defend a dissertation, they are conversant with specific studies and their findings.

Objectivity

Academic authors need to be impartial, particularly when conducting research. This is one reason that the personal pronoun “I” is seldom used in academic writing. Even though there is extensive “between-the-lines information” about the author in a manuscript (Fulwiler, 2002, p. 6), the tradition of academic authorship is to distance oneself from the material to some extent. Instead of invoking personal opinion as their claim to authority, academic authors rely on evidence from the discipline to support their claims.

Balance

Even though authors believe something, this does not mean that they limit their literature review to sources that validate their position only. Rather, in the interest of achieving a balanced argument, they briefly acknowledge these opposing opinions and explain why they respectfully disagree. By offering the reader an examination of alternative points of view or opposing interpretations, writers demonstrate that they have examined a topic from different perspectives.

Relativity

Academic authors avoid absolute statements (e.g., “As everyone knows …”), partly because generalizations lead to challenges to the argument and partly because scholars acknowledge that they could be wrong. The habit of qualifying assertions makes statements more supportable, for example, stating “The results suggest…” rather than “This study proves that…”

Activity 2.2: Basic Composition vs. Academic Writing

To illustrate the difference between ordinary writing and writing with a more academic tone, consider the following two paragraphs. The first is an ordinary type of writing that you might find in a student paper and the second, the same basic assertions in a more academic style. In both examples, the purpose is to persuade the reader that women who commit crimes should be viewed in a different way. The ordinary writing example attempts to achieve this by appealing to emotions. The second example is an illustration of how that same message could be communicated in a more authoritative voice and identifies places where evidence is needed.

Ordinary writing

Academic writing

According to popular wisdom, only bad women go to prison and deserve harsh punishment. If they are mothers their children will be better off without them. In actual practice many women who go to prison are poor, undereducated, unemployed and have been battered or abused. Many inmates are mothers of dependent children and most are single parents. Many have committed non-violent crimes in an effort to support their children

The Bureau of Justice reported that, by year’s end in 2012, approximately one in every 35 adults in the United States was under some form of correctional supervision (Glaze & Herberman, 2013). Approximately ___% of this population is male and ___% is female. National data gathered by the Bureau of Justice concluded that _____ % of women who go to prison are poor, undereducated, and unemployed (CITE) and nearly 75 % are single mothers of dependent children. Furthermore, it is estimated that ___% of female prison inmates have a history of being battered or abused before entering the correctional system (CITE). While popular opinion may depict incarcerated mothers as indifferent, neglectful, abusive, and a negative influence on their children, statistics collected by ____ reveal that _____% of female prisoners have committed non-violent crimes in an effort to support their child or children. As these data suggest, many female inmates with children were victims before they became perpetrators of crimes

In their book about the basic structure of academic writing, Graff and Bernstein (2010) suggest that academic argumentation follows a “they say/I say” strategy. For example, when discussing a perennial controversy, a “script” in academic writing might go something such as the following:

A persistent debate in _____ has been _____. Some contend that_____ . From this stance, ______. In the words of a leading advocate of this approach, _____. Others argue that_____. According to this perspective _______. is the major influence. X supports this position when he writes, “ _______. To summarize, the issue is whether ______ or _______.

For more examples of scholarly writing see Clark & Murray (2012). Table 2.2 identifies some of the common phrases that are used when presenting a logical argument.

Table 2.2

Phrases commonly used in scholarly writing

Discussing areas of disagreement

On the one hand…. On the other hand

Some would argue that… Others contend that…. Still others take the position that ….

The argument that _____ is weakened by _______

One persistent debate in _____ is whether _____ or _____ is

While it is true that _____, it could be argued that _____

At first glance, it may appear that_____; on closer inspection, however ______

____ theory emphasizes the role of ____in ______. Conversely, _____ theory emphasizes the role of ____ in ____

Although ______is a widely accepted professional practice, ______ have called into question the …

Acknowledging widely held assumptions

According to conventional wisdom,

Many people assume that…

The prevailing point of view in the field is that____

If ____, then _____

The dominant paradigm in ___ is_____

Combining and synthesizing ideas

Not only…. but also…

Findings concerning _____ have been mixed.

Early research in _____tended to emphasize ______

Many recent studies have suggested that…

While many of these studies have concluded_____, a few have investigated_____ from a ____ point of view

In addition… Furthermore…. Along similar lines…. Likewise …

Supplying examples

Consider the situation in which

For example

A case in point is

One illustration of this

A legal precedent that many _____ professionals in the field are familiar with is ____

Wrapping up the discussion

Thus…

To summarize,

In conclusion,

It follows, then

Consequently

Overall, these findings challenge

Voice in Academic Writing

Professional writing should not be dull, dreary, and dry. It should not imitate the style of the most boring textbook ever published or the most abstruse scholarly publication that was assigned reading during graduate study. Authors would do well to produce “reader friendly scholarly writing” because “The best scholarly writing communicates complex ideas in a straightforward, clear and elegant manner” (Holland & Watson, 2012, p. 14). A major, yet frequently overlooked, task in scholarly writing is acquiring an author’s voice that reflects knowledge of the discursive practices of the academic community (Kamler & Thomson, 2006).

Voice refers to the way we reveal ourselves to others when we write (Natriello, 1996; Richards & Miller, 2005). It is that place where, like a singing voice, you can sing comfortably without straining to hit the high notes or bottoming out on the low notes. Also, like a vocal range for a singer, a writer’s voice can be extended with coaching and practice. Just as singers become more confident, stay on pitch better, develop technique, and acquire performance skills through guided practice with accomplished vocalists, scholars can advance as writers through feedback from published authors. Both for a singing voice and a writer’s voice, no one else can do the work for you; it is something that you need to initiate, sustain, and strive to improve. Both in writing and in singing, however, there is something more. Superlative performance in each realm rests on the power of the performance to engage the audience. “Writing well means engaging the voices of others and letting them in turn engage us” (Graff & Bernstein, 2010, p. xvi). This does not necessitate, however, the use of the first person.

Many a graduate student has written a paper using me/my/I only to have it corrected by the professor. The voice of academic writing versus ordinary writing is as different as a book review published in a professional journal and an elementary school child’s book report. In the first case, the review is based on knowledge of the field and critical assessment; in the second, it is based on personal preferences (e.g., “I liked the book.”). Scholars reduce, address or—at the very least—acknowledge personal biases and avoid parochialism in their work.

Although it is a frequently debated topic, several things are evident about the acceptability of using the first person in scholarly writing.

It is context dependent. Some of those who advocate using “I’ and “me” are from an English literature background in which personal narrative is more highly valued. The best advice is to study the intended outlet for the work and compare/contrast it to the type of material you are seeking to publish. Even within the same publication, the editorial may be written in first person while the articles are not. Shape your writing to the specific context.

It may be status-linked. After scholars are widely known leaders in the field, you may see examples of the first person in their published work. Relative newcomers, however, should be cautious about imitating the most prominent authors in their field. To some extent, freedom to use first person is linked to having “paid your dues” professionally. It may be the case that your personal/professional opinion is sought only after you have demonstrated expertise and wisdom in other venues.

The use of “I” can clutter up writing. First person can make it difficult to share an example without including too much extraneous information. To illustrate, read this cogent example written by Laurie Nicholson:

Yet how does a caring and committed early childhood practitioner negotiate meaningful literacy activities simultaneously with John, who is a native English speaker from a middle class home filled with books; Maya, a recently immigrated Serbian child, whose parents’ English is halting at best; and Trevor, a child who is being raised by his functionally literate grandmother after his mother’s incarceration for drug use? (Jalongo, Fennimore, & Stamp, 2004, p. 64)

If this had been written in first person, it would have been something such as: “When I was teaching preschool in North Carolina, one of my students… and “As a supervisor of student teachers, I observed a child who…” While all of these children represent her actual teaching experiences, the material is condensed considerably by writing for the reader rather than about herself. Strive to “Negotiate a voice that is appropriate to the genre and the situation but also lively, unique, and engaging to readers. Writers can project a strong personal voice without using the first person and they can write in the first person without writing personally” (Lee, 2011, p. 112).

Unpublishable Writing

It is a basic principle of cognitive psychology that, when developing a concept, learners need to see not only examples of the concept but also examples of what the concept is not. These “noninstances” of a concept are important in learning about publishable writing as well. One fear that may lurk in the minds of authors is, “What if my writing is really awful, I don’t know that it is, and others are laughing at me behind my back?” Scholarly authors are in a double bind where writing is concerned because once you depart from the view of writing as a collection of tools and rules. Now, instead of a sprinkling of minor mistakes, it is a downpour of faulty logic. This is even more unnerving.

In self-defense, scholars sometimes adopt a pompous tone, make bold assertions, use as much jargon as possible, or choose words that will send readers to the dictionary. The following excerpt was written by an anonymous professor and published in Macrorie’s (1984) book as an example of what not to do. As you read it, identify the problems in this introduction to a book about the textbook:

Unquestionably the textbook has played a very important role in the development of American schools—and I believe it will continue to play an important role. The need for textbooks has been established through many experiments. It is not necessary to consider these experiments but, in general, they have shown that when instruction without textbooks has been tried by schools, the virtually unanimous result has been to go back to the use of textbooks. I believe too, that there is considerable evidence to indicate that the textbook has been, and is, a major factor in guiding teachers’ instruction and in determining the curriculum. And I don’t think that either role for the textbook is necessarily bad.

What problems did you notice? It is clear that the evidence base is lacking (e.g., there are “many experiments” but they are dismissed; there is “considerable evidence” but nothing is mentioned). Sweeping generalizations are another flaw in this sample with words such as “unquestionably” and “virtually unanimous”. In addition, the voice vacillates; it begins with a pompous tone and concludes with the very informal sentence “And I don’t think that either role for the textbook is necessarily bad.” While it may seem mean-spirited to look at examples of bad writing (including our own), it is worthwhile to collect a few to help ourselves avoid these pitfalls.

The following is another anonymous author, writing about involving young children in organized sports. This is the introduction to the manuscript. How would you characterize the problems here?

By painful experience we have learned that national educational approaches do not suffice to solve the problems of our youth sport programs. Painful and penetrating sports medicine research and keen psychological work have revealed tragic implications for youth sports, producing, on the one hand experiences which have liberated youth from the tedium of the classroom, making childhood fuller and richer.

Yet, on the other hand, such has introduced a grave restlessness into childhood, making youth a slave to the athletic establishment. However, most catastrophic of all, is the created means for the mass destruction of integrative academic and fruitful opportunities of childhood and youth. This, indeed, is a tragedy of overwhelming poignancy—a secular, distorted perspective during the developmental years of childhood and adolescence.

You no doubt noted the sensationalistic language: “tragic”, “grave”, “catastrophic”, “overwhelming”, and “painful and penetrating”. The author is railing against something without supplying evidence. This writing also neglects to consider the readers and their purposes. The manuscript goes on in this way belaboring the problem yet offering no ways of addressing it.

As these examples illustrate, writing to impress can go terribly awry:

The personal can become an emotion-led diatribe—making statements of self and personal views that are unsupported and essentially meaningless to anyone other than the person making them. The formal can be essentially correct but so boring that it is hard to progress beyond the first page, right through to unclear argument and chaotic structure, errors of grammar and word use, unclear ownership and attribution, culminating in a failed attempt to impress. (Lee 2011, p. 106)

Presumably, your writing is much better to start with than either of these examples, so you have risen above terrible writing already. Even if your first draft inexplicably reads somewhat like the examples, you can always make it better by following these guidelines:

Persuade readers that this matters rather than pontificate

Be respectful of readers rather than subjecting them to a harangue

Rely on evidence rather than emotional appeals and sensationalistic prose

Offer a balanced view rather than rail against something in anger or frustration

Go beyond merely identifying or harping on a problem to suggest a course of action

Strive to be informative and helpful rather than treating readers as if they were the enemy

Present possibilities rather than “oversell” your idea as the end-all/be-all solution

To illustrate effective scholarly writing, consider this excerpt from The Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (Reschly & Christenson, 2012):

There are essentially three schools of thought on student engagement: one arising from the dropout prevention theory and intervention area, another from a more general school reform perspective (i.e., National Research Council, 2004), and a third arriving out of the motivational literature (e.g., Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kinderman, 2008; Skinner, Kinderman, & Furrer, 2009). (p. 11)

Note how it synthesizes the literature in a concise fashion and uses the “assert then support” style of logical argument expected in scholarly work. Learning the differences between most papers written in graduate school to fulfill course requirements and publishable manuscripts is a key transition for academic authors, as the next section will explain.

Publishable Scholarly Writing

Saad, an international doctoral student, had experience as a lecturer at a university in Saudi Arabia. During the first class meeting, he explained that he enrolled in the doctoral seminar writing for publication as an elective because, in order to retain his position and advance professionally, he would need to publish “at least a book”. To that end, he worked hard at mastering the style preferred by editors and reviewers for scholarly journals in the United States. As the class came to a close, he confided in the instructor that, in addition to the class assignments, he had revisited and revised two short articles that had been rejected previously. To his surprise, both articles were accepted for publication in respected online journals in his field—an outcome he attributed to learning the “secrets” of writing. In response, Saad’s instructor said, “We have an idiomatic expression in the U.S.—‘There’s a method to my madness’—it means that, although what is being advocated or done may seem strange or counterintuitive, the recommended course of action makes sense and gets the intended result.” There are important distinctions between the typical graduate student paper and a publishable journal article.

To illustrate, journal editors commonly receive batches of manuscripts that obviously were written as a class assignment. Evidently, some misguided (and probably unpublished) professor has decided that this will be the capstone project for a group of graduate students. Unfortunately, they are not publishable because, while they may have been very good student papers, they are not journal articles. There are major differences between the two. So, what changes did Saad make to his articles that converted them from rejections to publications? He transformed them from student papers to articles by attending to the advice in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3

Making the transition from graduate student writing to published writing

Characteristic

Graduate student papers

Published writing

Audience

A professor (or thesis/ dissertation committee) obligated to read and willing to offer guidance

A diverse readership who are free to choose reading material and under no obligation to lend support

Voice

The author’s voice is somewhat obscured by homage to leaders in the field

An authoritative voice that presents a logical argument and advances thinking

Focus

Papers that tackle broad topics rather superficially

A precise focus on dimensions of a topic that can be treated adequately in a short manuscript

Title

A “generic” title that describes a domain of interest

A specific title that conveys not only the content but also the purpose and audience

Organization

Page after page of unbroken text, often loosely organized

Clear organization, signaled by headings, subheadings, and visual materials that guide readers through a logical argument

Format

Beginner’s mistakes in format and referencing style

A manuscript that follows the specific outlet’s requirements to the letter

Readability

“Wastes words” and lacks transitions when shifting topics

Revised until it is concise and flows smoothly from one section to the next

Introductions and conclusions

Absent, formulaic, or repetitive (e.g., an abstract that repeats the introduction)

Carefully crafted like “bookends” that give a satisfying sense of having come full circle

Sources: Jalongo (2002) and Jalongo (2013a, b)

As this figure suggests, there are many substantive differences between homework in graduate school and publishable work. Sometimes, students and faculty are very frustrated by this. “Why didn’t they have me write for publication, right from the start?” or “If I had written all of my class papers that way, I’d have lots of publishable material” are some common complaints. The answer is that the purpose for the writing was quite different. At first, writing is used to demonstrate that you have learned your way around your field. However, when the purpose becomes to make a contribution and advance thinking in the field, the rules change. Accept that “You can’t improve your writing unless you put out words differently from the way you put them out now” and some of these new ways are going to “feel embarrassing, terrible, or frightening.” (Elbow, 1973, p. 79, 80). Unless you have a solid history of successful publication in your field, the type of writing that served you well in the past is no longer good enough and, even if you have experienced success, each new writing challenge requires a readjustment.

Still, it may be possible, during advanced graduate study, to make what is written more like a journal article or book from the beginning (Pollard, 2005). The best course of action is to discuss it with the specific instructor and thesis or dissertation committee. Increasingly, doctoral programs are allowing students to forego the traditional dissertation and to meet that requirement through publication. A doctoral candidate might be permitted, for example, to publish three articles in peer-reviewed outlets as evidence of her or his ability to conduct independent research (Badley, 2009; European University Association, 2005; Francis, Mills, Chapman, & Birks, 2009). Even if this is not an option, professors for graduate courses often are receptive to papers written more in the format of a journal article and preparing an assignment in this way could lead to later collaboration with the instructor as well. The next section describes appropriate uses of others’ work in your writing.

Preventing Plagiarism

Where writing for publication is concerned three main considerations are plagiarism, copyright, and responsible conduct of research. One of the most egregious ethical issues in writing for publication is plagiarism, defined as theft of ideas; the word originates from a Latin verb that means “to kidnap.” The United States Office of Research Integrity (ORI) “considers plagiarism to include be the theft and misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work” (Roig, 2013).

While it is true that scholars, as Sir Isaac Newton noted, “stand on the shoulders of giants” and rely on the work of others, giving appropriate credit to sources is essential. Even graduate students can be unaware of what constitutes plagiarism in the United States or come from a culture with different ideas about intellectual property (Osman-Gani & Poell, 2011). Based on national, longitudinal survey of graduate students (www.​plagiarism.​org) conducted by James McCabe, approximately 24 % of graduate students admitted to paraphrasing/copying a few sentences from an internet source (e.g., Wikipedia) or a print source without referencing it There is an expectation that any ideas that did not originate with you are accompanied by a reference to the source. This pertains, not only to direct quotations, but also to ideas that are paraphrased into your own words.

Online Tools

Learn more about plagiarism and academic integrity at Facts & Stats http://​www.​plagiarism.​org/​resources/​facts-and-stats/​ and the International Center for Academic Integrity http://​www.​academicintegrit​y.​org/​icai/​home.​php

Activity 2.3: Attributing Sources Correctly

Read the following quotation and the excerpts from four student papers that follow. Which are plagiarized? Which are not? Why?

Quotation

Being educated means being skillful with language—able to control language instead of being controlled by it, confident that you can speak or write effectively instead of feeling terrified. When successful people explain how they rose to the top, they often emphasize their skills as communicators … Writing, private or public, … is really about you, about the richness of your life lived in language, about the fullness of your participation in your community and in your culture, about the effectiveness of your efforts to achieve change. The person attuned to the infinite creativity of language leads a richer life. So can you. (Gardner & Barefoot, 2014, p. 175)

Student paper 1

Student paper 2

Student paper 3

Student paper 4

Skill with language, both spoken and written, is one characteristic of an educated person. Many people attribute their success to their skills as communicators

Educated people are skillful communicators. They use their knowledge of language, both spoken and written, to help them in their personal and professional lives (Gardner & Barefoot, 2014)

The term educated, as defined by Gardner and Barefoot (2014), means efficiency in using the communication skills of speaking and writing to foster growth and change in both the public and private sectors of life

One can either control language or be controlled by it. Educated people continually strive to improve their skills as communicators so that they can control language and become more successful at it

If you answered that plagiarism occurs in papers 1 and 4, you were correct. Paper 1 is an example of paraphrasing, of putting someone else’s ideas into your own words. It requires in-text citation, like this: (Gardner & Barefoot, 2014). Why? Because those ideas did not originate with you. Papers 2 and 3 are not plagiarized because both of them cite the source of the ideas in the paper. Paper 4 is even more blatant example of plagiarism because it is even closer to the original quotation than Paper 1. It too could be corrected by simply including the name and date for the source that was used.

Sources: Gardner & Barefoot, 2014; Jalongo, Twiest, & Gerlach, 1999.

Any time that you quote, you’ll need the exact page number. Take the time to put it in when the book is right in front of you rather than waiting until after it was returned to the library or the person who loaned it to you. Any time that the idea did not originate with you—even if you rewrote it into your own words—it still needs a citation. Remember also that you’ll need the inclusive page numbers for journal articles or for chapters in books; the latter can be particularly difficult to track down after the fact.

Scholars sometimes express concern about unintentional plagiarism. In other words, an idea pops into mind and may seem original when actually, it is something they read previously bubbling up to the surface. Careful and appropriate citation is the best solution. As you write, use a clear system of differentiating your thoughts from the ones you have read; for example, you might use the highlighting tool or type, in capital letters MY IDEA:. Notes should be as complete as possible; you need to stop and type in the source as you are working, not expect to return to it much later and keep everything sorted out. Another way to prevent unintentional plagiarism is to avoid procrastinating. Mistakes are more apt to occur if the author is racing to finish the work or taking notes on a large stack of sources all at one sitting.

Table 2.4

Guidelines for avoiding plagiarism

Use the scholar’s tools. Record information from your sources carefully and accurately throughout the process; do not wait until the final proofs to begin checking details. Stop what you are doing and type the information in while you have it in front of you. Otherwise, time can be wasted searching for a lost reference and errors will creep in

Devise a strategy to differentiate. Distinguish your ideas from those taken from outside sources, for example, use the highlighting tool on your ideas. Review any paraphrased or summarized material to make certain that it is either in your own words or that any words and phrases from the original are quoted

Master the basics of referencing style. Do not rely on your memory; learn the basics and look up the rest. You will be using a referencing style for a long, long time so the investment in it will pay off in the long run. Remember that you must supply the page number for any direct quotation

Provide a citation for paraphrased material. Everyone knows to document direct quotations; however, even master’s degree students sometimes do now know that paraphrased material, facts that are open to dispute or are not common knowledge, and other authors’ opinions or conclusions need to be cited, even though they are not direct quotations (Kirszner & Mandell, 2010). Any figures, tables, graphs, and charts taken from a source all require a citation and, if you plan to publish them, you’ll need permission and probably will have to pay to use them

When people deliberately copy (or purchase) someone else’s work and present it as their own, it frequently is an act of desperation. More often than not, they have waited until the last minute and resort to pirating (or purchasing) someone else’s work rather than submitting nothing at all. Most of the time, this breach of academic integrity will be exposed when professors, the, graduate school personnel who approve dissertations, and editors use search engines that will check for similarity between the manuscript submitted and other papers or published sources. One that is used by faculty members, Turnitin (2015), checks student papers against a huge data base of other student papers to identify “highly unoriginal content.” iThenticate (2016) is commonly used by graduate school personnel to check dissertations or publishers to check manuscripts submitted to journals. But, even before these tools were available, well-read faculty members and reviewers of manuscripts often detected the signs of plagiarism, such as a sudden and dramatic improvement in the writing style or the sense that the material was somehow familiar. In any case, the punishments for a documented case of plagiarism typically are severe, such as dismissal from the university for a student or denial of tenure for a faculty member.

Where copyright is concerned, it isn’t strictly the number of words. For example, if an entire scholarly publication hinges on a diagram that explains the theory, that diagram would be protected by copyright because it is the essence of the work. Thus, you must include written permission to use surveys, instruments, tables and figures. Many a textbook author has begun by flagging sections from other books that are already published, assuming that the authors will be eager to have their work recognized in this way. Actually, the author probably does not own the copyright—the publisher does—and payment probably will be required to use the material. Even book publishing contracts frequently contain a “noncompeting works” clause, requiring authors to agree that they will not publish another book on the same topic for a specified period of time. On the other hand, if you present a paper at a conference and it is “published” as an ERIC document, that does not prevent you from pursuing publication because authors do not transfer the copyright; conference proceedings often fall into the same category because they usually are not copyrighted and, if so, a statement noting that the paper was first presented at that conference would be sufficient. Intellectual property is a complicated topic. Practically any question you might have is addressed by the U. S. Copyright Office at http://​www.​copyright.​gov/​help/​faq/​.

Responsible Conduct of Research

Yet another ethical issue in writing has to do with ethical, principled behavior in research. Fundamental to this goal is adherence to the principles of informed consent when working with human subjects and obtaining approval to proceed with the research from an Institutional Review Board. The six basic principles of informed consent are in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5

Six principles of informed consent

Participants have a right to know:

1. The purpose of the data collection

2. Why and how they were selected to participate

3. The time commitment involved should they choose to participate

4. How their data will be handled in terms of confidentiality or anonymity

5. That participation is voluntary and no negative consequences will come to them should they choose not to participate

6. How they can withdraw at any time from the study

Due to concerns about litigation, publishers may require authors to supply evidence that their research went through a human subjects review process. If this is not something that is required or expected in another country, it can become an obstacle to publication. It also is common practice to require authors to disclose any possible conflicts of interest, such as financially benefitting from the article’s publication. For example, if a medical researcher has conducted drug trials, continued major funding for research may hinge on reporting that the medication was highly effective and had few side effects; therefore, this information has to be disclosed (Stichler & Nielsen, 2014). Another type of disclosure required is when the work was supported by a grant. The funding group may require authors to include a disclaimer that the statements made are the authors’ and do not reflect the grantor’s point of view. It is becoming the norm for journals to require authors to verify this information as a condition of publication.

Policies Concerning Simultaneous Submissions

Many scholars are unaware about the rules that govern submitting manuscripts for review. The committees responsible for reviewing conference proposals, for example, may limit the number of proposals on which a presenter’s name can appear. When articles are submitted to professional journals, there also is a prohibition against sending it to more than one outlet simultaneously. The reasons behind both of these policies are easier to understand when you consider that reviewing others’ work is uncompensated service from respected scholars. If an individual “floods” the conference with several proposals or sends the same manuscript to several different possible publications, it is an imposition on the good will and volunteer time of other scholars. Furthermore, if a manuscript is simultaneously submitted to multiple journals and is accepted by more than one, what then? The worst thing to do is allow it to be published twice; that would be embarrassing for the journal editors and a clear case of self-plagiarism. The alternative would be to withdraw the manuscript from one of the outlets that accepted it—another irritating outcome for the reviewers and editor who took the time to read and critique the work. One exception to this policy against simultaneous submission is in the case of pursuing a contract with a commercial publisher. In this situation, it is a for-profit business and the reviewers probably get some form of modest compensation—for example, a free book chosen from the publisher’s current catalog or a small honorarium. Even in this situation, in the interest of fair play, authors should let the publishing company know if they intend to pursue more than one publisher.

Online Tool

Check to see if your institution has a site license with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) http://​www.​citiprogram.​org. If so, complete the Authorship module that discusses ethical issues in intellectual property.

Conclusion

A faculty member was serving on a university-wide committee with the provost. As they waited for the group to assemble, he said “I read your sabbatical leave report and was really impressed. One thing is certain: you know how to get your work published in the journals and books of your field.” Little did the provost know how many failed attempts were piled up in the shadows of those achievements. Nobel laureate physicist, Werner Heisenberg once said that “an expert is a person who knows the worst mistakes that can be made in a field, and how to avoid them.” Ideally, it would not be necessary to commit each of those mistakes and become a better writer through that lowest form of learning, trial and error. Nevertheless, errors and missteps occur along the way. This chapter has discussed many of those errors in scholarly writing and publication as a way to prevent them. Returning to the conversation, the provost remarked on a position paper written for the leading professional association in the field that was one of four finalists for a national award. “How many hours would you estimate that you spent on writing that piece?” he asked. “It’s hard to say,” she replied. “I can remember many, many 4 am to 8 am mornings invested in writing and revising it but did not keep count. There’s also the issue of what counts as time—just thinking about it while doing other things? The trainings I completed for professionals on the topic? The experience of reviewing others’ position papers over the years and writing one previously? It’s hard to sort out, really. But I can remember wondering if anyone would notice how much time I put into it to make the writing flow.” Perhaps this is the single, most important attitude to adopt, one that assumes: “Good writing isn’t forged by magic or hatched out of thin air. Good writing happens when human beings take particular steps to take control of their sentences, to make their words do what they want them to do” (Fletcher, 2000, p. 5).

References

Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor-rated: The Ph.D. by published work. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 331–342.CrossRef

Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices. New York: Routledge.

Boice, R. (1990). Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Bourne, P. E., & Chalupa, L. M. (2006). Ten simple rules for gettin grants. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(2), e12.CrossRef

Casanave, C. P., & Vandrick, S. (Eds.). (2003). Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education. Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the power of the written word. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

Clark, J. L., & Murray, K. E. (2012). Scholarly writing: Ideas, examples, and execution (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Duffy, B. (1998). Supporting creativity and imagination in the early years. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Erkut, E. (2002). Measuring Canadian business school research output and impact. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19(2), 97–123.CrossRef

European University Association. (2005). Doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society: Final report. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

Fletcher, R. (2000). How writers work: Finding a process that works for you. New York: Avon.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.CrossRef

Francis, J., Mills, K., Chapman, Y., & Birks, M. (2009). Doctoral dissertation by publication: Building scholarly capacity whilst advancing new knowledge in the discipline of nursing. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4, 97–106.

Fulwiler, T. (2002). The argument for writing across the curriculum. In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M. Johnson, & M. Kogen (Eds.), Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition (pp. 345–358). New York: Routledge.

Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2014). Your college experience: Strategies for success (11th ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Glaze, L. E., & Herberman, E. J. (2013). Correctional populations in the United States, 2012, Bulletin, NCJ 243936. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

Graff, G., & Bernstein, C. (2010). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

Gray, T., & Birch, J. (2001). Publish don’t perish: A program to help scholars flourish. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty Institutional and Organizational Development, 19, 268–284.

Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 781–786.CrossRef

Holland, K., & Watson, R. (2012). Writing for publication in nursing and healthcare: Getting it right. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef

IThenticate. (2016). iThenticate plagiarism detection software. www.​ithenticate.​com

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013a). Getting on the conference program and writing a practical article: Templates for success. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 13–23.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013b). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., Twiest, M. M., & Gerlach, G. J. (1999). The college learner: Reading, studying, and attaining academic success. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Jalongo, M. R., Fennimore, B. S., & Stamp, L. N. (2004). The acquisition of literacy: Reframing definitions, paradigms, ideologies and practices. In B. Spodek and O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on language policy and literacy instruction in early childhood Education (pp. 57–78). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.

Kirszner, L. G., & Mandell, S. R. (2010). Patterns for college writing: A rhetorical reader. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Lee, A. (2011). Professional practice and doctoral education: Becoming a researcher. In L. Scanlon (Ed.), “Becoming” a professional: An interdisciplinary analysis of professional learning (Vol. 16, pp. 153–169). London: Springer. doi:10.​1007/​978-94-007-1378-9_​8.CrossRef

Macrorie, K. (1984). Searching writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton.

Mallette, L. A. (2006). Publishing rates of graduated education Ph.D. and Ed.D. students: A longitudinal study. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​aabri.​com/​manuscripts/​08106.​pdf

McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(1), 19–35.CrossRef

Natriello, G. (1996). Lessons for young scholars seeking to publish. Teachers College Record, 97(4), 509–517.

Osman-Gani, A. M., & Poell, R. F. (2011). International and cross-cultural issues in scholarly writing. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 262–273). New York: Wiley.

Pollard, R. Q. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 2(2). Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.​ispub.​com/​ostia/​index.​php?​xmlfilepath=​journals/​ijmh/​ front.​xml

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct (pp. 3–19). New York: Springer.

Rhodes, R. (1995). How to write: Advice and reflections. New York: William Morrow.

Richards, P. (2007). Risk. In H. Becker (Ed.), Writing for the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 108–122). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing academic writing in education: Connecting the personal and the professional. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roig, M. (2013). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from https://​ori.​hhs.​gov/​images/​ddblock/​plagiarism.​pdf

Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of high ability. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 765–781.CrossRef

Skinner, E. A., Kinderman, T., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 3493–3525.CrossRef

Stichler, J. F., & Nielsen, P. (2014). Disseminating knowledge and writing for publication. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 7(2), 144–150.CrossRef

Turnitin. (2015). Turnitin for higher education. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​turnitin.​com/​en_​us/​turnitin-for-higher-education

Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2011). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zinsser, W. (2006). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Quill.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_3

3. From Trepidation to a First Draft

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

Many academic authors are hobbled by the fear that they will invest considerable effort in writing only to have it rejected. When expectations are low, motivation to persist at a task drops off and avoidance is a common response. This chapter begins with the primary source of academic writing’s excellence; namely, creativity. Across the disciplines and throughout the world, originality is a highly valued attribute in scholarly writing. This chapter first coaches aspiring and experienced authors in strategies to generate ideas for a manuscript. Next, it offers advice on identifying suitable outlets and getting feedback on writing before it is subjected to formal review. This chapter offers examples of manuscript revision and appropriate responses to manuscript rejection. The chapter is replete with activities that support authors in becoming more productive.

For 30 years, I taught a doctoral seminar called Writing for Professional Publication. In 1994, I posted a copy of my favorite Chronicle of Higher Education cartoon by Vivian Scott Hixson on my bulletin board. It pictures a young student seated across the desk from a haggard, matronly professor. The bright-eyed newcomer inquires, “Do you think I’ll ever be a beautiful writer, like you?” Although the cartoon supplied no answers, my customary answer is “It depends.” The reason that this fundamental question of aspiring authors cannot be answered easily is that academic authorship is more than a wish or a toolkit. Contributing high-quality writing to your field involves complex understandings about scholarly discourse, writing genres, expectations of peers, personal/professional identity, and dedication to the craft. This chapter begins with what we see as foundational to academic authorship: flexible, fluent, original, and effective thinking or creativity. From there, we address major concerns of authors, including: identifying and narrowing a topic, locating suitable outlets, generating a first draft, seeking feedback from others, and coping with rejection.

Creativity and Authorship

In William Golding’s (1974) classic essay, Thinking as a Hobby”, he describes thinkers at the lowest level thinkers as those who “warm their hands at the fires of their prejudices” (p. 10). Thinkers at the middle level as those who are immobilized by indecision and are in suspended animation, waiting for someone to provide the answers. Thinkers at the highest level as those who are willing to strike out in new directions, work at the edge of their competence, and risk disapproval by forging an idea that is uniquely their own. In most conceptualizations of human thought, creativity is the pinnacle (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001).

The theoretical foundation for this book is the triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1988) that includes three components: (1) the creative abilities to generate ideas, (2) the analytical abilities to decide which ideas to pursue, and (3) the practical abilities to implement ideas and persuade others of their value. Scholars’ success with writing for professional publication relies on all three types of intelligence as illustrated in the graphic below (Fig. 3.1).

Fig. 3.1

Sternberg’s triarchic theory of intelligence as it applies to scholarly writing

Activity 3.1: Creativity and Authorship

Apply the triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985) to appraise your strength in each area.

1.

Creative. Are you fluent, meaning that you generate many ideas for projects? Do your colleagues regard you as “an idea person”?

2.

Analytic. Do you colleagues see you as a problem-solver who follows through with ideas?

3.

Practical. Are you capable of influencing others and persuading them of the value of your ideas?

Based on many years of working with students and faculty as they write for publication, five of the most frequently asked questions are:

How do authors get good ideas for manuscripts?

What is a recommended way to identify suitable publishing outlets?

How do I generate a first draft?

Who can lend support as I strive to get published?

If my manuscript was rejected, should I give up or persist?

The remainder of this chapter will address each of these concerns as a way to get things started.

Identifying and Narrowing a Topic

Many times, writers are discouraged by thinking that they have no right to discuss a topic until they are recognized as leading experts in the field. Instead of bemoaning what you cannot do at the moment, think about what it would be possible to do with a concerted effort. A practicing professional who studies the literature may be uniquely qualified to explain the “real world” implications of that research to fellow practitioners. In fact, you may be much better suited to do this than the leading theorist or researcher who may be somewhat distanced from the daily concerns of practitioners.

A place to begin is by reflecting on your strengths. As you decide about topics, some things to consider are (1) relevance (your level of interest), (2) capability (your skill set), and (3) marketability (can this topic lead to a published manuscript?) (Skolits, Brockett, & Hiemstra, 2011). Use Fig. 3.2 to highlight your educational attainment, work experience, current role and interests, and your future aspirations. Usually, something that fits the intersection of the four is a particularly fertile area for generating ideas for scholarly writing projects. If you have published previously, try working backwards to see if the project reflected these strengths. Perhaps, if you abandoned the project, it was a “goodness of fit” issue.

Fig. 3.2

Identifying topics for writing

Many times, beginning writers assume that they should choose a “hot topic” that is being discussed in the literature. Or, they may wonder if it is advisable to wade into a persistent controversy and disagree with a leader in the field as a shortcut to establishing their reputations. Neither of these approaches has much to recommend them. Where the hot topic is concerned, the pace at which writing moves from conceptualization to publication is slow—a book, for example, typically takes 2 or 3 years. By that time, the issue may be tepid or cold. Where the controversy is concerned, authors run the risk of “going unarmed into a battle of wits” because, chances are, a leader in the field has an enviable depth of understanding and facility with debate. Rather than hoping for fame and fortune, aim to make a contribution to your field. To illustrate, Rae Ann Hirsh decided to write about the role of emotions in learning and, for her dissertation study, she observed children who had been identified as having serious reading problems. Based on that shared interest, her advisor invited her to co-author an editorial (Jalongo & Hirsh, 2009) and, based on the success of that writing project, they wrote a book chapter together for an edited book (Jalongo & Hirsh, 2012). Some strategies for identifying topics are in Activity 3.2.

Activity 3.2: Generating Ideas for Manuscripts

Scan the professional journals, book publishers’ catalogs, and publishers’ web sites. For example, there may be a call for papers for a thematic issue published in the journal or an invitation to submit chapters for an edited volume. Authors are sometimes disappointed to discover that something very similar to the article or book they had in mind has been published already. Rather than giving up, think of a different focus.

Attend meetings, professional conferences, talk and listen. Participating in meetings helps to identify topics that are on the minds of fellow professionals. The trends, issues, controversies, and questions discussed can suggest a topic or a focus.

Collaborate with others. Do a Google search of professors and colleagues to see their curriculum vitae and determine if you have shared interests. Faculty members often welcome the opportunity to collaborate with exemplary practitioners and graduate students who are serious scholars.

When first discussing writing topics, it is commonplace for authors to identify broad domains of interest, for instance: college student retention, ethics in nursing, or leadership qualities in higher education administrators. Each one of these topics could be a book or even an encyclopedia. How, then, can the topic be narrowed to make it more manageable? There are several basic ways in Activity 3.3.

Activity 3.3: How to Narrow a Topic

As you read each invented article title below, try “playing with titles” for your manuscript. Strive to make your focus more specific from the very beginning. Some ways to do this include:

By audience—for example, “Presenting Research at a Professional Conference: A Guide for Nurse Practitioners”.

By purpose—for example, “Increasing Retention of College Freshmen: The Role of Peer Tutors in Learning Support Programs”

By strategy—for example, “Using Mind Mapping to Draft a Practical Journal Article in Counseling”

By time—for example, “Research Trends in Bullying Prevention and Interventions, 2005–2015”

By participants—for example, “Sociology Alumni and Satisfaction with Graduate Degree Programs: A National Survey”.

By a unifying feature—for example, “Common Characteristics of Effective Pre-Engineering Programs: A Review of the Literature.”

Note that a colon often is used in the title. This is not just an affectation; it often makes it possible to include more information without adding too many articles, prepositions and other words. Remember that the APA Guide specifies that a title should not exceed 12 words.

Another strategy for narrowing the topic is to identify a suitable outlet early in the process of manuscript development.

Locating Suitable Outlets

The publication of empirical research in a short list of top-tier, peer-reviewed journals is not the only type of scholarly writing that has value. What “counts” as writing at one institution will be dismissed as inconsequential at another. Therefore, each scholar needs to closely analyze expectations for scholarship within his or her workplace. For example, “Research universities require that faculty publish their research in high-impact media, such as SSCI indexed journals or A-rated journals. Often, research has to be empirical to count towards tenure and promotion” (Wang, 2015, p. xxiv). For writers from other types of institutions, expectations may be less clear—and, they may change considerably over the course of a career.

Where promoting professional development is the goal, writing something well is better than writing nothing at all, because it demonstrates effort and builds skills. What is published today in a modest outlet can support success tomorrow in a more competitive outlet. For example, a doctoral candidate and high school mathematics teacher wrote a brief account of a strategy for teaching probability to students that was published her professional association’s newsletter. Afterwards, the editor of the organization’s state journal invited her to write a full-length article on the topic. This too was accepted for publication. Well-written pieces have a way of attracting positive attention and sometimes lead to additional opportunities. It is always encouraging to see that someone else has found your work helpful or to see it cited in another published source.

Authors often are surprised when they are advised to identify outlets in advance of completing the manuscript. However, when groups of journal editors get together, they compare notes and guesstimate that about 20–30 % of what is submitted to their publications is inappropriate for the outlet; these manuscripts are rejected with a form letter and not even sent out for review. Why? Because they are the equivalent of a telephone call that is a “wrong number” and are disconnected as quickly as possible. Authors can significantly increase their chances of acceptance by thoroughly investigating the intended outlets and writing for that specific audience from the beginning. This is much more efficient than preparing the entire work and then searching for publisher. In fact, this is one reason that book publishers do not ask for the entire book before they offer a contract; rather, they typically request two or three sample chapters so that the manuscript can be developed along the lines that will make it most marketable. When a manuscript is a mismatch for an outlet, it is rejected without review. If this happens, the author probably has waited for several weeks, only to get a disappointing result and no direction about ways to improve the work. If, however, the author knows the outlet/audience, studies the guidelines for submission, and prepares the work accordingly, chances for getting a “revise and resubmit” rather than an outright rejection increase considerably. Table 3.1 suggests strategies for analyzing outlets.

Table 3.1

How to analyze outlets

What is the purpose of the publication?

Read the mission statement of the publisher, the “about…” or history section on the homepage. Many publications have a masthead. This word originally referred to the front of the ship that determines the direction of the journey. The masthead for a journal also provides direction; it can be stated as a motto. For example, Childhood Education, published by the Association for Childhood Education International’s masthead reads:

 Bright futures for every child, every nation

Childhood Education, the award-winning, bimonthly journal of the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI), focuses on the learning and well-being of children around the world. Each issue includes articles highlighting various perspectives on innovative classroom practices from around the world; cutting-edge concepts for education delivery; innovative schooling models; child growth and development theory; timely and vital issues affecting education, children, and their families; and research reviews. The journal’s editorial intent is to include a wide distribution of articles from varied countries, and from advocacy- and policy-oriented organizations as well as academic institutions

Who evaluates the manuscripts?

Look at the personnel, variously referred to as the Staff, Editorial Board, Advisory Board, or Publications Committee. What are their institutional affiliations, and roles? Are they practitioners in the field or international researchers, for example?

What types of manuscripts will they consider?

Search online by the journal’s title or the publishing company’s name and read the guidelines for authors. If a journal has regular departments or features, who writes them? For example, do they publish book or media reviews? Are they written by staff members, a Department editor, or do different individuals contribute them? If it is a book publisher, look at their catalog. What are their areas of specialization? Might they be branching out and seeking manuscripts in a different area? Check the publishers’ displays at professional conferences and chat with their sales representatives or acquisitions editor to learn more. Look for one-page “calls for papers” printed in the journals, posted on bulletin boards at conferences, or distributed at the publisher’s booths

What topics have been recently published?

If it is a scholarly book publisher, look for new publications in their catalog or online. For journals, browse through the tables of contents over the past couple of years. Are some or all of the issues thematic (focused on the same topic) or are they multi-topic issues? Is the same individual the editor for every issue, or do they have guest edited issues? Do they have an editorial calendar with copy deadlines for issues or do they review manuscripts at any time?

What writing style and format is preferred?

Examine the formality of the writing in the pieces that are published. What writing techniques, structure, and organization do authors employ? How do the authors make use of headings, figures, tables, charts, and graphs? What is the typical length of the books or articles that this group publishes? Some indicators that the writing is less formal are the use of personal experiences or anecdotes, the personal pronoun I, and photos or advertising in the publication

Which of their publications have been particularly successful?

Refer to the publisher’s website. What were the journal’s top downloaded articles? Which of their articles have earned awards? If it is a scholarly book publisher, search the web or catalog to read comments about their books. The top books often are in the first few pages of the catalog. Which ones have been recognized with awards or earned positive reviews? If it is a college-level textbook publisher, which books have survived beyond a first edition?

What are the submission policies?

Locate the submission guidelines for authors. What referencing style is required? What is the page or word limit for journals or the preferred manuscript length for book publishers? How are manuscripts submitted and to whom?

Whatever you decide to write, ask yourself these questions about places where your manuscript might be published:

Who is my audience?

What is my focus?

Why bring this information and audience together at this time?

How will publication in this outlet help me to accomplish my goals?

Generating a First Draft

A prolific college textbook author was asked how she tackled the task of writing an undergraduate textbook on the topic of human development. “It all starts my basement,” she laughed, “with an old dining room table. I start making one pile for each main topic in the book—my teaching notes, class activities and students’ responses (with signed permission forms to use them), explanations of assignments with scoring rubrics, copies of articles, other textbooks marked with post-it notes, scholarly books—even photographs and newspaper articles. I talk myself into going to that table by telling myself I’m just browsing, sorting or taking notes but this usually leads to writing something because I don’t want to forget anything. The next thing I know, I’ve been writing for an hour or two.”

This approach is consistent with writing experts’ advice to engage in freewriting, defined as writing without attempting to edit at the same time. Freewriting is similar to brainstorming during a discussion; the goal is to generate ideas, not to evaluate them. Through freewriting, you can undo “the ingrained habit of editing at the same time you are trying to produce.” (Elbow, 1973, p. 6)—but you’ll need to write quickly because you have quite a bit of “writing baggage” to jettison before you begin. Start writing immediately and write quickly before these suitcases clog up the carousel of ideas in your mind. Some ways to begin writing immediately are described in Fig. 3.3.

Fig. 3.3

Quickly launching a writing project (Adapted from Stichler & Nielsen, 2014)

One underrated building block for generating a first draft is the ordinary paragraph. Although this structure is taught many times across a school career, many authors do not follow even the most basic structure for a paragraph. They may, for example, emulate the style that they see in novels or the newspaper and write a one-sentence paragraph followed by a paragraph that is nearly two pages long. If the building blocks are flawed in this way, it weakens the foundation of your argument. After you have written some pages, go back through and look at each paragraph. Assess each paragraph with the following questions:

Does it begin with a topic sentence that sets expectations for what is to follow?

Does the middle of the paragraph make an assertion ad support it with evidence from authoritative sources?

Does the paragraph conclude by “wrapping up” the topic and transitioning to the next idea?

Below is an example of a solid paragraph that demonstrates this structure as well as the “assert, then support” style of scholarly writing; the topic is reading readiness. Note how it explains terminology, begins more generally and gradually narrows to the point/thesis, and uses an “assert then support” style:

The preschool period is a time when the environment in which children develop can contribute to large differences in language and literacy skills. Before children can actually read, they generally acquire some sense of the purposes and mechanics of the reading enterprise. For some children, opportunities to learn about reading are many, and for others, they are few (McCormick & Mason, 1986). Those who can identify letters and are familiar with the purpose of print are considered ‘reading ready’ (National Research Council, 1998). Reading readiness at school entry is highly correlated with reading ability in the primary grades (Hammill & McNutt, 1980; Scarborough, 1998). The National Center for Education Statistics recently published the results of a survey of America’s kindergarten class of 1998–1999 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). The survey recorded the number of first-time-to-kindergarten children with literacy skills that are prerequisites to learning to read: knowing that print reads right to left, knowing where to go when a line of print ends, and knowing where the story ends. The results: 37 percent of first-time kindergartners could do all three of these skills, but 18 percent could do none of the three. As they enter kindergarten, 66 percent of children recognize their letters, 29 percent recognize beginning sounds in words, and 17 percent recognize ending sounds (National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, 2001, p. 65).

Even those responsible for teaching writing sometimes fail to follow their own advice. One doctoral student noted that, even though he told his undergraduates to follow the paragraph guidelines at the Purdue OWL site (https://​owl.​english.​purdue.​edu/​owl/​resource/​606/​01/​) he did not do this consistently in his own writing.

Seeking Feedback from Others

There are several points during the development of a manuscript when it is important to get feedback from peers, colleagues, and individuals with experience as reviewers and editors. Figure 3.4 guides authors through the process of inviting others to critique their work.

Fig. 3.4

Soliciting feedback from others on manuscripts

Why Manuscripts Are Rejected

One of the burning questions related to publication is “Why are manuscripts rejected?” or, more specifically, “Why was my manuscript rejected?” The reasons for manuscript rejection are varied. Some of the most common include:

Lack of familiarity with the audience. This is the leading reason for manuscript rejection. For example, an author sent a research article about psycholinguistics with a very complex statistical analysis and excessive jargon to a publication that is mainly for practitioners—definitely a mismatch between manuscript and readership.

Failure to investigate the outlet. Authors sometimes submit manuscripts without ever looking at the articles that have been published in the journal previously in terms of content, writing style, and format. If, for example, the journal just devoted an entire issue to the topic of the author’s paper then it is unlikely that the editor will want to devote even more journal space to that subject.

Resistance to recommendations for revision. The writing needs to be readable and present a logical progression of ideas. Some authors operate under the misconception that the brilliance of their ideas will compensate for poorly written prose.

Disregard for submission guidelines. If the journal sets a page limit of 25, 12-point print pages with everything double spaced, some authors will submit a manuscript in 10-point print with some sections single spaced in the hope that no one will notice. Other format requirements, such as supplying an abstract and key words for indexing purposes often are overlooked. Even if a manuscript is deemed worthy of publication, every time that authors ignore submission guidelines, it slows down the process. In fact, one editor of a journal with an almost 2-year lag time between acceptance and publication of articles sent out a letter to the authors indicating that articles prepared in accordance with the guidelines would be moved to the head of the line.

Insufficient originality/contribution. Reviewers and editors hope to see manuscripts that advance the professional conversation rather than reiterate ideas that are widely understood and available elsewhere in the literature. Although there are timeless messages that bear re-examination, even these manuscripts are expected to demonstrate originality by taking a fresh perspective or attaining a high level of synthesis/evaluation. For example, one editor had received several manuscripts about the “obesity epidemic” in the United States, each of them citing statistics and discussing the problem. It was not until a manuscript that described the characteristics of effective interventions was submitted that it earned acceptance from the editor and reviewers.

Numerous errors. These can range from major conceptual flaws or errors of fact, to grammatical or spelling errors. Each mistake becomes a demerit as peers review the work. Editors sometimes admit to a “three strikes and you’re out” approach because careless errors reflect unfavorably on the author’s scholarship and call into question other issues related to accuracy and attention to detail.

Misunderstanding of the editor’s and reviewers’ roles. Editors and reviewers are gatekeepers in the sense that they make judgments about the quality of each manuscript. When the anonymous peer review system works well, they assess the work that is in front of them without other identifying information about the authors. They function as experts, representatives of the publication, and advocates for the readers. It is not their job to assist faculty who are desperate to get published; rather, their job is to decide whether or not what was submitted is publishable or nearly publishable. For example, a team of international authors, when given the opportunity to revise and resubmit, accused the editor of “educational imperialism.” Yet if these same authors were reviewers of manuscripts submitted to a journal printed in their first language, they would no doubt expect it to be well written and free of errors, even if the authors were writing in their second language. There can be no double standard when it comes to peer review.

The reasons for manuscript rejection are varied (see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2

Common reasons for manuscript rejection

The submission is not within the journal’s scope; for example, a practical article is submitted to a journal that publishes empirical research only

The manuscript obviously was written for another purpose; for example, as a report to the funder for a grant, as a thesis or dissertation, or an in-house “white paper” for a particular university

The material is a rehash of what is widely understood; in other words, it does not offer anything new, advance thinking, or make a contribution to in the field

The type of manuscript is not sought; for example, the manuscript is written as an editorial when only the editor writes them

The manuscript is not a distinct manuscript type (i.e., theoretical, practical, research) and instead is a confusing mixture; for example, a practical article has been written as if it were original research

The writing is not of publishable quality (i.e., poorly organized, poorly written, not prepared in the required referencing style); the revisions required are substantive and would demand too much of the editors’ and reviewers’ time

The manuscript includes major errors; for example, the names of leaders in the field are misspelled, study findings are misinterpreted in the literature review, or guidelines for the ethical treatment of human subjects are in question

The manuscript has many minor errors (i.e., syntax, punctuation, spelling) but they are so numerous that they call into question the author’s credibility

The manuscript does not conform to the format guidelines and the manuscript is prepared in the wrong referencing style (i.e., APA Style instead of Chicago Style or APA 5th Edition rather than APA 6th edition)

Online Tool 

Refer the American Psychological Association’s “Learning APA Style” for free tutorials, examples, and answers to many questions about scholarly writing such as bias-free language, grammar, ethics, the use of headings, how to prepare tables/figures, and more at http://​apastyle.​org/​learn/​

Coping with Rejection

No author relishes receiving a letter that begins “We regret to inform you…” The first step in dealing with rejection is to use it to analyze your writing rather than to criticize yourself. A rejection is not: a personal attack, definitive evidence of editor bias, or verification that you were, indeed, an imposter all along. Authors can be hypersensitive, particularly at first. An established author remembered getting:

very, very negative and somewhat hostile responses from the reviewers. That’s the way I think I viewed it at the time, I actually should go back and probably see if that was really was the case or if I was just incredibly sensitive about it… and what happened was I never resubmitted it. It was a ‘revise and resubmit,’ but I felt overwhelmed and I felt like I couldn’t do anything about it. But I think one of the things that I have learned from that is that you know what, don’t let that happen… put things away for a little bit and come back to them. And then try…to go point by point through the reviewers’ responses and try to take a chance at those things versus saying you can’t do this. (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 76)

The first piece of advice concerning rejection is to try to avoid it. Perhaps the simplest preventative method is to resist the impulse to send it in too soon. What often happens is that scholars feel pressured to get something published and submit a manuscript well before it is a polished, finished project. Authors—particularly those with less experience—need the input of a known audience before they subject a manuscript to an unknown audience. Finding the right people to do this is essential. A manuscript is not improved when someone offers uncritical acceptance of the work. You will need a person who is knowledgeable, candid, respectful, and provides constructive criticism. As professor emeritus of SUNY Buffalo, Jim Hoot, is fond of saying, “Think of criticism as a kindness.” People who can provide constructive criticism are a treasure and, after you find a few you can rely on and learn from, you can reciprocate by helping others.

If it is too late and your work has been rejected already, what should you do? Although it is easier said than done, learn to treat manuscript rejections as a way to begin the process of revision. Each time you learn something about yourself as a writer and how to navigate the world of academic writing. Some strategies that can help you to cope with rejection follow.

1.

Move on. Set a timer and be hurt or angry for five minutes, then use those strong feelings to fuel your positive response. Resist the temptation to bury your work in that mausoleum of rejected manuscripts, the bottom file drawer. Rejection does not mean that your work is irredeemable and unpublishable forever, nor does it mean that all of your time has been wasted. One author had a manuscript rejected twice—mainly because she did not understand the outlets sufficiently well. After revising a third time, she submitted the work to the state-level journal of the most respected organization in her field, received very positive reviews, and finally succeeded in publishing the work.

2.

Make sure you understand the decision. Has the editor given you any encouragement or is this an outright rejection? Make certain that you know whether a resubmission will be considered and, if so, if the manuscript has to go through a full review again. If you received a form letter (e.g., “We wish you success in finding an alternative place of publication for your work”), then the door is shut. Identify another publication with the right audience.

If the rejection was a form letter ask a trustworthy, successful writer to look at the intended outlet and your manuscript and try to determine what might have gone wrong. If you were lucky enough to get detailed feedback from several reviewers, spread out the reviews and make a chart that summarizes the recommendations. Then make a plan for systematically addressing each one before trying again.

3.

Resist the urge to contact the editor. Appeal to the editor only if an error was made (e.g., you received the wrong review). This is not the time to call and argue, ask for another chance, send an irate e-mail, or beg to have something published. So much time goes into editorial decisions that it is rare to get a reversal. Authors sometimes make the mistake of thinking that editors are obligated to make revisions for them or interpret the reviews for them. For example, two of the three reviewers might mention that an article is too long and the author will contact the editor to inquire how, exactly, to condense the work. This is the author’s responsibility. Others cannot decide for you what is most essential because you are the one held accountable for the work.

4.

Rethink the audience or outlet. If the reason for rejection is that the topic has already been addressed extensively in a field, consider changing your audience. You may find that one efficient way to do this it to collaborate with a colleague from another field where these ideas are not as widely understood. For example, an author in Information and Communications Technology was not successful in getting an article on electronic portfolios accepted at first; however, when he collaborated with a colleague from Vocational Education and the concept was presented to that audience, the material was regarded as more innovative and the manuscript was published. Align yourself with others who are engaged in multiple writing projects and who would be willing to invest in a reclamation project with a rejected manuscript. Ask another writer to help you find a home for the manuscript. What may not have worked as a journal article might work very well as a book chapter, and vice versa.

5.

Repurpose the work. If all publication efforts fail, put your work to another use—a conference presentation, a guest lecture in a class, an electronic publication, an ERIC document, an association publication, and so forth. Even if you cannot use the entire work, rip it apart and put it to another use. Perhaps you attempted to write about a broad topic in a short format and that prevented you from being sufficiently thorough. If this is the case, you may want to think about a monograph or book instead of an article. If you now suspect that your idea was too parochial for a national audience, reframe the project for a state or regional audience. Sometimes, editors recognize the potential in a manuscript even if they are not interested in publishing it. If an editor happens to recommend an alternative outlet, be certain to investigate it as a possible place of publication. The commercial publisher Springer Nature, for example, publishes hundreds of scholarly journals. They have a service called SpringerPlus. If an editor receives a manuscript with merit that is not a good match for their journal, they can transfer it to this site and other editors who are seeking manuscripts can contact the author if they are interested in publishing it.

6.

Revisit the work later. Respond to criticism but don’t allow it to shatter your faith in your work. Let the manuscript sit for a little while and allow the sting of rejection to subside a bit. If the work was rejected with a form letter, try to figure out what might have gone wrong—was it a poor match with the outlet? Badly timed? If the work was reviewed, read the reviews more dispassionately this time. Can you see now what you could not see before? Many times, authors realize that what was recommended is not all that formidable. It probably would be less time-consuming to make revisions than to start all over again with a different publication or to abandon the work entirely. Even if the changes requested will require a major investment of time, ask the editor for an extension and make sure that you address each point adequately. Ask a trusted, published colleague to go over the reviews with you to help you arrive at an approach to revising the work. As an absolute last resort, move on to other projects that are more interesting and show greater potential for publication. Activity 3.4 highlights the changes that authors need to make.

Activity 3.4: Key Transitions for Writers

In his study of professors’ writing habits, Boice (1995) identified seven habits associated with scholarly productivity. Rate yourself by responding to each question below. Do you:

1.

prepare thoroughly and work patiently?

2.

write daily instead of in binges?

3.

set manageable writing tasks that can be completed in smaller chunks of time?

4.

know when to quit and return the next day?

5.

switch to related tasks when the writing seems blocked?

6.

find ways to simulate the reading audience for the outlet?

7.

analyze personal work habits and strive to build resilience?

Getting the Writing Started

We recommend starting with something very concise—a one-page overview. That one page could be a mind map, an outline, or an abstract that encapsulates your ideas. The reasoning behind this is that, unlike a full-length manuscript, the time invested is not that great for the author or for the reviewer. If you get feedback early on a project before the manuscript is fully developed, it is easier to make substantive changes as needed. To illustrate, some of the perennial topics proposed by academic authors are such things as arguing that some people are resistant to new technologies, that professionals need to be more reflective, or that the campus culture affects students. While all of these subjects have merit, authors will be challenged to make these very familiar topics new in some way. Such topics have been visited and revisited many times, so it would be counterproductive to attempt yet another general treatment of the topic. Activity 3.5 guides authors and peer reviewers through the process of reviewing an idea for a manuscript.

Activity 3.5: Peer Review Guidelines for a Manuscript Idea

Provide the reviewer with a specific title for the manuscript. Supply a one-page overview of the work. Search the web and publishing directories (usually housed in the reference section of the library) to identify an outlet suited to your level of experience where your work has a reasonable chance of success. In other words, do not begin with the premier journal in your field unless you have already published in less competitive outlets.

Author Submits

1.

General topic and the particular facet of that topic that will be addressed

2.

Audience and intended outlet—copy of guidelines for authors with key information highlighted

3.

An answer to this question: Why bring this information and this audience together? Use relevant citations from the literature need to support each assertion—four to six should be sufficient.

4.

A series of audience-centered questions that will be addressed in the manuscript, arranged in a logical sequence

5.

A clear, concise title (fewer than 12 words) that accurately represents the manuscript’s topic, focus, and audience

Peer Reviewer Questions

1.

Is the topic interesting? Has the author identified a focus that narrows the topic sufficiently to treat it in the type of manuscript proposed (i.e., article, book chapter, monograph, book)?

2.

Is there a definite match between the audience and outlet? Did the author provide a copy of the outlet’s submission guidelines and highlight the relevant information?

3.

Has the author persuaded you that this information is important and of value for the readership of the publication?

4.

Look at the questions to be answered by the manuscript. Do they reflect the audience’s perspective? Are there any questions that you still have as a reviewer of this work? Are there some sources that you would recommend to the author?

5.

Does the title effectively convey the topic, focus and audience? Is it concise and clear?

The strategy of writing just one page can be helpful to writers of dissertations as well. Table 3.3 is a brief practical article that was written for a free online newsletter called The All-But-Dissertation Survival Guide. The purpose of the newsletter is to provide practical coaching to doctoral candidates who are stalled at the dissertation stage.

Table 3.3

Getting the writing going: Advice to authors of dissertations

No matter how brilliant your research idea and no matter how supportive your committee, at some point, you’ll have to generate reams of text in the process of producing a dissertation

That fact can give pause to the most confident writers, daunt those who have any doubts, and immobilize those who feel that writing is their nemesis. What can help you to get moving with writing a dissertation? First, try not to dwell on the magnitude of what has to be accomplished. Promise yourself that you’ll do just one thing. What follows are three steps you can take to counteract writer’s block

1. Write one page. Instead of wallowing in words with your stomach churning, try distilling the essence of your dissertation onto a single page. The one-pager consists of four bulleted lists that answer the following questions:

(a) Purpose: Why conduct this study at this time? What gaps might it fill? What contributions might it make?

(b) Literature Review: What is already known related to the study purpose? What theories and research are pertinent?

(c) Research Questions: What do I really want to know? How I can state this in answerable questions?

(d) Methodology: What types of data will be necessary to answer each question? What methods suit the data?

Gradually, all of the pieces are brought into alignment: the areas of the literature review are connected to research questions, and both the literature review and the research questions are matched to the methodology. This deceptively simple activity addresses a common deterrent to writing: anxiety about the time sink of spewing out page after page of text that eventually ends up in the recycle bin

The one-pager also enables you to visualize connections between and among the pieces of the entire dissertation and helps to avoid writing in circles, overwhelmed by the inevitable information overload. It’s the same mapping approach used by novelists who keep a plot diagram up on the wall to guide their efforts. You are, in effect, sketching out the story for your dissertation

Another advantage of just one page is that you can share it with several others before you invest too much time, or impose too much on theirs. Additionally, you can tinker with the bulleted lists and refine your logic before you settle down to write

2. Write some more. After the one-page exercise, use a graduated challenge approach and begin generating portions of documents. Put each task, however small, on your list of things to do. It might be something relatively simple, such as filling out the cover sheet for the Institutional Review Board proposal. Then it is on to new writing demands, such as pieces of the proposal followed by the dissertation itself, one chapter at a time

In my experience, it is the least successful doctoral advisees who are forever promising that they are going to surprise the chairperson by delivering the entire dissertation to his or her door someday, as if it were a gift. They resist the strong suggestion that submitting one chapter at a time is preferable so that they can get committee feedback along the way

They go for long spells without producing any writing, panic when deadlines loom large, and binge write in response to stress. Although Hollywood depictions of famous authors tend to glamorize binge writing, awaiting the visitation of your Muse has little to do with the data-driven writing produced by scholars that relies on steady, incremental improvements

Long periods of inattention to a dissertation are as deadly to degrees as they are to home maintenance: pretty soon you have a dilapidated structure in danger of collapse. On the other hand, if you invest in the upkeep, both dissertations and houses can stand

3. Expect to rewrite. Many doctoral students get derailed by the first whiff of criticism of their work and set the dissertation aside, assuming that the committee didn’t “like” it. Ironically, part of the problem for ABDs is that they are good students who have, for many years, turned in papers and earned good grades. The dissertation contradicts that prior experience

Begin by abandoning all hopeful dreams about your brilliant words flowing effortlessly from mind to fingertips to keyboard to screen to paper. Abandon also the wishful thinking that your committee will respond to your writing efforts by begging you not to change a word. Distinguished scholars report numerous rewrites and seek colleagues’ criticism of a manuscript before submitting it for publication. Even after all of this, reviewers and editors usually require additional revisions before the work is published. A dissertation is intended to simulate that experience. In fact, one of the dissertation’s important, yet frequently overlooked, goals is to socialize you into the peer review process that is used to write scholarly articles and books and to secure grant funding

Conclusion. Obstacles to writing are like cleaning up a messy garage. You can keep opening the door and slamming it shut, saying, “Oooh, I don’t want to go in there. It looks like too much work.” You can leave it a mess, stumble around, and make excuses for it. You can block out time for a cleaning marathon on your calendar and find so many compelling reasons to reschedule. Or, you can convince yourself to go in and do just one thing, such as clear a space in which your car can fit

If you accomplish just one thing, you’ll probably be encouraged by the success of the small step and stick with it a bit more than you originally anticipated. Even if you do decide to stop there for the day, your next visit won’t be quite so onerous. Likewise, if you accomplish just one small dissertation-related task every few days, you’ll soon accumulate a body of work. This is the surest way to gain some control over the writing process and write your way out of that doctoral degree limbo called the ABD.Reprinted, with permission, from the archives of the All-But-Dissertation Survival Guide www.​abdsurvivalguide​.​com.

Just as successful students figure out what professors and dissertation committees expect, authors who are successful at publishing know what editors want (Benson & Silver, 2013). Table 3.4 offers some suggestions on fashioning a manuscript that is more likely to earn acceptance from reviewers and editors.

Table 3.4

Making your article irresistible to the editor

Define your terminology

When presenting a logical argument, the first step is to clarify terminology. Assume that there could be different understandings, even of words that are in wide use. Do not use Webster’s; use authoritative definitions from specialists in the field

Identify your thesis

No thesis, no article. In an article for publication, you purpose is to present a well-reasoned argument. Every writer approaches a topic from some point of view and has a “take” on the issue. It is not biased to acknowledge this; it is implied anyway. However, it is important to briefly mention opposing views as a way of demonstrating that you have considered them

Do not waste words

Editors call it their “page budget” for a reason—it is spent, just like money. Allowing authors to ramble on reduces the total number of articles or chapters that can be published and the variety of topics that can be treated in a journal or book. Most journal articles are no more than 25 double-spaced, 12 point print pages and that includes all references, tables, figures, diagrams, etc. This would be about 6–8 pages typeset as double columns of print

Begin with abundance

Even though concise articles are preferred, this does not mean that you write exactly 25 pages from the start. Rather, you begin with more text than you’ll eventually publish and, like a large stockpot of soup, “cook it down” to its very essence. Numerous rewrites are the way to “thicken” your article and make it rich with ideas

Pre-review the work

Ask three knowledgeable, tough, and helpful colleagues to read your manuscript before you submit it for anonymous peer review. Analyze/synthesize their comments and revise accordingly

Draw upon experience to include examples

Publishable pieces do not only tell, they also show. It is difficult to read something that speaks only in general terms. We need specifics to connect with information. Examples in manuscripts should be: your own (rather than borrowed from someone else), powerful, and concise. Even a quantitative research article can benefit from an example that shows the people behind the statistics

Review beyond search engine results

Anyone can perform an online search using the obvious key words. Serious scholars delve into the literature in related fields and review books as well as online resources. Do not rely heavily on textbooks; they are considered to be secondary sources because they are someone else’s interpretation of theory and research. To make your review even more interesting, take off your disciplinary blinders and search the topic in other, related fields

Synthesize the literature

Anyone can summarize, study by study; this is (bad) dissertation style. You need to organize the research into themes or strands rather than splice others’ ideas together. In an article for publication, list only those references that were cited in text, not everything that you read

Produce a tightly organized piece

New academic authors are accustomed to writing papers for classes; these assignments rarely have an introduction or conclusion that is suitable for a publishable article. They also tend to be rather loosely organized, do not use headings, and do not include visual material (i.e., charts, tables, graphs, diagrams). Instead of reverting to the style of a class paper, replicate what you see when you study the format of what has been published in a journal or book

Edit line by line

“Each sentence should lead to the next and grow out of the last sentence of the previous paragraph” (Zinsser, 2001, p. 267). Too many short sentences in a row feel like machine gun fire while too many long sentences in a row cause readers’ attention to wane. Vary sentence length. Vary sentence patterns as well. For example, don’t begin several sentences with the same word or use the same structure. Be certain that every sentence is a complete thought. Try reading your work out loud to hear the cadence and flow

Use specific headings

Unless it is a quantitative research article with the customary headings (see Chap.​ 7), write headings that are specific to your topic. Avoid headings that are too general (e.g., History) and make them signposts for the building blocks of your argument. Not only do headings assist while you are writing and trying to categorize your ideas, they also notify readers of a change in direction. Use headings while writing to help you cluster your ideas when writing and then go back to revise them so that they are consistent in structure—for instance, make each heading begin with an –ing verb

Activity 3.6: Interview with a Published Author

Identify a colleague who has successfully published a manuscript recently. Interview the author in person, by telephone, or online with questions such as: How did you get the idea for this work? Did you collaborate with others? What process did you use to choose an outlet? What were the most challenging aspects of getting it published? What surprised you the most? In future, will you pursue this topic further or move in a different direction? Is there any advice you can offer to others seeking to publish?

How do we learn as authors and get smarter about achieving success with a manuscript? One very important way is to confront your fears and dreams, head on. For example, think about the worst/best scenarios. Suppose you are writing a grant. What’s the worst thing that can happen? It’s probably some version of “I don’t get the grant, I need to find another funding source, or I repurpose this work to achieve a different goal.” What’s the best thing that can happen? “I get the grant, but it’s a ton of extra work and there’s no release time attached; however, it may earn me a sabbatical leave when I’m ready to publish the research.” Confronting the worst outcomes and envisioning the best ones helps to let go of the self-doubt lurking in the background. Still, you need to protect yourself from becoming completely demoralized by failure or burned out by boredom. A balance of comparatively low risk of failure and high risk of failure ventures helps to counteract this. Every scholar has some tasks that he or she feels confident in pursuing while other tasks are somewhat more or much more difficult. If you never venture beyond the things that you already do well, such as teaching a particular course or making presentations at the state-level conference, there is no opportunity to push the boundaries and grow professionally. On the other hand, if you choose only those tasks that represent a very high risk of failure and many of them do not work out, your confidence could erode. You have to take care of yourself by making a conscious effort to balance risks and rewards. You also need to approach writing, not as a miserable undertaking but as a way to help you become a clearer, better thinker. Activity 3.7 suggests some ways to accomplish this.

Activity 3.7: Writing as Learning

There are at least six basic mechanisms for getting smarter gleaned from neuroscience (Jensen, 2006). As you read each one, apply it to scholarly writing.

1.

Attentional mindset. In order to attain higher levels of proficiency with a task, the mind must pay fixed attention rather than being allowed to wander. What practical steps can you take to maintain your focus during writing sessions?

2.

Low to moderate stress. The ideal mental state for learning has been described as “relaxed alertness”. What changes can you make in when, where, and how you write that will help to reduce stress?

3.

Coherent, meaningful tasks. Optimizing the learning requires that the task be neither too easy (boredom sets in) or too difficult (frustration occurs) (Cszikzentmihalyi, 2008). How can you structure writing to focus on goals at the right level of difficulty so that you will commit to the task?

4.

Massed practice and repetition of the task. Acquiring proficiency with a complex task typically requires a 30–90 min per day commitment three to five times per week (Jensen, 2006). How can you implement this with writing?

5.

Learner-controlled feedback. Negative feedback (e.g., a rejection letter) can cause learners to become irritated and distressed. This tends to reduce motivation and persistence (Jensen, 2006). What strategies have you learned from this book that will give you more control over feedback?

6.

Overnight rest between learning sessions. It appears that “learning is consolidated, organized, and distributed to various areas of the brain for long-term storage” as we sleep (Jensen, 2006, p. 73). How can you take advantage of this “sleep on it” phenomenon as an author?

Online Tool 

Refer to Caine’s Brain/Mind Principles of Natural Learning at http://​www.​cainelearning.​com/​brain-mind-principles/​ as a resource for improving writing.

Conclusion

When academic authors first begin attempting to publish their work, much of it may be rejected, not because it is irredeemably flawed but because they are uniformed or misinformed about the process of writing for scholarly publication. A prolific and widely published author once joked that, during his first 3 years as a university faculty member, it would have been possible to cover the walls of his office with rejection letters from publishers. After decades of reading, reviewing, writing, and editing, the outcomes are much better and he now jokes that he is “overbooked,” meaning that he has multiple book contracts at any given time. Knowing more about publishing will not make writing for publication easy, guarantee that work is always accepted, or even ensure that everything published is of consistent quality. It is, however, a way to increase chances for success as well as develop a more positive outlook on your responsibility to contribute to your field through published scholarly writing.

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Benson, P. J., & Silver, S. C. (2013). What editors want: An author’s guide to scientific journal publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper/Perennial.

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hammill, D. D., & McNutt, G. (1980). Language abilities and reading: A review of the literature on their relationship. The Elementary School Journal, 80, 269–277.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013a). Getting on the conference program and writing a practical article: Templates for success. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 13–23.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013b). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., & Hirsh, R. A. (2009). Understanding reading anxiety: New insights from neuroscience. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(6), 431–435. [Editorial].CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., & Hirsh, R. A. (2012). Reconceptualizing creative thought processes in young children: An integrative review of the research. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on creativity in early childhood. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jensen, E. (2006). Enriching the brain: How to maximize every learner’s potential. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCormick, C., & Mason, J. M. (1986). Use of little books at home: A minimal intervention strategy that fosters early reading. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 388. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & J. Caputo (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​haskins.​yale.​edu/​Reprints/​HL1071.​pdf

Skolits, G. J., Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (2011). Publishing in peer-reviewed and nonrefereed journals: Processes, strategies, and tips. In T. S. Rocco, T. Hatcher, & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), Handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 13–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking.

Stichler, J. F., & Nielsen, P. (2014). Disseminating knowledge and writing for publication. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 7(2), 144–150.CrossRef

Wang, V. C. X. (2015). Handbook of research on scholarly publishing and research methods. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Part II
Conference Proposals and Article Types

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_4

4. From Attending to Presenting at Conferences

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

This chapter will guide the reader through the process of proposing a presentation at a major professional conference. An orientation to the different venues and categories of presentations is included. This chapter offers step-by-step instructions for generating a conference proposal as well as helpful templates for drafting a brief description of a conference session, a schedule for a workshop session, and a structure for conference proposal. The chapter concludes with a strategy for converting a successful conference presentation into a professional journal article.

A new doctoral student is waiting outside a faculty member’s office for an individual appointment to discuss a class assignment. As she stands in the hallway, she notices a bulletin board and announcements about several different professional meetings; a few of them are calls for proposals to make presentations. Later that week, a professor who is on the planning committee for a regional conference invites doctoral students to serve as volunteer peer reviewers of conference proposals. He suggests that, this year, the doctoral students gain practice in assessing the proposals using a rubric and next year, they will have some insider’s knowledge about how to prepare conference proposals of their own. Table 4.1 highlights the general criteria that they will use to evaluate conference proposals.

Table 4.1

General evaluation criteria for conference proposals

Does the proposal conform to the guidelines? Too often, conference proposals are prepared in haste and are disqualified from review because the authors failed to follow the rules. Always read the guidelines multiple times to ensure the proposal’s compliance with the entry rules

Is the session appropriate for the venue? There should be a clear match between what has been proposed, the overall mission of the organization, the category of presentation, and the specific conference theme

Is the proposal representative of effective scholarly writing? Proposals that are not well written do not bode well for an effective session. Awkwardly worded sentences, disorganized thinking, and careless mistakes will get the proposal rejected

Does the proposal have a clear focus? It is unrealistic to assume that a broad topic can be adequately addressed in a brief session. Conference presentations need a clear focus and an emphasis on what attendees would gain from investing their time in a particular session

Does the presentation hold promise for advancing thinking in the field? One major motivation for attending conferences is to update knowledge and skills. Proposals that seem dated in topic or in resources tend to be rejected

Does the proposal reflect audience awareness? Sessions that demonstrate a sincere desire to share expertise and information with fellow professionals in a respectful way are likely to be welcomed

At first, the students question their authority to judge others’ conference proposals. Submitting proposals themselves also seems out of reach; however, a look at last year’s conference program indicates that their institution is well represented by doctoral candidates and faculty. Most of the presentations are collaborative, so a discussion ensues about working with mentors and peers to fashion a successful conference proposal and ways to make an effective presentation. With guidance and support, practically all of the doctoral candidates emerge from their doctoral programs with several conference presentations on their curriculum vitae.

As this situation illustrates, writing in order to make a presentation at a professional conference frequently is one of the first scholarly achievements of graduate students. At the other end of the experiential spectrum, the most widely published researchers and well-known scholars frequently are the keynote presenters at major conferences. For scholars at all stages in between, the professional conference is a major venue for sharing expertise, disseminating research, and networking with peers.

About Professional Conferences

The professional conference has certain characteristics that distinguish it from other types of gatherings. It provides a forum for deliberating and discussing topics of interest to a group of professionals with specialized expertise. Those topics typically include such things as recent trends, issues, and controversies; advances in practice, research, and technology; and matters pertinent to the sponsoring organization, such as policies affecting the group and the status of the profession. Usually, the sponsors of professional conferences are learned societies, professional organizations, government-affiliated groups, and higher education institutions or research centers. The types of professional conferences range from local to national and international meetings. General content of the conferences may be focused exclusively on research, practitioner oriented, or a combination of the two. Large meetings typically offer many different sessions presented by various speakers on different topics that are scheduled during the same time slot. The format of the sessions varies as well. It may be a formal speech, a workshop, panel discussion, debate, round table, collection of posters in an exhibit hall, a virtual presentation on screen, or an all-day institute. Large conferences also may have a career/job search and interview activities for members of a professional association or offer trainings on gaining accreditation for higher education programs. Leading professional societies in the field often sponsor meetings. Typically there is a conference planning committee to manage the event in relation to sending out a call for proposals, abstracts, and/or papers; reviewing the submissions and notifying the proposers of the decisions rendered; generating a schedule of events that will be published in the conference program; and evaluating the success of the meeting. Prospective presenters can learn about opportunities to present at conferences, both large and small, on the sponsoring organization’s website, calendar, and journal. Calls for proposals and papers include detailed information about what the organization is seeking, the format requirements, and the procedure for submitting abstracts, proposals or papers. Typically, these submissions for major conferences are submitted online.

For researchers, presenting at conferences is an efficient and exciting forum in which researchers can share their research and findings. Researchers use academic conferences as the major social arena to discuss their work. Successful conference presentations are an opportunity for researchers to communicate their research, receive feedback from others working in the same area, establish research/writing teams, and build a network of fellow professionals with specialized expertise (Jalongo & Machado, 2015).

Five Steps from Presentation to Publication

Although professional conference presentations play a role in tenure, promotion, and other types of evaluations of faculty members, many people learn how to write conference proposals primarily through trial and error. Others have the advantage of support from an experienced, successful presenter to orient them to the process, collaborate with them, and/or supply them with examples to follow. Still others approach making presentations as they would conducting a review of the literature; they search for published resources that will provide them with guidance on how to get on the conference program and ways to be more effective when they actually lead a session.

Rowley (2012) offers a five-step sequence for transitioning from a conference presentation to a published article as depicted in Fig. 4.1.

Fig. 4.1

Five steps from a conference proposal to a publication

Locating Suitable Venues for Making Presentations

When seeking an outlet for a session presentation, there are several strategies for identifying possible groups and meetings.

Identify suitable content. Read the call for proposals very carefully to determine if the topic and approach that you have in mind suits the venue. For example, if a meeting for a group of counselors has the theme of family-centered practices, any session proposed needs to mesh with this goal. It is a mistake to expect that you can “recycle” a conference proposal—even if it was successful with another organization and different theme—and get a positive response. Be aware also that, for faculty members, committee members who review scholarly activity will look askance at curriculum vitae that list the same specific topic repeatedly.

Conduct a search. Begin with the professional organizations in which you hold membership. If you are relatively new to the field, talk with accomplished faculty members about the organizations in which they are active members or officers. Visit the websites and journals of leading professional associations to view a calendar of their national, regional, state, and local meetings. Graduate students should check the postings in their academic departments because calls for conference proposals frequently are shared in this informal way. While you are attending a conference 1 year, plan for the next. Usually, there are bulletin boards or tables with information at these events to advertise other professional meetings, so be certain to peruse those materials. The October issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education publishes a list of many of the major conferences as well.

Go to the next level. From a professional development perspective, it is good to “stretch” and try to advance to the next level. So, after being accepted for a local conference is no longer a challenge, consider submitting a proposal at the state or regional level and, after presentations at the state and regional level are easy to accomplish, try for a national or international venue. At first, it might be necessary to “oversample” a bit and submit several conference proposals in the hopes of getting a few accepted. Eventually, most professionals reach a point where nearly every conference proposal that they submit gets accepted and the time, energy, and money invested in making conference presentations is too much of a drain on resources. Faculty members seldom are fully funded for travel to professional conferences by their employers and usually, only the invited keynote speakers have their expenses paid by the group sponsoring the event. If getting on the conference program is relatively easy, it may be time to redirect some of that effort toward research and writing.

As a first step in considering the writing tasks associated with making conference presentations, prospective presenters need to think about how the participants in their sessions will benefit beyond acquiring authoritative information—as important as that is. Given that travel is expensive and information is easy to access, interactivity is the main thing that makes attendance at a conference superior to simply staying at home and reading about a topic. The appeal of the conference is face-to-face interaction that enables participants to:

Acquire new or improve existing professional skills

Get feedback on a strategy, project or research

Gain opportunities to network with other presenters, researchers, and authors (Galer-Unti & Tappe, 2009).

Whatever type of session you propose, be certain to consider ways to engage the audience.

Activity 4.1: Analyzing the Call for Conference Proposals

Look online and review the guidelines for submitting a conference proposal to a leading a professional organization in your field. What is the deadline? Who is the audience? What are the various types of session formats possible (e.g., institutes, seminars, workshops, panel discussions, virtual presentations)? Is there a conference theme? What is the process for submitting a proposal? How will the proposal be assessed and by whom? When will proposers be notified of the decision?

Scholars may wonder about the relative status of various having a conference proposal accepted for various venues. Some considerations are:

What is the group’s reputation/visibility in the field? If it is the premier organization in the field, then the competition for the available presentation slots is apt to be more intense.

How much writing is required? For a less competitive/local conference, all that may be required is a brief description for the conference program. This obviously is less prestigious than a conference that requires a detailed proposal or a paper.

How are decisions rendered? The highest level of rigor is when conference proposals are independently reviewed by two to three peers using a set of criteria and the feedback from those reviews is shared with the proposer. For other, less competitive, conferences a selection committee may make the decision and no formal review process exists.

Unlike journals, the acceptance rate for conference proposals may not be public information. For less prestigious groups and smaller conferences, it may be the case that nearly all of the proposals are accepted in the interest of boosting attendance and generating revenues from conference fees. This might be particularly true with organizations that herald their meetings as international when the event is a study tour in disguise. Some ways to gain insight into the acceptance rates would be: (1) read the calls for papers to determine if the organization shares this information, (2) serve on the conference planning committee to gain insight about the process, and (3) engage in discussions with disciplinary colleagues about their own experience and that of others with acceptance/rejection of proposals. All of this helps to gauge the selectivity of the process. There are many different types of professional writing associated with proposing a conference session; they are discussed in the remainder of the chapter.

Writing the Title and Abstract

When you write a title for a conference session think, first and foremost, about setting attendees’ expectations appropriately. The title should capture the essence of the session and attract the participants who stand to benefit the most. For example, I presented a session called “Writing the Practical Journal Article: A Workshop for Aspiring Authors”. This title made it clear the session was designed for less experienced academic authors (i.e., aspiring), that it would not focus on reporting research (i.e., practical journal article), and that it would be more interactive (i.e., workshop). As a result, nearly all of the participants were doctoral students and new higher education faculty members—exactly what I was seeking. In some ways, conference session titles are like billboards at the side of the road in that they need to catch the reader’s attention, and convey information in just a few words. Session titles should represent “truth in advertising” to avoid disappointment among prospective participants.

A good way to begin with writing the title for your session is by referring to a copy of a conference program from the previous year in hard copy or online. This will provide some sense of an appropriate title. In general, some guidelines are:

Consider the audience and meeting theme

Stress benefits and results

Identify concerns, issues, trends

Match carefully to your content

Stimulate interest

Make the session purpose clear

Motivate attendance

Avoid being cute, inventing forced acronyms, or generating cryptic titles that confuse the reader

Most major conferences publish a brief statement about the session suitable for publication in the program. This might be called a session description, brief description, or abstract. As with the title, these short pieces of writing need to be very carefully crafted and may take a surprising amount of time to write.

Activity 4.2: Session Descriptions in the Conference Program

Look online or browse through the print conference program of a professional organization. What do you notice about the session titles? What was the word limit on the abstracts? Now search, not based on content that interests you, but on how well written the titles and short descriptions are. Locate three good examples of session titles and descriptions to serve as examples for a session you would like to propose.

In many cases, the brief description or abstract will be a major determinant of the outcomes of a scholar’s effort to have a proposal accepted. Although it is a short piece of writing, it is important to craft the brief description carefully. First of all, if it is confusing or poorly written, the entire proposal is likely to be rejected. Second, the brief description is what appears in the conference program, so any flaws will be exceedingly public. Many times, a place to begin with presenting at professional conferences is the workshop that will be attended by practitioners as a form of professional development. Those who are new to making conference presentations may find the workshop less intimidating than presenting original research, for example. Use the information in Activity 4.3 to compose a brief description of a professional workshop.

Activity 4.3: “Formula” for a Brief Description of a Workshop

Try this strategy for drafting a session description: (1) Opening statement—Write a somewhat general (and fairly indisputable) statement about the situation; (2) Approach—your “take” on the issue, the focus/purpose, (3) Benefits—What will attendees do besides sit and listen? Begin each item in the list with a verb; list 3 or 4 main outcomes, (4) Resources—what will they will receive? (e.g., an annotated list of websites, a checklist, a synthesis of the research).

Writing the Proposal

The great majority of major professional conferences require a proposal of some type. These proposals can range from an outline to a complete, 20-page paper, so you will need to determine what type of presentation would best suit your skill level and match the material you intend to share. After you have made those decisions, you will be ready to write your conference proposal.

Table 4.2 highlights some categories of conference sessions and what is typically required. Different types of sessions make different writing demands on the proposers, so choose a format that is matched to your interests and level of skill.

Table 4.2

Writing demands of different types of conference presentations

Type of session

Definition

Writing Tasks for presenters

Resources

Keynote address

A speech delivered by an outstanding speaker to the general group of participants in a conference; usually these are 1–1.5 h in length. Keynoters often are selected on the basis of instant name recognition, reputation for engaging large audiences and ability to set the tone for the event

Although a written manuscript is not required, most keynoters do prepare a script for the speech. Many professional speakers also create a “mind map” that is a diagram of the speech so that they do not need to read or memorize the speech

For the basics: http://​www.​ehow.​com/​how_​4966252_​write-keynote-speech.​html

Tips on keynote speeches at: http://​www.​speaking-tips.​com/​Articles/​Making-Your-First-Keynote-Speech.​aspx

Garmston (2005)

Paper presentations

A written paper—either brief or full length—that is presented by the author. These may be clustered together thematically with each author allocated a short time (e.g., 10–20 min) to present key points. A moderator may coordinate the session and a respondent may recap/highlight future trends

Papers must be submitted in advance so that others have time to read them prior to the meeting. Some conferences will publish abbreviated papers, selected papers, or all of the papers delivered at the conference as a book of conference proceedings. Authors need to follow the specific format for publishing proceedings as well as the style guide exactly (e.g., APA, MLA). Typically, papers are not copyrighted, so authors are free to pursue publication in a peer-reviewed outlet

For a template to write microarticle. see: http://​fr.​slideshare.​net/​lichtfouse/​micro-arten

Panel discussion

A small group of professionals design a collaborative presentation that would be of interest to the conference participants. They may discuss different aspects of a timely topic, debate different perspectives on the subject, or explore an emerging or persistent issue. Each presenter has a clear role and time limitation

Each conference’s call for papers specifies what is required in the proposal and for particular session formats. Although it may not be required, a minute-by-minute schedule and group rehearsal are essential to the smooth functioning of the session

Galer-Unti and Tappe (2009)

For the basics, see http://​www.​wikihow.​com/​Conduct-a-Panel-Discussion; for more subtle considerations, see: http://​www.​scottkirsner.​com/​panels.​htm

Workshop

A session with a professional development emphasis that builds new skills through active participation and enhances the effectiveness of practitioners. Most commonly, the workshop is 60 min; however, there may be other, longer formats ranging from 3 h to a full day (e.g., a preconference institute). Usually, there are many of these sessions running concurrently at a large conference

Conference selection committees have guidelines for the proposal. Often, participant-centered outcomes and an overview of the interactive activities are required. Presenters of workshops usually prepare a packet of materials to distribute to participants that includes objectives, a schedule, activities, examples, online resources and references

Jalongo (2013a, b), Happell (2009), and Rogochewski (2001)

Roundtables

A collection of individual presenters is seated, literally, at round tables. The goal is to facilitate informal interaction with others interested in their projects or research. Presenters of roundtables are required to be stationed at their post throughout the time period specified in the conference program

Usually, presenters are required to submit a one-page overview of their project or research suitable for distribution to interested participants. The evaluative questions for each type of research in the chapters of this book can be used to prepare this manuscript

American Evaluation Association http://​www.​eval.​org/​p/​cm/​ld/​fid=​171

Poster presentations

Literally, these are posters that highlight the key components of a study. Usually, they are displayed in a large conference hall. Presenters remain positioned next to their posters throughout the designated time to respond to questions and discuss their with conference participants who stop by

Typically, presenters use a tri-fold display and are required to produce a professional-quality visual depiction of their research in a poster format that conforms to the specific guidelines of the sponsoring organization. Some conferences also require a one-page handout so that interested participants can take away a copy of the findings

Miller and Bloustein (2007)

University of Wisconsin http://​www.​uwex.​edu/​ces/​tobaccoeval/​pdf/​postertips.​pdf

Virtual presentation or Webinar

A presentation that uses technology so that the presenter can participate from a remote site. It may be prerecorded or broadcast in real time. The major advantage is that the time and expense of travel is overcome. This may be particularly important for an international conference

Presenters rely on many of the same tools that they would use in person, such as PowerPoint slides, video clips, and so forth. At the conference site, registered participants can view the presentation on screen or register for the session and view it on screen at a different time

Tips on structuring a Webinar at http://​www.​speakingaboutpre​senting.​com/​content/​webinar-questions-answered/​

See also: http://​elearningindustr​y.​com/​14-tips-to-create-and-present-a-highly-effective-webinar

For examples of book authors’ PowerPoints, visit www.​edweb.​net

Workshops are a way to contribute to the professional development of practitioners. Before you can write an excellent conference proposal for a workshop, you need to plan the entire session and all of the activities in it. It will be important to apportion your time—usually not more than 1 h—in the most effective way. Carter and Carter (2000) offer the following sample structure for a 1-h workshop.

Welcome, introductions, overview (5–10 min.)

Opening activity to reflect on topic (10 min.)

Presentation of core ideas (10–15 min.)

Practice applying ideas (15–20 min.)

Next steps and follow-up (5–10 min).

Summary and evaluation (5 min.)

If co-presenting, make a schedule that indicates who is responsible for each part.

Activity 4.4: Planning a Workshop

Using the time allocations outlined above, make a plan for a 1-h workshop session. It should include: a minute-by-minute schedule of activities, a way to immediately capture audience interest, a list of outcomes for participants (each should begin with an action verb), various activities (e.g., individual, small group, total group), and a description of the teaching materials and handouts for the participants. For more detailed information, see Jalongo (2013a, b).

Online Tool

The Writing Studio of Colorado State University explains the basics of preparing poster sessions. http://​writing.​colostate.​edu/​guides/​pdfs/​guide78.​pdf

Guidelines for writing proposals for other types of sessions are in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3

Guidelines for writing conference proposals

If the session is primarily for practitioners, it should focus on what they will gain from participating. If the abstract is for research, it should describe original findings that are worth sharing and were not presented previously

If you are not the sole presenter, you must contact everyone and get their permission before submitting a conference proposal. Check and double check how others want their names, titles, and institutional affiliations to appear in the program if the session is accepted. Errors with any of this are very troublesome

When composing the proposal, consider such things as: the organization’s mission, the conference theme (if applicable), the goals of the prospective participants, and the expectations of the reviewers. If there is a scoring rubric or a set of criteria for evaluation, study it carefully while developing the proposal and refer to it again after the proposal is written

Check the submission deadlines, format requirements, and word count restrictions before you begin writing. Brief descriptions and abstracts that do not conform to the group’s requirements are routinely rejected

Make the purpose of the session clear and generate interest in the session. If submitting a very brief research abstract, consider this “formula”: allocate about one sentence to background and use the remaining words to establish the purpose of the study, its methods, results, and conclusions/contributions/implications. For longer research abstracts, apportion the sections accordingly

Do not “overpromise”—for instance, it is implausible that participants will master technology in an hour or that the results of a single study will dramatically change the field

Ask a respected, experienced colleague to read and critique the proposal well before the deadline and revise accordingly. If you are inexperienced with proposal writing, seek the opinion of two or three colleagues

Follow the organization’s directions very carefully; failure to do this undermines credibility of the presenter. To avoid technology glitches, plan to submit your proposal electronically at least 24 h prior to the deadline. These sites can become overloaded shortly before the submission deadline and may malfunction

Do not make the mistake of thinking that you can quickly compose your proposal in the online boxes for proposal submissions. It is better to create a Word document apart from the conference site to avoid losing your work. After it is thoroughly refined, cut and paste it into the form

Proofread carefully—not only for errors and content but also for flow (Andrade, 2011; Daniels, 2013; Jalongo & Machado, 2015; Rowley, 2012; Russell & Ponferrada, 2012; Tappe & Galer-Unti, 2009)

Online Tool

For advice on making various types of conference presentations, refer to Nancy Karlin’s page at http://​www.​kon.​org/​karlin.​html

Distributing Materials to Session Participants

Irrespective of the particular type of session, participants frequently expect to have something tangible to carry away. For a person delivering a keynote address, that might consist of a one-page list of publications with a link to the PowerPoint presentation or key talking points at the conference website. Increasingly, presenters are using a QR code to save paper and make sure that any participant has access to their materials. For the uninitiated, the QR is the little box with black marks inside, such as those that appear on the back of a print catalog; it stores information similar to barcodes that are scanned at the grocery store checkout. For those presenting a research poster, the QR might lead to an image of the poster as well as a one-page description of the study. For a researcher delivering a paper, it might be the research abstract, a list of talking points, a short paper, or a link to the complete paper—depending upon what the conference planners require or recommend. Practical, workshop types of sessions tend to include the most in terms of material distributed to the participants, such as activities, case studies, and annotated lists of print and online resources. Table 4.4 offers general recommendations on preparing handouts.

Table 4.4

Advice on handouts

1. Be selective. Do not assume that you can duplicate articles or pages from books without permission; many publications are copyright protected—including your own. If you signed a copyright transfer agreement for a manuscript that you published, you will need to request permission to use it

2. Synthesize. It is far better to combine the best elements from a number of different resources and “make it your own”. For example, a table that highlights key research findings and has a reference list attached is more helpful than complete copies of articles. Not only does it save on paper, it also allows you to travel light. Do not assume that the conference planners will make copies for you; this usually is the presenter’s responsibility and can become quite expensive

3. Be precise. Scholars will expect you to provide the complete reference when you cite others’ work. Make sure that you cite the name and date for paraphrased material and the exact page number for direct quotations. For popular quotations, do a search online to find an authoritative source for the original quotation. Proofread very carefully; any errors will be pointed out to you and the person whose name you spelled incorrectly may be attending your session

4. Be inventive. Instead of simply delivering the message or falling back on audience brainstorming, try something more engaging. For a workshop, you might, for example, begin with a “quiz” that addresses several major misconceptions about your topic (and the evidence to support each answer) as a way of addressing them early on. For part of a dinner speech, I once created a readers’ theater script about a current controversy for members of the audience perform; this held the group’s interest better than a speech delivered at the end of full workday and after a big meal. If you are doing a workshop or webinar and want to use examples, anecdotes, or case studies, draw upon your own experience and write your own (while maintaining confidentiality) instead of using previously published ones. This not only demonstrates your expertise but also avoids sharing something that may be familiar to some members of the audience already

5. Make it manageable. A half-day or all-day session will require quite a bit of material. However, you’ll want to consider the best way to distribute materials. If you create a packet with the entire session and hand it out at the start of the session, some attendees may browse through everything quickly and become bored later on. On the other hand, if you stop to distribute each piece of paper separately, it can interrupt the flow of the session. Creating some clusters of material strikes a balance between these two extremes. At times, it may not be necessary for everyone to have a paper copy of something. Just say that you are “going green” and, for example, put the instructions for a small group activity up on the screen instead. Be sure to number the pages for ease of reference

6. Follow up. If a session is more popular than anticipated and you run out of materials, either give attendees a way to contact you or create a sign-up sheet. Send the material out to them promptly after the conference. The QR code, described above, can be particularly helpful in this instance

Writing and Presenting a Conference Paper

Even if a conference does not require the submission of the full paper, many academic authors choose to write one anyway to serve as a guide for their presentation (Happell, 2009). In some instances, paper presentations are selected to be published as conference proceedings. These papers may be a synopsis that is three to five pages or a full-length paper. In most cases, these papers are peer reviewed in advance of the meeting so it is very important to meet the deadlines in order to give others the opportunity to complete their reviews. If, for example, a research paper has been clustered into a small group by the conference planning committee, a chair or discussant will need to read all of the papers prior to the event. Many times, four presenters will have just 10 min apiece to share the highlights of their research with the remaining 20 min for discussion and questions. It is very important that everyone adhere to the time limits; otherwise, a person who traveled to the conference may not have a chance to speak at all (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5

General guidelines for presenting a conference paper

1. If at all possible, check in early and pick up your presenter’s packet. Often there is a separate line at the registration desk for presenters. Some conferences will not allow you to enter the presenters’ area without your conference badge

2. Give a paper when you have something to say and can make a commitment to producing the paper on the timeline and in the format required of the specific conference

3. Instead of trying to “cover” everything, pull out key talking points. Those who want more detail can contact you. Practice your presentation not only for substance but also for style and adherence to the time limit

4. Most audiences have a low tolerance for papers read aloud. They will appreciate it if you speak directly to them rather than relying heavily on written text. Stand up to speak and move about the room somewhat rather than sit motionless—unless it is clear that you are expected to remain seated

5. Adhere to the specified time limit out of courtesy to other presenters and participants

6. Be enthusiastic and enjoy the attention given to your work

7. Be sure of the time, day and room assignment of your presentation—last-minute changes are sometimes made to the program

8. Double check the amount of time you have to speak and locate the room where your session is scheduled in advance

9. Do not put all of your spoken text on PowerPoint slides: this makes the presenter redundant. Text on a PowerPoint slide should be legible to the audience; this means at least 24-point print and not more than about 6 points per slide

10. Locate your room and double-check all AV equipment before your session begins

11. Learn to field questions expertly

12. Remember that participants are mainly interested in your findings and the implications; allocate the most time to that (Garaffa & Brians, 2011; Hardicre, Coad, & Devitt, 2007)

Preparing a Speech or Keynote Address

As a professional in the field, you may be invited to give a speech. This might occur early in your career when, for example, the local chapter of a professional organization invites you to speak at a dinner meeting. It might occur much later in your career after you are a well-established author, such as when the professional organization’s state or regional conference planning committee is seeking a speaker who can travel to the site. Keynote addresses at major conferences typically are reserved for scholars who are widely known and highly respected in their fields. In every case, a speech is very different from the other types of writing tasks associated with professional meetings for several reasons. First of all, speeches at conferences tend to be delivered to larger groups with fewer expectations for interaction. Secondly, speeches often have the purpose of stimulating thinking and generating enthusiasm for the meeting rather than training (as in the case of a workshop) or making an original contribution (as in the case of research). Many times, authors are invited to deliver a speech based on a successful book. This task poses the same major challenge as generating a brief research article from a 300-page dissertation; namely, distilling the message to its very essence.

If you are invited to give a speech, start by making a study of effective public speaking. Some resources to support you include:

Vital Speeches of the Day—This publication is the actual script of effective speeches that have been delivered to various audiences. You can access their archives through a university’s online search engines and use them to understand key elements of public speaking.

TED Talks and TED X Talks—Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) has a wide assortment of expertly-delivered speeches available on YouTube. They demonstrate how to identify a central message, sustain audience interest, and incorporate examples. To build your confidence, read Chris Anderson’s How to Give a Killer Presentation: Lessons from TED at https://​hbr.​org/​2013/​06/​how-to-give-a-killer-presentation/​ published in the June 2013 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Recorded speeches from the discipline—At least some of the keynote speakers at prior meetings of your professional organizations may have been video recorded, so viewing some particularly effective ones can be helpful. At times, the text of a keynote speech will be published as an article in the professional journal, so this is another way to get a glimpse of how highly effective speeches are structured.

Talk with program planners—Be sure to inquire about the best speeches that were delivered to the group in the past. The better that you understand your audience, the more likely you are to produce an effective speech.

Publications on effective speaking—consult general references on public speaking (e.g., Russell and Munter, 2014; Sprague, Stuart and Bodary, 2015; Verderber, Sellnow and Verderber, 2014) as well as resources that focus specifically on presenting at professional conferences (Jalongo & Machado, 2015).

Reflecting on Outcomes

When a conference session is well received, it can be exhilarating. It is a form of validation because fellow professionals with no vested interest in your or your work are favorably impressed. However, there are instances in which the audience response is less than enthusiastic; for example, a discussant may be critical of the conceptual framework for a study or questions from the audience during a workshop may be difficult to answer. In either case, making an oral presentation can improve a written manuscript on the same topic in many ways. This can occur only if presenters are:

Accepting of different perspectives. In the spirit of professional dialogue, unanimity is not the goal. Accept that it is possible to respectfully disagree without defensiveness or rancor.

Humble about their contributions. No one designs a flawless study or makes a perfect presentation. A single study seldom revolutionizes thinking in a field; this requires an accumulation of evidence from many studies. Therefore, presenters openly acknowledge the limitations of their work.

Willing to rethink. Presenters need to be willing to modify their stance when presented with compelling counterarguments. If the situation warrants it, it may be necessary to go “back to the drawing board.” When someone suggests revisions, it is important to think it over rather than becoming confrontational or deflated.

These same attitudes serve authors well as they strive to publish work that is based on a conference presentation because they characterize the peer review process. A team of five researchers, for example, submitted an article to a highly respected journal after presenting their research at a conference. One of them wanted to write a rebuttal of sorts, disagreeing with nearly every point that was raised by the three independent reviewers. Another who had many years of experience as a journal editor took a very different approach; she assumed that “none of us is as smart as all of us” and recommended that they make any and all changes unless they really could not “live with them”. In one case, there was a recommendation that the team did not comply but, instead of being indignant, the rationale for that decision was explained—and the editor accepted that departure from the reviewers’ advice. Criticism of scholarly work needs to be carefully considered rather than rejected in a show of ego. Many times, thoughtful critique from others prevents us from making an embarrassing mistake.

Generating Publications from Presentations

Two recently hired professors who are colleagues at the same university have been working on a research project for almost 2 years. After they share their ideas in a 15-min research panel, a journal editor stays afterwards to share his business card and suggest that they submit an article to the publication. They are flattered and excited at the prospect of taking their work to a wider audience; they also are uncertain about how to proceed. No formal paper was required to present at the conference, so they would be starting at the very beginning where writing research is concerned. One of the professors thinks that they should seize upon the opportunity and quickly submit a paper to the journal while the other thinks that they should make contact with the editor but proceed more slowly and carefully to give themselves the best chance for a successful outcome. During the trip home, they begin discussing what they will need to do to convert their oral presentation into a publishable manuscript. As a shorthand way of organizing their thinking, they make a list of positives and negatives. On the plus side, they list:

The most time-consuming tasks––conceptualizing the study, gathering the data, and analyzing the data––are already complete

The talking points for the session have organized the material into the main categories of a research article

More experienced peers have already responded to favourably to the work

The comments and questions from a real, live audience have highlighted some areas that could be clarified or strengthened

On the minus side, they list:

It may be difficult to convey the information concisely and effectively in written form

The prospect of submitting the work to anonymous peer review is daunting

The learning curve will be steep due to lack of prior experience with writing a research article

Both have heavy teaching loads and other professional responsibilities, so it will be difficult to find time to work on the article

They have very different writing styles and aren’t sure how to blend them seamlessly

Clearly, these presenters are not the first to face this challenge. Fortunately, in addition to this book, there are many publications that offer guidance on transforming a conference session into a publication (Happell, 2008; Huff, 2009; Joubert and Cronje, 2003; Steefel, 2014). Where research papers are concerned, Chap.​ 7, 8, and 9 of this book suggest ways to structure presentations that will lead to publication and the chapters on quantitative and qualitative research offer also templates that can be used to generate a first draft.

Online Tool

Review Texas Tech University’s guidelines for Writing Research Papers and Posters at: http://​www.​tltc.​ttu.​edu/​teach/​TLTC%20​Teaching%20​Resources/​PresentingConfer​encePapersAndPos​tersInTheHumanit​ies.​asp

The main consideration is to, from the very start, organize the presentation in the structure of a research paper. It also is helpful to conduct a search, not only on similar content, but also on similar method. For example, if you have conducted focus group interviews, find several excellent examples of published focus group research. Study how the authors explained the methods and procedures section before attempting to write this yourself. In many ways, it is like the artist who imitates the masters as a form of practice. One resource for drafting a research paper that our students have found particularly helpful is Creswell and Plano’s (2004) “scripts”. Their structure for drafting the purpose statement is:

The purpose of this qualitative [insert type, e.g., grounded theory, case study, focus group interview] study is to______(understand, describe, develop, discover) the ________(central focus) for_______(participants: person, process, groups) at ______________(site).

Suggestions on various ways that a conference presentation can lead to a publication are offered in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6

Conference presentations matched to types of publications

Type of conference session

Publication opportunities

Workshop, training or webinar

To publish a brief explanation a particular strategy, look into the newsletters of the organization, their informational brochures, and journal articles. For a more thorough treatment of the subject investigate books for practitioners published by commercial publishers (e.g., Scarecrow Press for librarians) or by published by professional associations as a service to their members

Report on a model program

Publishable articles about model programs are highly innovative, housed in a premier institution of higher education, and/or affiliated with a prominent researcher in the field. If your project does not meet these criteria, “flip” it. Instead of a detailed report on the local initiative, conduct a thorough review of the literature on other successful programs of this type to produce a theoretical/review article or practical article. Then use the local initiative as just one example. If the program has greater visibility and a wider audience, pursue publication with a scholarly publisher or university press

All-day or multiple-day institute for professionals

Investigate publishers of training materials and resources for professionals in your field. If the material is aligned with content that is taught in college-level coursework, consider a commercial publisher

Panel discussion, debate, or roundtables

Contact the editor and publishers of edited book series as a possible outlet for the work of various presenters unified by a theme. A theoretical/review type of journal article could emanate from the work as well; for instance, a “point/counterpoint” article could be based on a debate. Chapters in an edited book are another possible publication outlet for such material.

Research poster

Many organizations publish brief reports of research and a well-written poster results in an outline for a short contribution. In addition to features within a national journal, such as “Research in Brief” type of columns, the poster may lend itself to publication in one of the association’s print or online newsletters or in a state or regional publication of the group

Research paper

The research paper might be publishable with the professional organization as conference proceedings, a peer-reviewed journal article, as a monograph (short book), or a book that would be of interest to the membership. Commercial publishers often publish monographs that have are of general interest to the international community of scholars, such as SpringerBriefs. Scholarly publishers may be interested if the authors have considerable prestige and visibility. University presses may be an outlet for the work if it is consistent with their mission

Keynote address

Develop the text of the speech to publish as conference proceedings, a journal article, as the basis for a book proposal, or as the introductory chapter for a book that you would edit

Ethical Issues in Conference Presentations

Presenters at professional conferences need to make ethical decisions that show respect for the time, money, and effort of fellow professionals. To illustrate, a doctoral candidate traveled to a national conference with the goal of attending sessions related to her dissertation. However, when she arrived at the first session, the presenter began by asking everyone to arrange their chairs in a circle. He then indicated that he had left the university (and grant project) and had not completed the research that was described in the conference program. He then said, “I’m sure that all of you have expertise on the subject, so let’s just brainstorm together for the next 55 minutes”. As you might predict, quite a few members of the group exited the session immediately. Several marched down to the conference headquarters table to fill out an evaluation form or register their complaints with the conference planners. Situations such as this one are inexcusable. The ethical decision would have been to cancel, well in advance of the publication of the conference program. It is unfair to professional colleagues to be completely unprepared to fulfill the promise of the session description but attend anyway, just to add a line to the curriculum vitae. Likewise, it is not ethical for a “big name” professor to include his/her name on many conference programs and multiple sessions that are conducted by graduate students. If a name is on the session, that person should be in attendance unless there is some sort of emergency. It is fraudulent to do otherwise. The conference planners have every right to expect that all persons listed as presenters are, indeed, acting in good faith with every intention of participating.

Ethical considerations also apply to the review of other scholars’ conference proposals. It is important to provide helpful critique rather than to get frustrated when a proposal is flawed. As a general guideline, reviewers should not put anything in writing that they would not say to that person if he or she were sitting there. Anonymous peer review is not a license to be rude or hostile. When writing reviews, be certain to mention what was done well as well as what needs to be improved. Strive to be helpful, remembering that you were not always this well-informed about how to write a proposal and no doubt committed some beginner’s mistakes yourself. Think about what you hope for when your work is reviewed: not only some general comments, but also remarks about the details. This lets you know that your work was reviewed in a thoughtful and well-balanced fashion, rather than given a cursory glance. Another mistake in reviewing is to presume that you need to agree wholeheartedly with the proposal in order to think it is worth sharing. This occurs when, for example, a qualitative researcher is more critical of quantitative research or vice versa. It might also occur when reviewers give a proposal a more positive evaluation, however flawed, because the proposers are from their native country or other group to which they belong. Reviewers need to bear in mind that quality criteria, rather than personal affiliations and professional biases, are the basis for assessment of conference proposals.

Conclusion

There is extensive, cross-disciplinary research to support the assertion that only about 8–10 % of the conference presentations are published as research in peer-reviewed outlets (Joubert and Cronje, 2003; Richling et al., 2014). Given that insufficient time is cited as a major reason for generating few publications, it makes sense for scholars to capitalize on the time already invested in a successful conference presentations and generate publications from them. Rather than allow the positive energy of a highly effective conference session with peers to dissipate and let the data get stale, make a plan for pursuing publication. Figure out the kind and amount of support you will need and start assembling it as, even as you make the trip back home. In fact, gaining insight into what you need in order to progress professionally is a key to success as a scholar. It is this metacognitive approach—the ability to “think about your own thinking”—that holds the greatest promise for improving outcomes. Unlike some jobs, scholars’ careers can be surprisingly long. If you get very comfortable and confident about making conference presentations that surely is to your credit; however, it becomes important to raise expectations for yourself periodically in order to avoid stagnation. The worst in our profession deteriorate into the deadwood of an academic department. They contribute little to their chosen fields, drone on from yellowed lecture notes, suffer from pervasive ennui, fail to engage their students, and have a litany of complaints about their colleagues and institutions. The best way to counteract this decline is to keep intellectual stimulation high and to continually pursue projects that generate enthusiasm and interest. At its very essence, professional development consists of growth and change in positive, hoped-for directions. Pursuing publication based on presentations—a task that so many scholars evidently neglect to complete––is one way to accomplish this.

References

Andrade, C. (2011). How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(2), 172–175.CrossRef

Carter, M., & Carter, D. (2000). Training teachers: A harvest of theory and practice. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Creswell, J., & Plano, V. (2004). Roundtable on qualitative research (PowerPoint slides). http://​www.​andrews.​edu/​leaderpart/​RoundTable/​2004/​workshops/​2b/​AU-Qual-071504-jwc-vpc.​pdf

Daniels, G. (2013). How to get your abstract accepted and how to present it. ISBT Science Series, 9(1), 51–55. doi:10.​1111/​voxs.​12069.CrossRef

Galer-Unti, R. A., & Tappe, M. K. (2009). Demystifying the abstract submission and conference presentation process. Health Educator, 41(2), 64–67.

Garaffa, T., & Brians, C. L. (2011). Two views of a conference presentation: An undergraduate’s first research conference experience. Journal of Political Science Education, 7(2), 240–242. doi:10.​1080/​15512169.​2011.​564910.CrossRef

Garmston, R. (2005). The presenter’s field book (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Happell, B. (2008). From conference presentation to publication: A guide. Nurse Researcher, 15(2), 40–48.CrossRef

Happell, B. (2009). Presenting with precision: Preparing and delivering a polished conference presentation. Nurse Researcher, 16(3), 45–46.CrossRef

Hardicre, J., Coad, J., & Devitt, P. (2007). Ten steps to successful conference presentations. British Journal of Nursing, 16(7), 402–404.CrossRef

Huff, A. S. (2009). Designing research for publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013a). Getting on the conference program and writing a practical article: Templates for success. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 13–23.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013b). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., & Machado, C. (2015). Making effective conference presentations: A guide for graduate students and professors. New York: SpringerBriefs.

Joubert, G., & Cronje, H. S. (2003). From a research presentation to a publication. SAMJ, 94(12), 965–966. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from http://​www.​samj.​org.​za/​index.​php/​samj/​article/​viewFile/​2825/​2026

Miller, J. E., & Bloustein, E. J. (2007). Developing conference presentations: A primer for new library professionals. Partnership, 6(2), 1–6.

Richling, S. M., Rapp, J. T., Funk, J. A., D’Agostini, J., Garrido, N., & Moreno, V. (2014). Low publication rate of 2005 conference presentations: Implications for practitioners serving individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 2744–2751.CrossRef

Rogochewski, T. L. (2001). Developing conference presentations: A primer for new library professionals. Partnership, 6(2), 1–6.

Rowley, J. (2012). Six steps to successful academic conference presentations. Marketing Review, 12(4), 437–450. doi:10.​1362/​146934712X135461​96910891.CrossRef

Russell, C. L., & Ponferrada, L. (2012). How to develop and outstanding conference research abstract. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 39(4), 307–342.

Russell, L., & Munter, M. M. (2014). Guide to presentations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Sprague, J., Stuart, D., & Bodary, D. (2015). The speaker’s handbook (11th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Steefel, L. (2014). From presentation or school assignment to published article. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 293–306). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau.

Tappe, M. K., & Galer-Unti, R. A. (2009). Health educators’ role in promoting health literacy. Technology, 35(6), 813–827.

Verderber, R., Sellnow, D., & Verderber, K. (2014). The challenge of effective speaking in a digital age. Boston: Cengage Learning.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_5

5. From a Class Paper to a Publishable Review

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

One criticism of dissertations is that they often take a “listing” approach to reviewing the literature rather than synthesizing the research to produce a conceptual landscape of the field. This chapter addresses the most common misconception about the work of reviewing: that a graduate student “already knows” how to do this by virtue of having written papers as class assignments. It begins with various purposes for literature reviews and distinctive types of reviews (e.g., integrative, systematic, meta-analytic, and qualitative/interpretive). It then examines a developmental sequence for reviewing and common characteristics of high-quality, publishable literature reviews. A wide variety of activities are incorporated to build the writer’s confidence and skill in reviewing the literature. This chapter takes the stance that, commencing with graduate studies, students should strive to generate a literature review with publication potential. The chapter concludes with a type of literature review that well-established scholars might pursue, the position paper.

Note: Portions of this chapter were excerpted, with permission, from “What is a Theoretical Base and How Can It Help You Write a Dissertation? “Bidding Adieu to Chapter 2” published in the All-But-Dissertation Survival Guide on July 29, 2011 “The Literature Review: Avoid the Pitfalls and Make it a Project!,” April 12, 2012

During my doctoral studies, I decided to minor as research, not because I was a statistical genius, but because I could do simple math. In looking over the curriculum, everyone was required to take three, 3-credit research courses and those 9 credits counted toward the 15 credits necessary for a minor. Thus, minoring in research enabled me to finish sooner. In order to get through those two advanced research courses, I was a frequent visitor to the Research Lab, a student support service staffed by statistics majors/graduate assistants. After our doctoral exams, I was astounded to discover that some of these brilliant students had failed. One of the questions on the exam on research and evaluation did not rely on statistics. Instead, we were required to respond to the assertion that, if a body of research is very inconsistent, we might as well rely on anecdotal impressions and opinions. It was the absence of one, right answer and the expository writing demands that had unnerved two of the Research Lab students. Finally, I was in the position of being able to reciprocate and help them with writing after they had been so helpful to me with statistics. The challenges they faced in answering that unexpected exam question were similar to the ones they would face in writing the first two chapters of the dissertation—namely, they would need to attain a high level of synthesis/evaluation, rely on evidence from the literature to support their claims, and present a logical argument in words rather than numbers. What makes these tasks so problematic? Perhaps the first hurdle is underestimating what is expected.

Commencing in secondary school, many students are called upon to write what is loosely described as the “research paper”. These manuscripts typically are produced by reading a handful of sources and building a paper around them. They frequently dwell in the shadowlands of intellectual property—ranging from outright plagiarism to barely paraphrased. By the time that most students finish a master’s degree, they have amassed quite a bit of experience with reviewing the literature. What they may fail to realize—at least, at first—is that the level of review required for these tasks and the level of review required to be publishable are as different as making a cake by following the directions on the box and creating beautifully decorated wedding cake. In the first case, producing a reasonably palatable outcome is well within the capabilities of an ordinary person while, in the second case, only a skilled baker could achieve the result. Many academic authors presume that that they are expert reviewers of the literature when they are not. This chapter will define the literature review, suggest a developmental sequence in acquiring the skills of reviewing, explore the different purposes for reviewing, provide guidelines for conducting a review, and coach authors in making their literature reviews of publishable quality. As an initial step in thinking about the literature review, respond to the questions in Activity 5.1. If you have completed your dissertation, go through the questions from the perspective of mentoring a doctoral candidate. Research suggests that advisers felt the least qualified to assist students with Chap.​ 2 (Zaphorozhetz, 1987), and these items can assist with identifying common misconceptions about the literature review among doctoral students.

Activity 5.1: Rethinking the Literature Review

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using the Likert scale below.

1.

The primary purpose of conducting a literature review as required in Chap.​ 2 of the dissertation is to locate authoritative sources of support for your research.

2.

The hallmark of a high-quality Chap.​ 2 is reporting on as many sources as possible.

3.

When conducting a review, the author is obligated to consult the primary sources rather than use secondary sources (e.g., “as cited in”).

4.

Doctoral students have extensive experience reviewing the literature; therefore, Chap.​ 2 usually is the easiest chapter to write.

5.

Upon successful defense of the dissertation, Chap.​ 2 is essentially ready to publish as a review of the literature article for a professional journal.

6.

Chapter 2 of the dissertation requires numerous headings and subheadings to guide the reader through the logical thought process of the author.

7.

Literature reviews can have very different purposes and audiences.

ANSWERS

1.

At times, those new to reviewing tend to be drawn to those sources that complement their point of view. However, in the interest of providing a balanced review, both studies that support and refute findings need to be included. Readers fully anticipate that dissenting opinions exist, so it does not weaken your argument to address positions that are in opposition to your own. Although it isn’t necessary to belabor those studies, you should at least mention them and explain why your position differs.

2.

While a sufficient quantity of research needs to be reviewed an exhaustive review of every possible publication is not necessary or appropriate. Sources need to be authoritative; in other words, theories, research, and professional wisdom that have been subjected to peer review and published in widely respected outlets (Ngai & Wat, 2002). Revie are selective, not in the sense of being biased, but in the sense of preferring high-quality sources.

3.

Many times, something is “lost in translation” and secondary sources can introduce errors into a review. To the greatest extent possible, authors need to go to the original rather than accept someone else’s accuracy in getting a direct quotation right or another person’s interpretation of the research.

4.

Actually, Chap.​ 2 often is the most difficult to write because students become overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task. Zaporozhetz (1987) found that dissertation advisors tended to assume that their advisees had doctoral-level reviewing skills when this was not always the case. Advisors also admitted to being poorly equipped to deal with flawed reviews of the literature and knowing how to guide students in revising them.

5.

An ordinary Chap.​ 2 tends to be unpublishable because it takes a “this study found this, this study found that” approach. Publishable reviews have to go beyond a mere retrospective to synthesize and critically reappraise the scholarly work published thus far on a particular topic (Cooper, 1998; Mertler & Charles, 2005). Literature reviews written as assignment or thesis also have a different audience and purpose than published reviews.

6.

Prior to writing Chap.​ 2, most students have limited experience with headings, much less subheadings; however, headings are important when presenting a logical progression of ideas and helping the reader to navigate through the material. Writers of dissertations sometimes think that they will save time if they wait to prepare a table of contents; this is a mistake. They should develop the table of contents concurrently with the chapters and share it with the committee so that they can preview the chapters before reading a lengthy document.

7.

There are many distinctive types of literature reviews, as this chapter will describe. Some of them rely on statistical analysis (e.g., a meta-analytic review) while others are more sharply focused on addressing a problem (e.g., a best evidence synthesis).

Understanding Literature Reviews

A literature review is “a narrative essay that integrates, synthesizes, and critiques the important thinking and research on a particular topic” (Merriam, 2009, p. 55). Inexperienced writers of literature reviews frequently are surprised by this definition; they definitely do not produce literature reviews that tell the story of a body of research, tend to list the sources rather than synthesize them, and definitely have not presumed to point out the flaws in others’ research (Holbrook, Bourke, Fairbairn, & Lovat, 2007).

In academic contexts, the characteristics of a high-quality literature review are

Breadth of resources in the discipline and related disciplines

Depth of the literature review that includes historical and theoretical works and quality of sources

Currency as shown through recent scholarly citations

Relevancy as demonstrated through a cohesive argument

Rigor and consistency in appraising and reporting others’ work

Clarity and brevity in writing

Critical analysis of sources cited

Synthesis of related material into clusters and themes (Hart, 2009; Jalongo & Heider, 2014; Tunon & Brydges, 2006)

Online Tool

Check out the Adelphi University Libraries tutorial, Conducting a Literature Review in Education and the Social Sciences http://​libraries.​adelphi.​edu/​research/​tutorials/​EdLitReview/​.

A fundamental understanding about reviewing the literature is that it is not something to check off a “to do” list that can be dashed off to schedule in a simple, linear fashion. First of all, the most successful literature reviews tend to emanate from not only delving deeper but also by digging in a different place—in other fields and disciplines. Interdisciplinary approaches help to generate something new out of available and stored information and yield new insights—the very definition of creativity. Second, it is not possible at the outset to know where the data will lead. In order to arrive at conclusions and recommendations, the researchers need to comment on how their research departs from or confirms previous work—and this cannot be done if there are holes in the existing literature review. In fact, as a study develops, it is not uncommon for dissertation committees to suggest other areas of research that ought to be added to Chap.​ 2. Third, some doctoral candidates make the mistake of ignoring the literature review after it has received preliminary approval from their dissertation committees. Doing this not only may cause the writer to overlook the very latest research findings but also results in failing to refine the work until the writing flows. Even more sophisticated skills than those developed during a master’s degree or a doctoral program usually are necessary in order to produce a publishable review of the literature (Holdstein & Aquiline, 2014).

Online Tool

Try this tool to help organize a review: Notar, C. E. & Cole, V. (2010). Literature review organizer. International Journal of Education, 2(2), E2. www.​macrothink.​org/​journal/​index.​php/​ije/​article/​view/​319.

Purposes for a Literature Review

The general purposes of a literature review are to: describe, summarize, evaluate, clarify and synthesize (Cooper, 1988). The literature review “creates a firm foundation for advancing knowledge. It facilitates theory development, closes areas where a plethora of research exists, and uncovers areas where research is needed” (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. 13).

Table 5.1 describes the many different purposes that a literature review can serve.

Table 5.1

Multiple purposes for the literature review

Self-study—to build background and confidence in writing authoritatively about a topic. This is the dominant use for literature reviews conducted by college students

Context—to enable researchers to situate their work within in the larger context, thereby making the nature of their original contribution clear

Historical, theoretical, and methodological—to trace trends in the development of ideas over time, identify major paradigm shifts, and examine methods used to study phenomena

Integrative—to identify the “state of the art” on a given topic and serve as “a critically useful interpretation and unpacking of a problem that situates the work historically and methodologically” (Lather,1999, p. 3). As such, reviews can assist researchers from different disciplinary specialties to see a topic of interest from the unique perspective of various experts

Sources: Jalongo & Heider (2014) and Neuman (2009)

Most of what is written about literature reviews tends to focus on potential benefits for those seeking to conduct research, whether novice or experienced. Machi and McEvoy (2009) define the literature review as it relates to original research; it is a piece of writing that “presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study. This case establishes a convincing thesis to answer the study’s question” (p. 4). Activity 5.2 summarizes the six steps that they recommend reviewing the literature prior to launching a research project.

Activity 5.2: The Literature Review as a Foundation for Original Research

Look at the sequence below. Compare/contrast it to the work of reviewing that you have done thus far.

1.

Select a topic

2.

Search the literature

3.

Develop the argument

4.

Survey the literature

5.

Critique the literature

6.

Write the review (Machi & McEvoy, 2009)

Unless you have some experience with writing research, your process may have skipped over steps 3 and 5. How can you institute this more in-depth approach to reviewing the literature?

Reviewing the literature can save time, effort, and resources invested in pursuing research. It helps researchers by identifying gaps in the literature, avoiding the wasted effort of pursuing a trivial problem, or investing resources in studies with methodological flaws already identified by others (Merriam, 2009).

Online Tool

Go through the tutorial from North Carolina State University that discusses literature reviews: An Overview for Graduate Students http://​www.​lib.​ncsu.​edu/​tutorials/​lit-review/​

Types of Literature Reviews

There are several distinctive types of reviews:

Integrative reviews seek to synthesize and critique a diverse body of professional knowledge.

Systematic reviews deliberately narrow the scope of a review to yield an evidence-based decision.

Meta-analytic reviews set criteria for inclusion and conduct a quantitative analysis of data from previously published research to arrive at patterns

Qualitative reviews supply one person’s narrative interpretation of a diverse body of literature to promote further reflection and accept multiple perspectives (Jalongo & Heider, 2014)

Developmental Sequence in Reviewing

Bruce (1994) found that students’ interactions with the research literature were developmental. At first (e.g., as undergraduates), they tended to conceptualize the work of reviewing almost like a scavenger hunt, reflected in questions such as: “Can we count our textbook as one of the references?” or “If we use two chapters from the same book, does that count as one or two?” Simplistic, linear conceptualizations of the process of reviewing are a major impediment to a successful literature review. It is not until students are fully immersed in the research that they begin to use reviews to shape their thinking, identify areas of research that are needed, and see how their work could make a contribution. Table 5.2 illustrates the developmental progression.

Table 5.2

Levels of understanding about the literature review process

List—a collection of references without in-depth knowledge of content

Search—an emphasis on the strategies for locating relevant materials

Survey—a representation of immersion in the knowledge base

Vehicle for learning—the reviewer interacts with material and is influenced by it

Research facilitator—the literature review shapes the reader’s thinking and guides original research

Tool for entering the professional dialogue—a synthesis/final representation of the researcher’s interaction with and evaluation of the literature

Adapted from Bruce, 1994

Access to a high-quality academic library is a must when conducting a literature review. This can be a particular challenge for international scholars if they do not have reliable internet connections, if their libraries do not have access to the journal articles, or if the cost of downloading an article or book is prohibitive. Even scholars who do have a well-equipped academic library may find that books or articles have to be ordered through interlibrary loan, which can be time consuming. At other times, academic authors have a wealth of resources available to them but do not use them wisely; for example, they may use whatever search engine pops up first rather than select the best one, given their topic and purpose. In every case, the best advice is to find a way to link with a research library, begin the search early to allow time for interlibrary loan materials to arrive, consult with an academic librarian, and to augment efforts with technology tools, such as Google Scholar.

Activity 5.3 highlights the behaviors that enable academic authors to produce publishable reviews.

Activity 5.3: Capabilities of Reviewers of the Literature

What attributes do reviewers need to have in order to produce a high-quality, publishable literature review? As you read through the list below, indicate which of these characteristics are personal strengths or weaknesses that you will need to shore up in order to succeed:

Information literacy, defined as “a set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information” (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000, p. 2)

Ability to understand the methodological qualities of studies

Willingness to invest time and mental energy

Capacity for processing a huge amount of material

Attention to details and accuracy

Ability to form a mental landscape of the literature

Tolerance for ambiguity when coping with an unstructured problem

Commitment to making a contribution (Lather, 1999)

Online Tool

Watch textbook author Michael Quinn Patton discuss “Literature Reviews: Common Errors Made When Conducting a Literature Review” on YouTube https://​www.​youtube.​com/​watch?​v=​NiDHOr3NHRA.

Errors in Reviewing

The worst mistakes in reviewing—and ways to avoid them—are discussed below.

Plagiarism—take notes carefully and document all sources. Clearly differentiate between your thoughts and others’ ideas in notes. Check your work using a free plagiarism detector such as Turnitin to get a similarity score with published work; your score should be less than 5–8 %. When graduate students get much higher scores, they often are shocked but, even if your sources are documented, using too many long quotations will bump up the percentage of similarity with published sources.

Inadequate sources—choose the appropriate data bases, work with an academic librarian, select scholarly sources (reputable, peer-reviewed publications) rather than popular sources, develop effective search strategies, discuss your idea with an expert in the field, search within your discipline and in other disciplines. Novices sometimes rely on professional opinion pieces or textbooks (which are secondary sources) rather than seeking out more authoritative sources with research evidence that can be more arduous to read.

Weak argument—learn more about the common fallacies in logical arguments and how to avoid them, use authoritative definitions from the professional literature (rather than the dictionary), support assertions with evidence, supply concise examples to illustrate key points.

Online Tool

For a humorous look at logical fallacies, see “An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments” (Almosawwi, 2013) at https://​bookofbadargumen​ts.​com/​.

Errors of fact—Use primary sources; check, check, and double check everything; present a balanced view and include conflicting findings; include more details on the findings from major studies; and synthesize the findings of less important studies.

Listing— avoid boring lists in which each paragraph begins with a name and a date; chunk information and strive for meaningful synthesis; compare, contrast, and critique rather than merely report; cluster minor studies with similar findings together; and strive to emulate the writing style of published literature reviews (Jalongo & Heider, 2014). Table 5.3 highlights the types, functions, and questionable practices related to citing others’ work.

Table 5.3

Appropriate citation practices

Verification

 The reader should be able to check the source for its accuracy and the accuracy with which it is reported

Acknowledgement

 The source is given credit for its contribution

Documentation

 The source is identified as the object of the research in its own right

Questionable citation practices

Convenience citation

 Selects citation material that is easy to find

Grey literature citation

 Relies heavily on unpublished material, such as conference presentations, submitted articles, and in-house papers and reports

Reputation citation

 Cites a work or part of a work as self-promotion, to enhance the reputation of a friend or to curry favor with an editor

Viewpoint citation

 Cites a work or part of a work purely because it supports a given hypothesis or idea rather than because it adheres to standards of quality; deliberately neglects to report findings that do not support the thesis

Source: West and Stenius (2009)

Indicators of Quality in Literature Reviews

Clearly, there are some shared attributes of high-quality literature reviews. They are explained below.

Thoroughness and Authoritativeness

Given the exponential growth of knowledge, the range of what might be read to review the literature on a topic in its entirety is staggering. This situation calls upon reviewers to make choices about which sources to include. Some general criteria concerning what to cite are: (1) leaders in the field, (2) classic and contemporary sources, (3) relevance to the study, and (4) work that is significant, based on originality and insight.

Some advice on searching includes:

1.

Develop a research plan appropriate to the investigative method

2.

Identify keywords, synonyms, and related terms for the information needed—try using a thesaurus of search terminology. Broaden or narrow the search as necessary, for instance if you were studying how doctoral students develop a conceptual framework for their dissertation research and “doctoral students” yields too many hits, add AND “dissertations” and to further narrow it, add AND “conceptual frameworks”

3.

Check out the vocabulary associated with the articles that were most helpful to identify additional search terms; for instance, look at the “Find Similar Results” listings for those articles.

4.

Conduct a “backwards search” using the reference lists of published sources to lead you to other relevant works (Horsley, Dingwall & Sampson, 2011).

Sources should be evaluated based on six criteria identified by Association of College and Research Libraries (2000): (1) “reliability, (2) validity, (3) accuracy, (4) authority, (5) timeliness, and (6) point of view or bias” (ACRL, 2000, p. 11). Questions to guide reviewers may critically evaluate a scholarly resource by asking themselves the following questions:

1.

Who is the author of the material?

2.

When was the information published?

3.

Is the material published in an academic article, a newspaper or a textbook?

4.

How relevant is the material to the reviewer’s research question(s)?

5.

What is the author’s overall purpose? What led the author to his/her hypotheses?

6.

What methods were utilized by the author and why?

7.

What results were obtained?

8.

Were hypotheses supported?

9.

What were the author’s conclusions/recommendations?

10.

Does the author provide a detailed list of references/bibliography?

11.

Has the article, book or website been cited or referred to by other authors? (Lawlor & Gorham, 2004, p. 17)

Synthesis

Inexperienced academic authors often struggle with the recommendation that they synthesize the research. The reason for this is that synthesis is a cognitively challenging task. Some simple indicators that you are not synthesizing are: (1) writing that reads more like a list, (2) page after page of text with few or no headings and subheadings, (3) work clustered by author or date rather than themes or patterns, (4) excessive use of direct (and sometimes lengthy) quotations, (5) little effort to transition from one idea to the next, and (6) absence of evaluative commentary (i.e., strengths/weaknesses, comparison/contrast, interpretation/implications).

To better understand synthesis, consider the following metaphor. Imagine you have just participated in a panel discussion consisting of five professors discussing the same, important issue in your field. The beginning portion of your literature review would be similar to the panel moderator who initiates the discussion and sets the tone for the conversation with some remarks. The main sections of your literature review would be similar to the theme and focus selected by each of the speakers to frame their presentation and their areas of agreement and disagreement. The conclusion would comparable to the moderator’s closing remarks that acknowledge the areas of agreement and disagreement, yet provide a sense of closure to the discussion. Some tools for achieving synthesis are in Activity 5.4.

Activity 5.4: Practical Ways to Attain Greater Synthesis

After authors can cite studies, people, dates, theories, and historical trends, they have command of the literature. Nevertheless, a common statement after arriving at that point is some version of, “Okay, I have all of this information—now, what do I do with it?” Some practical strategies follow.

1.

Start chunking information. Create a mind map and cluster ideas together—and not in the most obvious way. Look for trends, themes, patterns rather than names and dates, for example.

2.

Identify the “stepping stones” in your argument. Usually you need to arrange your ideas from general to specific—think of it as an upside-down triangle that is broad at the top and narrows to your point. For example, the literature review for an article called “Assessing the Phonological Skills of Bilingual Children from Preschool through Kindergarten: Developmental Progression and Cross-Language Transfer” (Lopez, 2012) were:

Phonological awareness (includes a definition; remember to define your terms)

Phonological awareness theories

The role of phonological awareness in early literacy development

Phonological awareness in dual-language learners

The assessment of phonological awareness skills

Developing a new measure of phonological awareness (This was the purpose of the study)

3.

Look at the format of the manuscript. Is the writing formulaic, for example, a preponderance of sentences that follow the format of “___’s (date) study found that…”? Are there lots of quotations? Are there many pages of unbroken text? Counteract these issues by varying sentence structures, reducing quoted material, using at least three levels of headings, and using tables or figures to summarize (for example, a table of major historical trends rather than ten pages about them). Use transitional phrases, such as those in Chap.​ 2, pp. 27–46 as signposts to guide the reader through the material.

4.

Critique others’ work. In order to truly review research, you need to be sufficiently conversant with studies to discuss their contributions and limitations. If a study was exploratory and creative, yet lacked a sufficient sample size, say so. If three major theories emphasize different facets of a phenomenon, instead of going on and on about each, one by one, compare and contrast the three. If a body of the research has implications for future research, explain how you arrived at that conclusion and what those implications are. Remember that the word “review” literally means to see or look again.

Online Tool

Refer to Richard Toracco’s (2011) “Writing an Integrative Literature Reviews: Guidelines and Examples”. http://​docseminar2.​wikispaces.​com/​file/​view/​Literature+revie​w+paper_​Torraco.​pdf.

Evaluative Criteria

After a doctoral candidate shared Chap.​ 2 with her committee, all agreed that it was an exemplary review of the relevant literature. One committee member said, “While reading this, I felt as though I were being taken on a tour of a mansion with an exceptionally knowledgeable docent. The commentary followed the pathway of the tour and provided keen insights.” Taking this analogy one step further, a poorly written literature review is comparable to docents who have merely memorized some information and repeat it each time they conduct a tour. They often are confounded by questions because they have surface knowledge rather than a deep understanding. In fact, they rely on memorization so much that pausing to answer a question can cause them to “lose their place” and get confused.

What characteristics distinguish high-quality reviews of the literature from those that are less so? In a fascinating study that “graded” dissertations (Lovitt, 2005), 272 faculty members in 74 departments across 10 disciplines at 9 research universities participated in focus groups that supplied descriptors for “outstanding”, “very good”, “acceptable”, and “unacceptable” dissertations. Collectively they had 6,129 years of experience, had chaired approximately 3,470 dissertations, and had served on 9,890 dissertation committees. In a nutshell, outstanding dissertations had the best literature reviews; they were characterized with statements such as: “exhibits mature, independent thinking,” “has a point of view and a strong, confident, independent, and authoritative voice,” “displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature,” and “has a conceptual framework and shows a deep understanding of theory”. Merely acceptable dissertations that were “workmanlike” and “a chore to read”. So, how does an author progress to more sophisticated understandings of the work of reviewing? Table 5.4 highlights some of the comments about literature reviews based on Lovitt’s (2007) research.

Table 5.4

“Grading” the literature review

Outstanding

Very good

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Is original, ambitious, brilliant, clear, coherent, compelling, concise, creative, elegant, engaging, interesting, insightful, persuasive, sophisticated, surprising, and thoughtful

Has some original ideas, insights, and observations, but is less original, significant, ambitious, interesting, and exciting than the outstanding category

Displays little creativity, imagination, or insight

Lacks careful thought

Is very well written and organized

Misses opportunities to completely explore interesting issues and connections

Is not interesting, exciting, or surprising

Does not understand or misses relevant literature

Synthesizes the literature well and is interdisciplinary

Makes a modest contribution to the field

Is pedestrian, plodding and a chore to read

Has a weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument

Connects components in a seamless way

Is well written and organized

Contains an acceptable amount of solid work to show that the student can do research

Does not handle theory well, or theory is missing or wrong

Exhibits mature, independent thinking

Shows understanding and mastery of the subject matter

Tends to be highly derivative, often an extension of the adviser’s work

Has wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis

Argument is focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained

Has a strong, comprehensive, and coherent argument

Adds little to the field and lacks consequence

Has unsupported or exaggerated interpretation

Has a point of view and a confident, independent, and authoritative voice

Displays a narrow understanding of the field

Does not make a contribution

Displays a deep understanding of a massive amount of complicated literature

Does not critique the literature

Conclusion ties the whole thing together

Fails to present an imaginative, complex, or convincing argument

Is publishable in top-tier journals

Publishable Literature Reviews

When academic authors consider a strategy to guide them through the morass of ideas they have collected during a literature review, theory frequently falls far down the list. Yet the identification of a theoretical base may be the single, most helpful way to arrive at a unifying construct. Imagine that the world of knowledge is a huge country estate surrounded with scenic views on every side. Theory limits your perspective (something that you openly admit) by providing a particular vantage point. Just as it would be impossible to look out of every window in a mansion simultaneously, it is equally counter-productive to think of your theoretical base as all of the theories you have encountered during your coursework. Your theoretical base is the window you choose to gaze from in the house of big ideas. While you acknowledge that there are many possible views, this is the one you have selected to frame your perspective.

When dissertation committee members or peer reviewers of a manuscript refer to theoretical base, what they usually mean is that they expect the writer to identify a theory that is:

Appropriate and relevant

Logically interpreted

Well understood (e.g., both in terms of strengths and limitations)

Applied to the question

Theories that fulfill these criteria can serve as a “base of operations” for the investigation. A frequent response to the advice, “Find a theoretical base” is to think about the “grand” theories, those theories with at capital T that are found in virtually every textbook. Although grand theories would appear in the literature review for your dissertation (assuming that they are relevant), it is often the “small” theories that prove most useful in actually conducting the study.

Suppose, for example, that you have noticed that doctoral students express different levels of satisfaction with their dissertation committees and you see a study in there somewhere. For the inexperienced researcher, it would be common to flounder around, never getting past the topic stage. But suppose that instead you go on a quest to find a theoretical base. If you think that the dissertation advisor plays the pivotal role, you might check into a theory of mentor/protégé relationships. Perhaps, in conversations with students, you’ve noted that there appears to be a mismatch between some students and the doctoral programs in which they are enrolled (or abandon), so you go to the literature to seek out a theory on how graduate students choose a program. You may have noticed that the variables which lead to students’ satisfaction with doctoral programs are not all that different from other types of job satisfaction, so you begin your theoretical hunt there. The list could go on and on but the point is that, finding a useful theory is like getting your building permit before building a house. The construction can begin because theory is foundational.

The truth is that most research begins as a hunch. The trick is to get past the hunch stage, where your idea still sounds like a book report (e.g., “My study will be about…”). A major conceptual shift occurs when you transform a vague domain of interest into a workable plan. Once again, here’s where theory can help.

One of my former advisees had a hunch about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) meetings. An IEP is a meeting at which the learning objectives for a child with disabilities are discussed and planned. Usually, the “regular” classroom teacher, special educators, administrators, and professionals from other fields (e.g., speech/language pathologists) participate. Her hunch was that the types of interprofessional interactions during these meetings affected the outcomes in important ways. It was not until she located sociological theories about the characteristics of effective collaboration and group dynamics that her study began to take shape. Likewise, if you wanted to study the phenomenon called a dissertation defense meeting, a topic search would yield very little. If, however, you think more in terms of how groups of professionals in committees render decisions about applicants’ or candidates’ performances, a host of methods will emerge. It may be a “big T” theory, such as group dynamics, or, it could be a “small t” theory, such as a conceptual model of a particular decision-making process from a qualitative study. For instance, what process is used to decide which universities will receive a major grant? How do Fortune 500 companies select CEOs? When book publishers review proposals, how do they decide who gets a contract? How do committees choose superintendents for school districts? Each of these important decisions requires collective professional judgment and published research on any of them would be based on a theory. One of those theories could serve as a guide in studying the particular type of decision-making that interests you.

Searching for theoretical links across disciplines and topics can stimulate your thinking, reveal the interrelatedness of knowledge, offer numerous examples of how to proceed, and make your study more innovative. Best of all, virtually every piece of research concludes with a “cheat sheet” of recommendations for further research. These ideas from more experienced researchers can lead you to consider other theoretical bases and methodological directions for the particular dissertation you have in mind. A theoretical base, far from being a waste of time, is a time saver. Settling down with a useful theory puts you in the window seat of that metaphorical mansion, serenely gazing out one window, seeing things from a particular vantage point. After you combine that theoretical perspective with the literature review, you can begin to fashion a conceptual framework. “The language of theory, in fact, often stands like parentheses at either end of academic research reports: a theoretical framework is proposed at the beginning and a theoretical discussion synthesizes findings and their significance at the end” (Ely, Vinz, Downing, & Anzul, 1997, p. 225).

Activity 5.5: Using Reviews to Build a Conceptual Framework

As Ravitch and Riggan (2012) suggest, the best quality reviews yield a conceptual framework that serves a “guide and a ballast”.

1.

Identify your interests, beliefs, and motivations for doing research with questions such as: Why do I find this interesting? What is my motivation for engaging in this research? What sources have informed my hunches? What concerns, hopes, and expectations do I have for this research?

2.

Examine the “conversations already happening” with questions such as: What are the major arguments, positions, tensions, overlaps, and intersections in different fields on this subject? What are the methodological limitations and weaknesses in what has been produced thus far? Is the perspective of a group excluded or marginalized? As I read recommendations for future research from other scholars, where might the research need to go next? How might the work that I’ve planned make a contribution? (p. 149)

Online Tool

Watch the Central Queensland University (Australia) tutorial on the work of reviewing with video clips at http://​libguides.​library.​cqu.​edu.​au/​litreview.

Two former editors of the American Education Research Association publication, Reviews of Educational Research, used the metaphor of a stone wall to explain what makes a literature review publishable. They say that the scholarly literature

is like a wall that is built one stone at a time, each stone filling a hole previously unfilled, each one mortared and connected to those that came before and after it, each one providing a support for the subsequent ones, and each one being supported by those that came before…The review article attempts to describe the wall itself and to discover its mortar, its architecture, and design; the wall’s place in the architecture of the larger structure; its relation to the other elements in the structure; its significance, purpose, and meaning in the larger structure. (Murray & Raths, 1994, p. 197)

Publishable reviews also have a narrative quality (Merriam, 2009): they tell a “good story” “about a mature body of literature” (Murray & Raths, 1994, p. 199, p. 417).

Activity 5.6: Criteria for a Publishable Review of the Literature

Identify a student paper or other unpublished literature review that you have written. Locate a published review in a peer-reviewed outlet such as a professional journal or a research yearbook or handbook. The publication Reviews of Educational Research, published by the American Educational Research Association, offers many excellent examples.

Compare/contrast your paper with this manuscript in terms of:

Evidence of a theoretical base

Use of organizing principles that reflect synthesis (i.e., themes, patterns, strands)

Thoroughness (e.g., searching the related literature in other fields)

Discussion of criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies and authoritativeness of sources

Presentation of a logical argument signaled by headings

Use of transitional words and phrases to indicate shifts in content

Analysis and critique of research that identifies strengths and weaknesses

Use of concise, specific examples to illustrate key points

Description of the “landscape” of the topic, issue, or controversy in a readable, engaging, and narrative style

Statements about implications that demonstrate how the work represents a stride forward and an original contribution

Additional Resources on Writing Literature Reviews

Aveyard, H. (2011). Doing a literature review in health and social care: A practical guide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press/McGraw Hill.

Baumeister, R. F. (2003). Writing a literature review. In M. J. Prinstein & M. D. Patterson (Eds.), The portable mentor: Expert guide to a successful career in psychology (pp. 57–71). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Fink, A. (2009). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Galvan, J. L. (2006). Writing literature reviews: A guide for student of the social and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Glendale: Pyrczak Publishing.

Jesson, J. K. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 1–13.

Reuber, A. R. (2011). Strengthening your literature review. Family Business Review, 23(2), 105–108.

Ridley, D. (2008). The literature review: A step-by-step guide for students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Online Tool

Read Chap.​ 2, “Turning Your Coursework into Articles” by Alaric Hall posted at: http://​www.​gla.​ac.​uk/​media/​media_​41223_​en.​pdf.

The Position Paper

Position papers or statements typically are written about controversial issues. At some point during your university career, you probably were asked to write a position paper. In many respects, it is similar to a debate because it presents different perspectives on an issue and makes the writer’s stance on the topic clear.

Online Tool

See Simon Fraser University’s basic guide to writing position papers http://​www.​sfu.​ca/​cmns/​130d1/​WritingaPosition​Paper.​htm.

In Academia, position papers

Are detailed statements supported by research

Have a scholarly voice and formal tone

Focus on a single issue

Take a stand on a topic of importance to the discipline

Articulate a viewpoint and/or policy

Lend authoritative support to members of the group seeking to implement best practices

Position papers often are used by professional organizations to represent their stand on a controversy. Whether position papers are written by a single author or a panel of experts, they will be peer reviewed by a diverse group of professionals to ensure that the statements made can be endorsed by the organization. It can be particularly daunting to get critical reviews and recommendations from a dozen or more experts in the field on a manuscript—some of which is conflicting. Many times, responding to such feedback first requires a “review of the reviews” in order to provide direction for rewrites. Position papers have an important function in Academia. In contrast to the common disclaimers made in the media (e.g., “the views and opinions expressed during this broadcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the official policy or position of the network”), a position paper does attempt to set policy and reflect the position of the organization on an important issue.

Online Tool

Check out Study Guides and Strategies for advice on how to write a position paper at http://​www.​studygs.​net/​wrtstr9.​htm.

Examples of Position Papers

The National Council of Teachers of English, Conference on College Composition and Communication (4 Cs), “Writing Assessment: A Position Statement” Available: http://​www.​ncte.​org/​cccc/​resources/​positions/​writingassessmen​t

A national EDPRESS award winner in the category of Learned Article “Beyond Benchmarks and Scores: Reasserting the Role of Motivation and Interest in Children’s Academic Achievement” (Jalongo, 2007) available at http://​www.​acei.​org/​images/​stories/​motivation.​pdf

National Association of School Psychologists’ (2011) Position Statement “Grade Retention and Social Promotion”. Available http://​www.​nasponline.​org/​about_​nasp/​positionpapers/​GradeRetentionan​dSocialPromotion​.​pdf

Investigate the position papers and statements that have been published in your field. As you participate in professional organizations, seek out opportunities to participate in writing these important documents, either as an individual or as a member of a committee.

Literature Reviews from Dissertation Chapters

Without a doubt, the task of converting a voluminous Chap.​ 2 of the traditional dissertation into a concise journal article represents a challenge (Foster, 2009). The endeavor also surfaces as a possibility at a time when the writer is not necessarily well-equipped to undertake it because he or she is so close to the existing document that it is difficult to take a step back and determine what is essential versus what is peripheral. Activity 5.7 offers a questioning framework that can assist dissertation writers.

Activity 5.7: Mining Chap.​ 2 for a Review Article

The metaphor of “mining” is used here because, just as prospectors toss away much of the material to search for precious metals or gems, writers of dissertations need to do likewise and to arrive at a concise review of the literature article (or book chapter). Some strategies for stripping away the nonessential include: (1) What is the focus of the review? What definitive themes have emerged? (2) What is the most current/relevant supporting literature? Can some of long lists of citations be cut? (3) Is this information essential in order for readers to understand the manuscript or is it peripheral to the focus? (3) Would the audience be likely to know some of this information already? (4) Could reference to the published reviews of others take the place of building background? (5) What clear purpose does the review serve for readers? Will it save them time? Be immediately applicable to their work? Bring them up-to-date on a recent trend/issue? (6) Is there any place where the words bog down? Can you delete paragraphs, sentences, phrases and words?

Conclusion

As this chapter has discussed, a high-quality literature review is much more than kneading together a handful of sources to produce the typical graduate student paper. The simple truth is that, despite all of those papers and projects completed during graduate study, you may not have amassed that much practice in writing a review that meets the standards for a publishable review. Students sometimes respond to this observation with consternation and ask, “Why didn’t somebody teach me this earlier?” What they fail to recognize is that the work of reviewing is a complex, developmental task. Just as a child cannot skip over learning to read and immediately achieve a fifth-grade reading level, it is not possible to dramatically accelerate the process of learning to review. When you first begin reviewing, the emphasis is on becoming familiar with leaders in the field and learning how to cite and write for academic purposes. Becoming an expert and producing a publishable review of the literature requires several important things: (1) full immersion in the literature, (2) a mental “landscape” of the field, (3) a talent for organizing ideas and marshaling evidence, and (4) the academic writing skills to guide readers through the sequence without confusing them along the way. Be aware also that readers, reviewers and editors of scholarly publications want to know “what you think of the literature, its strengths as well as its weaknesses, whether or not it constitutes a major breakthrough in the thinking on the topic, what it adds to the knowledge base, and so on” (Merriam, 1998, p. 55).

Whether you are a graduate student or a widely published professional, there is always more to learn about the work of reviewing. Ideally, a review of the literature uses a collection of carefully selected sources to arrive “big picture” understandings of a topic that will advance thinking. There is an art to reviewing that novices do not yet recognize. A beautifully written review is more like a landscape painting than a still life because it takes a point of view (Reuber, 2011), presents a coherent composition (Notar & Cole, 2010), reveals the contours of the field, portrays those areas that are illuminated and those that remain in the shadows, and invites the readers to place themselves in the picture. Reviewers are motivated by the desire “to be of use” (Lather, 1999) and to further readers’ understandings of the “body of knowledge” (BoK), defined as the cumulative, research-supported knowledge achieved by “building on each other’s [research] results” (Iivari, Hirschheim, & Klein, 2004, p. 314). As with a landscape painting, one major contribution of an expert, published literature review is to support readers in getting the “the lay of the land” on a topic of significance in their fields.

References

Association of College and Research Libraries & American Library Association. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Chicago: Authors.

Bruce, C. S. (1994). Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 217–230.CrossRef

Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: Living by words. New York: Routledge.

Foster, R. L. (2009). Publishing your dissertation [Editorial]. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14(1), 1–2.CrossRef

Hart, C. (2009). Doing a literature review. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32(1), 337–356.CrossRef

Holdstein, D. H., & Aquiline, D. (2014). Who says? The writer’s research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Horsley, T., Dingwall, O., & Sampson, M. (2011). Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. The Cochrane Library. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​cochrane.​org/​MR000026/​METHOD_​examining-reference-lists-to-find-relevant-studies-for-systematic-reviews

Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2004). Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for information systems experts: Coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal, 14(4), 313–342.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2007). Beyond benchmarks and scores: Reasserting the role of motivation and interest in children’s academic achievement. An ACEI Position Paper. Childhood Education, 83(6), 395–407.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., & Heider, K. (2014). Re-examining the literature review: Purposes, approaches, and issues. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in early childhood education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 753–782.

Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Reviews of Educational Research, 69(1), 2–7.CrossRef

Lawlor, J., & Gorham, G. (2004). The reference handbook. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin Institute of Technology.

Lopez, L. M. (2012). Assessing the phonological skills of bilingual children from preschool through kindergarten: Developmental progression and cross-language transfer. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(4), 371–391.

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18–23.CrossRef

Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2009). The literature review: Six steps to success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2005). Introduction to educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Murray, F., & Raths, J. (1994). Call for manuscripts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 197–200.CrossRef

Ngai, E. W. T., & Wat, F. K. T. (2002). A literature review and classification of electronic commerce research. Information & Management, 39, 415–429.CrossRef

Neuman, W. L. (2009). Understanding research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Notar, C. E., & Cole, V. (2010). Literature review organizer. International Journal of Education, 2(2), E2. Available: www.​macrothink.​org/​journal/​index.​php/​ije/​article/​view/​319

Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reuber, A. R. (2011). Strengthening your literature review. Family Business Review, 23(2), 105–108.CrossRef

Toracco, R. (2011). Writing an integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. http://​docseminar2.​wikispaces.​com/​file/​view/​Literature+revie​w+paper_​Torraco.​pdf

Tunon, J., & Brydges, B. (2006). A study on using rubrics and citation analysis to measure the quality of doctoral dissertation reference lists from traditional and nontraditional institutions. Journal of Library Administration, 45(3/4), 459–481.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26(2), 3.

Zaphorozhetz, L. (1987). The dissertation literature review: How faculty advisors prepare their doctoral candidates. Doctoral thesis, University of Oregon.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_6

6. From Professional Experience to Expert Advice

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

During graduate school, students are required to produce many different types of written work in order to fulfill course and degree requirements. Likewise, university faculty members often need to write in-house documents, such as accounts of innovative teaching strategies or progress reports on local initiatives. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts are unpublishable because they are written for a different purpose and audience than a practical article for practicing professionals in the field. This chapter guides the reader through transforming these manuscripts into works with publication potential using tools and templates. Among these resources are: a chart that details the differences between student papers and practical articles, a rubric that scholarly authors can use to evaluate practical articles; and a demonstration of how to use a template to generate a publishable practical article, and a clear structure for writing introductions and conclusions.

The number of attendees at the annual conference of a professional organization has grown so large that only a few cities can accommodate their meetings. The conference program includes hundreds of sessions with meeting rooms distributed over four major hotels. A group of participants clamber on to the shuttle that will transport them to afternoon sessions and a professor sits down next to a practitioner in the field. The latter is carrying the latest issue of the professional organization’s journal and mentions that one of the articles was particularly helpful. She says that she implemented the practices recommended in the article and shared them with her colleagues at a staff meeting. The professor smiles and introduces herself; it just happens that she wrote the article. Now the conversation really begins; they speak as if they know one another well because the article has formed a common ground. This situation illustrates the objectives of a practical article; namely to:

Achieve a meeting of the minds

Recommend evidence-based ways to improve professional practice

Guide practitioners in implementing new practices that enhance their effectiveness

Across the disciplines, there is a concern about “bridging the gap” between theory research and daily practice. Each field has a cadre of practicing professionals —such as social workers in sociology, teachers in curriculum and instruction, or health care professionals in medicine (Mallonee, Fowler, & Istre, 2006)—who need to keep pace with changes in the field. Unfortunately, it cannot be taken for granted that practitioners’ career trajectories are forever on an upward trend; indeed, a decline in commitment and competence can cause professionals to become less, rather than more, effective over time. For instance, there is a decided tendency for professionals in various fields to begin their work with great enthusiasm and become disillusioned early on; particularly in the helping professions, practitioners can suffer from burnout (Bianchi, Schonfeld, & Laurent, 2014). Professional development often is credited as the answer, but what was the question? The question is one that can be answered by the practical article, namely: How do we help the practitioners in our field to increase in knowledge, understanding, confidence, competence, effectiveness, and commitment across the career span?

Online Tool

Learn more about practical articles from Rowena Murray’s Ten Tips for Writing Articles at http://​www.​theguardian.​com/​higher-education-network/​blog/​2013/​sep/​06/​academic-journal-writing-top-tips

The Practical Article as Continuing Professional Development

One harmful stereotype about university faculty is that they are “ivory tower” types who are divorced from and oblivious to the practical realities of their respective disciplines. In stark contrast to that perspective, interviews with published authors and editors indicated that they valued the contributions of high-quality, practical publications:

“whether you think of yourself as a very hard line researcher or not… you need to think that not only are you writing about your research but also writing about implications of your research for practice”

“we have to see our publications impacting the policies and practices in the field”

“it has to have value to the professionals who are practicing in the field. I think you need to offer ideas that will help them in their day-to-day practice”

“advance the field and …put new information out there, especially for practitioners to use” (Jalongo 2013b, pp. 70–71)

Activity 6.1: Questions to Guide Practical Article Development

As you think about a practical article that you have written or plan to write, does it:

Inform the reader and educate about a new or improved method?

Provide a persuasive, authoritative, and current evidence base?

Encourage readers to question what is taken for granted?

Show readers how to apply these ideas to their practice?

Engage readers from the very start?

Provide a readable and concise presentation of the material?

Respect readers’ prior knowledge, yet nudge them to make a change in behavior that would improve practice?

Reflect the article style, headings, length, and types of visual material in the intended outlet?

Leave readers with a sense that that they have benefitted from taking the time to read the article?

As the questions in Activity 6.1 suggest, a practical journal article is written for an audience of professionals in the field. Its primary purpose is to be helpful—to provide the reader with current information, persuade the readers to incorporate research-based strategies into their work, to save them time and effort in locating the tools necessary for continuous improvement, and to supply them with evidence to support the practices the author is endorsing. A profession also has certain characteristics that distinguish it from “just a job.” When we say that someone is a professional, we also are referring to an intrinsic code of ethics, values, commitments, and responsibilities that guide thoughts and actions. Table 6.1 identifies the characteristics of professionals, why they read the literature, and what this means for authors of practical articles written for fellow professionals.

Table 6.1

Why professionals read practical articles

What are the characteristics of professionals?

Why read the literature?

How does the practical article contribute?

Have extensive/intensive training and specialized knowledge not possessed by the layperson and a commitment to lifelong learning

To develop, sustain, and extend professional knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values

Updates knowledge with current, authoritative information

Acknowledges traditions in the field

Respects practitioners’ professional experience

Identifies “puzzles of practice” that are particularly difficult to address

Possess skill repertoires that allow them to exercise greater autonomy in decision-making

To validate effective practices, be inspired by the excellence of others, and replace less effective practices with new ones

Persuades readers to expand skill repertoires through evidence-based recommendations

Includes examples (i.e., examples, cases, anecdotes) that “ring true”

Conveys ideas succinctly (e.g., figures, tables, charts, graphs, photographs, work samples)

Makes material relevant and immediately applicable (i.e., checklists, additional resources, self-assessment tools)

Adhere to an ethical code, comply with standards for effective practice, and perform a gatekeeping function (admission to/expulsion from the field)

To enrich and enlarge the mission of the profession

Reflects the values and professional dispositions valued by the field

Addresses trends, issues, and controversies in a balanced way

Anticipates the challenges implicit in changing professional behavior

Supports practitioners in complying with agreed upon professional standards

Guides practitioners in how to avoid the pitfalls

Engender respect in the larger community through an altruistic commitment to the greater good

To preserve and promote the integrity of the profession and credibility in the community

Provides thought-provoking ideas that encourage reflection in practitioners

Supports professionals in acceptance of responsibility for preparing the next generation of professionals

At the heart of all professional development is learning, defined as a relatively enduring change in behavior that results from experience. A successful practical article rests on key elements of the learning process (Zull, 2006) as illustrated in Fig. 6.1.

Fig. 6.1

The learning process and the practical article (Source for the four stages Zull, 2006)

Online Tool

Read the article “Writing for publication: A practical six step approach” by Driscoll et al. in the International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing, 15(1), 41–48 https://​secure.​jbs.​elsevierhealth.​com/​action/​showCitFormats?​doi=​S1878-1241%2810%2900046-8&​code=​ijotn-site

Planning Strategy for Practical Articles

The academic integrity policy of our university specifically prohibits the use of the same paper to fulfill the requirements of different courses. However, in recent years, I made an exception: I allowed my doctoral students to revisit their candidacy paper or paper written for another course in the Writing for Professional Publication course. The reason for this is that the papers written previously needed to be completely reorganized into journal article format and revised significantly several times before they were nearly publishable. Shortly after making that announcement, I found a large interdepartmental envelope with copies of four papers a student had written for various classes and a very gracious note asking if I could help him to decide which one to pursue as a publication. My response was that I could not—and not just because I didn’t have the time. The reason was that he had to choose a topic that, based on his knowledge of his field (teaching English), was the most innovative and the topic that interested him the most. Using the information in Activity 6.2, revisit a manuscript that you have written and analyze the changes that will need to be made in order to transform it into a publishable piece.

Activity 6.2: Converting a Manuscript into a Practical Article

Revisit a paper you have written for a graduate class or a rejected manuscript. Now identify a published manuscript that is an excellent example of the type of practical article you want to publish. Articles that you thought were worth the time to copy and save are a good place to start.

Using the table below, summarize the differences you see between your own writing and the published paper. List the changes that you’ll need to make in your writing for it to become more publishable (Table 6.2).

Table 6.2

Analyzing a manuscript’s potential as a practical article

Characteristic

Published manuscript VS. your manuscript

Implications for enhancing publication potential

Analyzing and synthesizing the research

Conducting an interdisciplinary search that includes the related literature from other fields

Presenting a logical and persuasive argument

Writing in an authoritative and professional voice

Taking a stand on the issue(s)

Overall organization and structure of the work

Using headings as “signposts” to guide the reader and signal important changes

Using concise, specific examples relevant to the intended audience and illustrate key points

What follows are a series of recommendations that authors of practical articles can use to arrive at the framework for a practical article.

Recommendation 1: Identify your specific audience

A common error of inexperienced authors is to assume that “everyone” will want to read a practical article when the audience is far more specific than that. Determine your primary audience, those who would be most likely to stop and read, for example, speech-language pathologists working in public schools or registered nurses working as administrators in rural hospitals. One of the challenges in writing for fellow professionals is to decide how much background is necessary. If you make your audience more specific, such questions are easier to answer. For instance, just about everyone involved with a learning support program at a college or university would be familiar with Pascarella and Terenzini’s (2005) research on student retention and the freshman experience, so it would not be necessary to go into detail. When in doubt, just refer readers to a more “basic” source of information at the end of a sentence; that way, the uninformed can build the requisite understandings. Another aspect of audience awareness is using professional jargon judiciously. Many publications aimed at practitioners have a mixed audience of preservice and inservice practitioners, so avoiding excessive jargon will make the article more accessible to novices in the field as well as to readers from other disciplinary backgrounds.

Online Tool

Read Bordeaux et al.’s (2007) advice, “Guidelines for Writing about Community-Based Participatory Research for Peer-Reviewed Journals” at http://​www.​press.​jhu.​edu/​journals/​progress_​in_​community_​health_​partnerships/​1.​3bordeaux.​pdf

Recommendation 2: Work with real, live audience members

Talk with some practitioners who represent the audience for their article. Ask them what issues they have encountered and the questions that they would expect to have answered in a practical article with the title you have drafted. Consider presenting the material to a college class, making a conference presentation or conducting a workshop for practitioners on the topic of your article and be certain to ask for input from the participants. Ask a trusted and well-read professional to review the manuscript. Too often, writers ask people to review for them and the response is more like your fifth grade teacher’s—correcting minor mistakes. When you invite peer review, it is very important to provide direction on what sort of feedback you are seeking. The Wiley Publication Guide on Nursing (Holland & Watson, 2012) suggests questions such as these when asking fellow professionals to review a practical article:

What do you think of the work, overall? Please be frank and do not worry about hurting my feelings; it is a work in progress.

Is there anything you do not understand? Can you identify places where it is confusing?

Does the work hold your interest? Can you identify places where it bogs down?

Is the work relevant to your practice? Why or why not?

Are there good ideas and material that you could implement immediately?

Are there materials or ideas that you would put to use later?

Is there anything that needed further elaboration?

Are there unanswered questions that you still have?

If it is not too much of an imposition, ask the reader to take another look at the article after it has been revised in accordance with this feedback.

Recommendation 3: Identify objectives for readers

When you teach a class or conduct a training or workshop, you need to identify objectives for the participants. The same principle applies to the practical article (Callender-Price, 2014). What will readers now know and be able to do after spending time with your manuscript? Authors need to deliver on the promise suggested by the titles of their articles so that readers derive some solid benefit. A practical article contributes to professional development when the author:

Knows a topic well, delves deeply and extends beyond what is already widely available in the literature

Has truly “lived” with these ideas and is therefore aware of the potential as well as the pitfalls of implementing these recommendations

Chooses an important topic of interest to the audience that is suitable for the outlet

Advances the professional dialogue about the topic under discussion

Bases suggestions on a best evidence synthesis of the research as well as practical experience and professional wisdom

Develops learning outcomes for readers of the article and delivers on the promise of the title and abstract

Recommendation 4: Recognize that this is a persuasive piece of writing

Authors of practical articles are, in effect, endorsing a method, approach, practice, strategy or attitudinal change that represents an improvement. A practical article makes a claim, endorses a change in practice/policy, and then substantiates that claim with evidence. For example, one of my former students had the thesis that, in order to innovate and respond nimbly to produce educational programs that attract students and increase enrollment, the curriculum approval process at the university needs to be streamlined—that is where the literature review came in. She then went on to use her institution as an instance of these principles and described the measures that had been taken at her campus to revise and improve the curriculum approval process. In scholarly circles, a practical article is much more than a list of tips or hints; rather, it is an evidence-based argument for changes that will advance the field.

Activity 6.3: Substantiating the Claims in Practical Articles

When you write a practical article, you are arguing for a better way. For example, your claim might be “this is a more effective use of journal writing in a college classroom” or “here are ways to develop ethical behaviors in professionals in this field.” In order to argue cogently, apply the STAR criteria to the evidence base for your practical advice:

S—Sufficiency of grounds: Is there enough evidence, overall, to substantiate the claim?

T—Typicality: Do the professional behaviors endorsed reflect expert opinion, theory and research?

A—Accuracy: Is the information used as evidence true? Has it been interpreted correctly and accurately cited?

R—Relevance: Are the professional practices and policies endorsed relevant, both to the claim and to the evidence? (Adapted from Fulkerson, 1996)

Recommendation 5: Strive to be helpful

Writers sometimes will mention the concern that others (presumably the reviewers) will “steal” their ideas. If this is a worry, there is no sense in pursuing publication because its purpose is to disseminate ideas. Remember that you are a contributor to a journal and that you are providing a service to fellow professionals. Your goal is to spare them the time and trouble it took to arrive at the level of understanding you now have and fast track them to success. Another part of being helpful is resisting the urge to hold back and “save” ideas for a subsequent article. You should be generous with useful information. Many times, aspiring authors persist in talking about their “idea” for a practical article when they actually need many good ideas packed into the manuscript in order for it be publishable. As one editor used to say, in reference to the number of helpful ideas in a successful practical article, “A single tulip does not make a spring day.”

Recommendation 6: Be concise

It is sometimes difficult to be thorough yet concise. Consideration of the reader’s time and patience can be your guide here. When best-selling author Elmore Leonard was asked how he managed to become so successful, he said “I leave out the parts that people skip when reading.” Readers can contact you directly if they need a much more in-depth details. Do not waste words. Often, a section of the article that bogs down can be remedied with visual material—for example, instead of explaining a cycle, illustrating it. Photographs, tables, charts, graphic organizers, checklists, bulleted lists, and so forth help to break up long blocks of text and make your message clearer to the reader. They also pique curiosity as a reader is flipping through the pages of the publication and invite reader to pause, look, and possibly decide to read the entire piece. If you make your ideas abundantly clear with the use of visual material, chances are that more people will instantly grasp your message and be more inclined to take your evidence-based advice. Study the intended outlet to determine the kind and amount of visual material that is acceptable.

Activity 6.4: Matching the Title, Purpose and Focus of an Article

Too often, authors begin generating page after page of text without first making a cohesive plan. Look at the following example from Lu and Montague (2015). How might working on these bits of writing before you begin writing the practical article save you time in the long run?

Article Title:

Move to Learn, Learn to Move: Prioritizing Physical Activity in Early Childhood Education Programming

Purpose and Focus (from the abstract):

The purpose of this paper is to review current physical activity issues, to re-evaluate the specific benefits from regular physical activity and to offer guiding recommendations to improve physical activity in early childhood education. Future research directions are also provided.

Main Headings:

Issues in Current Physical Activity in Early Childhood Education

Importance of Physical Activity in Early Childhood Education in the Present Day

Recommendations and Considerations for Improving Physical Activity

Now try drafting a specific title, a succinct focus/purpose statement, and no more than about five main headings for a practical article that you want to write.

Recommendation 6: Maintain your focus

Many writers drift from their thesis and go off on a tangent during the manuscript. For example, an author was invited to contribute a book chapter of approximately 25 pages of 12-point print, with everything double spaced. Instead, she submitted over 30 pages of single-spaced, 9-point print in a mixture of single and double spacing. At the beginning there were nine pages of material about chaos theory that the editor cut. The author objected strenuously, saying, “I’ll have you know that I took that material you deleted and published an article on the topic in a very prestigious journal” to which the editor replied, “Congratulations on your success with the article. Actually, that outcome seems to reinforce the contention that it did not belong in the chapter. A separate article appears to have been a better outlet for it.” One way to keep from drifting is to continually reflect on the audience and revisit the thesis with a question such as, “Is this information about ____ important for _____?” (e.g., “Is this information about managing caseloads important for social workers employed in hospital settings?”). If you read through the manuscript with that mission uppermost in mind, it can help to sharpen the focus. A good example of this is when authors of practical articles decide to refer to someone else’s theory as support for the changes they are suggesting. The most typical way of doing this is to list the theory as is; however, if you are staying on focus, you would need to do more by applying the theory to this specific situation. Usually, that necessitates at least one more level of information; Fig. 6.1 is an example; the items 1–4 are from Zull (2006) but we applied it to writing the practical article. Many times, when writing practical articles, a table that has three columns is useful. For example, column 1 might be a theoretical construct, column 2 an authoritative definition, and column 3 an example. When reviewing research, column 1 might be a strand in the research, column 2 a list of citations, and column 3 the implications for practice. Tables such as these present the evidence base in a focused way and make it more useful to readers in their work.

Recommendation 7: Alternate between general and specific

As long-time editor for Kappa Delta Pi, Jack Frymeir, used to say at his workshops, “all good writing moves back and forth between the general and the specific”. So, in an article about mentoring international students, there would be characteristics of effective programs from the research (general) as well as examples of events and comments from participants (specific). Some textbooks are boring because they are an unrelenting parade of general information that is devoid of examples. Some unsuccessful practical articles are so mired in the specifics that they fail to connect with their readers. This advice about alternating between the general and specific pertains to the structure of a manuscript as well. Too often, authors choose the most obvious structure for an article; for example: a section on theory, a section on research, and a section on practice. Yet this is not the best strategy for engaging a diverse group of readers and sustaining their interest throughout. More readers will continue to read if instead you began each of the four main sections with a brief case (specific), following with research summary related to the issues represented in the case (general), and concluding each section with implications for practitioners (both general and specific). Allow the manuscript show you the right structure and organize it for optimum effectiveness.

Template for the Practical Article

Practical articles often follow a format that writers can follow to arrive at a first draft. The key to producing a draft is called the pronouncement paragraph (Kirszner & Mandell, 2010). As the name suggests, it announces the purpose of the article, your perspective on the topic, the scope of what will be included, and the sequence of the main headings. The pronouncement paragraph previews the entire article for the reader early in the manuscript.

Activity 6.5: Drafting the Pronouncement Paragraph

Use the strategy below to draft a pronouncement paragraph for a practical article.

1.

Select a topic

Making conference presentations

2.

Narrow it

The connection between making an effective presentation and publishing a journal article

3.

Your thesis, perspective, or “take” on the topic that serves to narrow it further.

If the thick programs distributed at major conferences are any indication, many more faculty present well-received sessions at conferences than publish an article based on their presentations. What if they considered their presentations to be an important first step toward publication?

4.

Make a pronouncement.

Despite pressure to publish, graduate students and professors frequently overlook effective conference presentations as a resource for scholarly publications. This article will provide a rationale for using conference presentations as the basis for professional writing, explain the transition from presentation to publication, and suggest strategies—supported by examples – that transform a conference session into a publishable manuscript.

Now return to your response for Activity 6.4 and apply this strategy to what you drafted. (see Activity 6.6 for another example of a pronouncement paragraph). Make sure that your list in the paragraph matches the main headings for your article.

Writing the Body of the Manuscript

The body of the manuscript typically consists of three to five main headings. The body of the manuscript is comparable to the filling in a dumpling; it is what gives it substance and appeal. Try using a “shopping list” approach to organizing ideas; just as you would sort the items on a list to correspond to where they are in the grocery store, you can cluster ideas that go together by cutting and pasting on your word processing program. It is sometimes helpful to phrase main sections in the body of the paper as questions that you want to answer for your readers, at least at first. This helps to maintain a focus on what actually belongs in each section. A common set of headings for the body of an article about a practice that is relatively new to readers would be:

Definition of _____ (find authoritative definitions and show how the practice is related to what they already know)

Rationale for _____ (use theory and research as support to persuade readers to consider making this change in their professional practice)

Challenges when implementing ______(provide evidence-based advice, clear examples, and troubleshoot common problems)

Outcomes of instituting ____ (describe the advantages of making these changes to professional practice)

Additional resources for ______ (lead readers to other practical tools, perhaps in a sidebar or Appendix)

You can always go back and change the headings later to make them more appealing. When you do, use a consistent format (for example, each heading beginning with an –ing verb or each heading with a colon (e.g., Principle 1: ____).

Now take another look at your pronouncement paragraph. It must be in alignment with the main headings of the article. Organize your material to match your pronouncement paragraph or, if it no longer works well, go back and revise the pronouncement paragraph rather than forcing material to fit. Keep going back and forth between the sections of your paper and the pronouncement, fine tuning them until they match. Now you have the body of the manuscript structured.

The pronouncement paragraph and the abstract obviously are related; however, they should not be the same paragraph repeated in both places. Naturally, the abstract needs to match your headings as well. Look at the example in Activity 6.6. It shows how the abstract and the headings align in a review/practical journal article on cheating (Hensley, 2013).

Activity 6.6: Alignment in the Practical Journal Article

Read the abstract and then look at the main headings of the article. Write an abstract for your article that matches main headings of the manuscript.

Abstract: Cheating is antithetical to the goals of meaningful learning and moral development. The more that community college faculty , staff, and administrators understand the nature of cheating and factors associated with the behavior, the more effective they can be in creating environments of integrity both inside and outside of the formal classroom, This paper reviews the literature on understanding, predicting, and preventing cheating in postsecondary environments, discussing the role of individual, interpersonal, and contextual aspects in cheating. The paper then considers a variety of approaches to building environments in community colleges that encourage behaviors in line with academic integrity and discourage academic dishonesty.

Main Headings and Subheadings

Academic and Motivational Aspects Related to Cheating

Interpersonal Aspects Related to Cheating

Classroom and Institutional Aspects Related to Cheating

Implications for Practice and Policy

Implications for Academic Support

Implications for Student Life

Implications for Commuter Environments

Implications for Classroom and Institutional Policies (Hensley, 2013)

In a well-structured practical article all of the pieces are in alignment.

Writing the Introduction and Conclusion

Particularly for the practical article, it might be appropriate to begin with an anecdote that leads directly into the topic. There are numerous examples of this throughout this book. Based on 30 years of experience with editing a journal, introductions and conclusions frequently are the places where the most editing is necessary. Perhaps this is the case because the papers written for classes seldom have a strong introduction or conclusion. Some common mistakes that authors make are:

There is a long preamble at the beginning that often is cut. Instead, authors need to stride right into the thesis.

The manuscript does not conclude, in the sense of wrapping everything up; rather, the writer abruptly stops writing or the conclusion falls flat.

There is little correlation between the introduction and conclusion when they should be like mirror images. The introduction begins broadly and quickly narrows to the point while the conclusion recaps the main points and broadens out to state the wider implications.

Figures 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 represent a strategy for drafting the introduction and conclusion. They are based on the classic structure of the essay.

Fig. 6.2

A writing “formula” for the introduction (Source: Jalongo (2013a))

Fig. 6.3

A writing “formula” for conclusions (Source: Jalongo (2013a))

Fig. 6.4

Dana Miller’s practical article (Source: Miller (2009))

Activity 6.7: Introductions and Conclusions

Locate several exceptionally well-written published practical articles, cut and paste the introduction and conclusion side by side. Do you see evidence of the upside down triangle and right side up triangle structure?

Online Tool

Read Chapter 3, “Writing the Introduction and Conclusion of a Scholarly Article” by John Corbett at http://​www.​gla.​ac.​uk/​media/​media_​41223_​en.​pdf

Think of introductions and conclusions as the “bookends” for the practical article. For more advice on introductions and conclusions, refer to Table 6.3 with excerpts from the article “Executive Leadership: Another Lever in the System?” (Harris, Brown & Abbot, 2006).

Table 6.3

Example of alignment among the introduction, pronouncement paragraph, and conclusion

Introduction [Note that it begins with a more general statement and narrows to the point]

It is widely accepted that there is an important and influential link between leadership and school improvement. Researchers from the international fields of school effectiveness and school improvement have consistently highlighted the importance of leadership as a powerful lever for change and development…

Pronouncement [Each of the themes is a main heading of the manuscript]

… this article draws upon this personal experience of being an executive head teacher in a school in very challenging circumstances. A number of key themes will be explored, which are as follows:

 Building leadership capacity;

 Changing the school culture;

 Ensuring rapid change;

 Forging collaborative partnership and external links;

 Establishing whole school evaluation and planning;

 Signaling moral purpose and securing momentum

Each theme will be considered separately and will be presented in a way that captures the voice and experience of the executive head

Conclusion [Notice how it touches upon the thesis and broadens out to the more general issue]

Topic sentence, paragraph one:

In this article we have explored the dynamics of a relatively new and under-researched approach to leadership

First sentence, paragraph two:

This article offers a starting point for thinking about a form of leadership that develops capacity both within and across schools

First sentence, last paragraph:

The promise of sustainable improvement resides in widely distributed and highly differentiated forms of leadership practice both within schools and between schools.

Last sentence [note how it broadens back out (right-side up triangle) and uses a short sentence at the end that echoes the title/main thesis):

We need to be thinking much more imaginatively and radically about new forms of leadership practice in our schools if system renewal is to be successfully achieved. Put bluntly, we need many more leadership levers to pull

A Doctoral Student’s Publication of a Practical Article

While conducting an information session about the doctoral program for prospective students, the program director said, “Although I don’t want to make unsupportable claims and suggest that all good things will come to you through doctoral study, I will tell you that Dana Miller, one of my advisees, not only earned her degree but also got published, found true love, and got a puppy. Here’s the story: Dana is a writing coach for a school district; this means that she works with other teachers to make writing an integral part of their classes. One 7th grade teacher wanted to improve student engagement in a history unit on the Holocaust. Dana recommended first person writing as a way to increase student engagement and the two of them agreed to contact the Holocaust museum for historical photos and biographies of Jewish children whose lives were forever damaged by the Nazi regime. The assignment for the seventh graders was to read the biography and, based on the facts supplied, to write journal entries in the first person, as if they were that child from long ago. After the project was well underway, a student named Ariel approached Dana and said she was afraid she might be “doing the assignment the wrong”; she had Googled her person, found out she was still alive, and they had begun corresponding over e-mail. Holocaust survivor Inge Auerbach did not live very far away from their rural Pennsylvania school. This news created considerable excitement amongst the faculty and students. Working together, they raised the funds to support the Holocaust survivor Inge Auerbach’s travel, she made a personal visit to the school, and her quiet strength made an everlasting, positive impression on the students. Dana genuinely wanted to share this story.

Figure 6.4 is an overview of Dana’s practical article. Notice that, even though she did get to share her story, the article did not take an “all about me” approach. This aspect of writing the practical article is frequently overlooked. If the manuscript focuses exclusively on one person’s experience, it becomes more difficult for readers to see how it applies to them. For example, if the article had discussed the Holocaust as the only topic, then those who do not teach this unit would feel excluded. When writing practical articles for national publications, write them for a wider audience than your workplace or the local newspaper. To some extent, this calls upon authors of practical articles to generalize the event. This is where the review of the literature comes in because it can identify some of the more general characteristics that are applicable across specific situations. At my suggestion, Dana provided a theoretical base (Table 1), many examples of other types of first person writing assignments in history (Table 2), and a thorough literature review. Including these elements makes the work accessible.

Shortly before Dana was scheduled to defend her dissertation on methods of teaching vocabulary, she called. She and the teacher who had worked together on the project had fallen in love and were now married. So, she truly did earn her doctorate, was published, found love, and got a Yorkshire terrier puppy; it was a dissertation gift from her husband.

Activity 6.8: Evaluation of a Practical Article

Given that peer review is a fundamental practice in the assessment of scholarly work, have a peer review your manuscript for a practical article using the rubric in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4

Scoring rubric for peer review of a practical article

Characteristic

Low

Medium

High

Format/structure

Is written more as a master’s-level paper for a class assignment or textbook-type of style

Shows some evidence of the transition to the structure of a publishable article

Clearly has the structure of a professional journal article, including the introduction/conclusion, pronouncement paragraph, specific headings, and figures/tables/charts/graphs as appropriate

Audience appropriateness

Fails to take the diverse readership into account

Considers the backgrounds of the readership

Communicates effectively with the intended audience and supplies the right kind and amount of material

Logical argument

Fails to define key terminology, identify the issues, and/or supply recommendations

Supplies some definitions, explains the issues, and/or makes an attempt at recommendations

Begins with expert definitions, clearly identifies the issues, and offers research-based recommendations

Content/originality

Does not advance knowledge in the field and is a rehash of existing publications

Offers some fresh perspectives on existing content

Reflects insight, originality, and unique perspectives that serve to advance the field

Literature review

Review is inadequate and relies extensively on secondary sources (e.g., textbooks) or websites

Review is sufficient; however, the level of application, analysis, and synthesis is lacking or the review is dated

Review is thorough, includes both classic and current sources; ideas are applied, analyzed, synthesized, and critiqued

Evidence/persuasiveness

Makes statements without marshaling authoritative and persuasive evidence

Supports most statements with authoritative and persuasive evidence

Consistently supports ideas with appropriate material from the professional literature, including empirical research

Organization

Is a general discussion without headings that are specific and signal the main sections of the paper; paragraphs need to be reordered

Includes some headings; however, they are too general or not helpful in guiding the reader; paragraphs are generally arranged as they should be

Includes specific and helpful headings and subheadings that serve to guide readers through the piece and enable them to preview the entire work; each paragraph flows into the next seamlessly

Focus

Lacks a consistent focus throughout

Has a focus; however, it needs to be sharpened and more consistent

Has a clear and interesting focus that is evident throughout the entire piece

Part of becoming more skillful as an author is learning to edit your own work to a greater extent. Use the questioning framework in Table 6.5 to assess a practical article that you have drafted.

Table 6.5

Self-assessment of a practical article

Let your article “get cold” by not working on it for a few days. Now return to it with a critical eye and ask yourself the following questions

Title—is it specific? Does it have a clear focus? (it should not sound like a book title). Does it set readers’ expectations appropriately for what they will learn? Read the title carefully, now read the abstract. Is there a good match or could it be improved? How?

Abstract—is it a concise summary of the entire piece and not just a paragraph lifted from the manuscript? Does the abstract do the article justice? Does it pique interest in reading the entire work without being cryptic?

Introduction—did the introduction build interest? Did it stride confidently into the topic and focus rather than include a lot of throat-clearing prose? Did it use the inverted triangle structure?

Pronouncement paragraph—does the manuscript include a pronouncement paragraph? This is very important: look to see if what is previewed there actually matches the main headings of the article. Do you have any recommendations for improving this alignment?

Main headings—are the headings specific to the focus of the article? Are they consistent in format (e.g., all stated as questions, each begins with a verb, etc.? Do they effectively guide the reader through major shifts in the argument?

Body of the manuscript—are there no more than 3–5 main headings? Are they evenly balanced in terms of length? If not, could two short sections be combined or one long one subdivided?

Literature review—is the evidence base current and authoritative with just a few classic sources? Does it use original sources rather than textbooks? Is the review of the literature thorough, current, persuasive, and synthesized? If not, what needs to be done to improve the work?

Transitions—as you read through the article, pay attention to the last sentence of each paragraph and the first sentence of the paragraph that follows. Are the transitions smooth? If not, indicate on the article where this needs to be improved

Examples—do the examples provided resonate with the experience of professionals? Scan through the work and underline the examples. Were there too few? Too many? Were they too long? Indicate places where examples are needed

Visual material—did the author make use of figures, tables, charts, graphs, or other visual material? Are they helpful and worthy of publication? Are they original and focused very specifically on the topic of the article?

Length and clarity—is there any place in the manuscript that is too wordy, a place where your attention began to wane? Please indicate the page(s) and paragraph(s) that need to be condensed further. Conversely, are there some places where the material requires further development?

Conclusion—did the conclusion: (1) briefly “recap” the main ideas? (2) move from specific to more general ideas? (3) revisit the main thesis that was explained in the introduction? (4) give a genuine sense of wrapping everything up and sending readers on their way? Do you notice the right-side up triangle structure?

Additional resources—did the author carefully select other, particularly helpful resources such as websites, videos, and books? Is there a full citation in the appropriate referencing style? Is there a brief annotation?

Conclusion

At the annual conference of the Association for Childhood Education International, a group of professors, authors and editors made a presentation on publishing articles in the professional journal of the organization. The discussion began with each panelist offering a compelling reason to write. One panelist who wrote practical articles said that her goal was “to be helpful” and to “write the article that I wish I had read before attempting to institute changes in my professional practice.” Ideally, the practical article does this. It spares others at least some of the floundering around and searching for resources. It persuades readers that instituting the recommended changes is well worth the effort. It also convinces reviewers that the author has really lived with these ideas, reflected deeply on them, and supported them with evidence and experience rather than blithely endorsing a trend or fad. The exemplary practical article is a boundary spanner; the author deftly moves between theory/research and practice as well as between narrative and expository modes of discourse. Practical articles validate effective practices and describe viable alternatives to ineffective practices. When readers reach the end, they have the sense that they have gained something worthwhile from deciding to spend time thinking along with the author.

References

Bianchi, R., Schonfeld, I. S., & Laurent, E. (2014). Is burnout a depressive disorder? A reexamination with special focus on atypical depression. International Journal of Stress Management, 21(4), 307–324.CrossRef

Callender-Price, N. (2014). On the road to writing continuing education. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 307–330). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of English Teachers.

Harris, A., Brown, D., & Abbott, I. (2006). Executive leadership: Another lever in the system? School Leadership and Management, 26(4), 397–409.CrossRef

Hensley, L. (2013). To cheat or not to cheat: A review with implications for practice. Community College Enterprise, 19(2), 22–34.

Holland, K., & Watson, R. (2012). Writing for publication in nursing and healthcare: Getting it right. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013a). Getting on the conference program and writing a practical article: Templates for success. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 13–23.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013b). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Kirszner, L. G., & Mandell, S. R. (2010). Patterns for college writing: A rhetorical reader and guide. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Lu, C., & Montague, B. (2015). Move to learn, learn to move: Prioritizing physical activity in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(1), 1–9.CrossRef

Mallonee, S., Fowler, C., & Istre, G. R. (2006). Bridging the gap between research and practice: A continuing challenge. Injury Prevention, 12(6), 357–359.CrossRef

Miller, D. (2009). Student engagement in history class: Using first-person writing to make meaningful connections. The Journal of Educational Alternatives: Principles, Practices, and Leadership, 4(1), 20–36.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zull, J. E. (2006). Key aspects of how the brain learns. New directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 110, 3–9.CrossRef

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_7

7. From a Research Project to a Journal Article

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

Very few dissertations make a successful transition to an article or book, even though degree recipients are encouraged by their committee members to pursue publication. From an editor’s perspective, the problem here is that the authors of these lengthy documents do not know how to distill a work to its very essence or how to revise it for a readership beyond the dissertation committee. Although this problem has been discussed in the literature, practical guidance has been lacking. This chapter explains how to plan a study, collect the data, and fashion it into a research article. The chapter offers a widely accepted structure (IMRaD) that guides the writing of a research report and supports publication from the outset. It clearly explains how to write the title, abstract, and each section of a research report. In addition, it offers a checklist for self-evaluation of a research manuscript and a series of steps necessary to prepare the work for publication. The many activities included have value both for inexperienced and experienced writers.

Of all the contributions that scholars can make to the literature, original research is widely regarded as the most prestigious because it is advances thinking and uses the scientific method. Consider the situation of a professor who has gathered survey data for six semesters from the students enrolled in various sections of a course that he teaches regularly. A colleague suggests, “Why don’t you try to publish this?” so he attempts to heed that advice. The response from reviewers, however, is disappointing.

The editor’s decision is “major revisions are required”, but the professor abandons the project instead. What is worse is that he decides he “just isn’t a researcher” and secretly worries that he will not have enough published scholarship to be awarded tenure. What went wrong here, exactly? There are several things.

First of all, the author seeking publication failed to think back to doctoral dissertation days when he was required to develop a theoretical framework, complete the institutional review board process, and write about the limitations of the research. Even though the dissertation is a sort of “dress rehearsal” for writing research, he did not transfer and apply that learning to writing a journal article. Second, he did not do his homework on the journal. If he had studied several published examples of survey research, he would have known that discussion of survey design and development was included, as was the IRB approval process. Third, the professor did not understand the process of manuscript development. If he did, he would have asked knowledgeable and trusted colleagues to review the work prior to submission; he also would know that a request for revisions is the most common decision from an editor. Fourth, the professor allowed himself to become overwhelmed by the comments rather than taking a step back and considering how he might address each one. Yes, it would take additional work but he had received clear direction on what would be necessary to earn the acceptance of the reviewers.

Criteria for Quality in Quantitative Research

Published quantitative research makes an original contribution to knowledge, theory, and practice; it also disseminates research findings in a way that researchers can use and replicate. Research also serves as a ballast and a guide for future research. However, conducting and writing an empirical study in a publishable format can be challenging and intimidating not only to novice researchers but also to experienced researchers. This feeling can be reduced when they use a practical and systematic approach (Cunningham, 2004). Davie (2012) suggests that, prior to writing the research study, researchers need to evaluate the quality of the study using the checklist in Activity 7.1 As you read through these questions, it becomes even more apparent that the professor in the example that introduced this chapter faltered at this initial step.

Activity 7.1: Checklist to Evaluate a Quantitative Study

Use the following questions to evaluate a quantitative study—one that you have written or that is in development. What flaws have you identified?

Yes

No

_____

______

Does the study have an appropriate research design?

_____

______

Were rigorous and realistic techniques used?

_____

______

Were the researchers qualified to conduct the study?

_____

______

Is the title informative?

_____

______

Is the study based on a scholarly and pertinent background and rationale that is supported by related previous studies?

_____

______

Does the study have an appropriate sample, including size?

_____

______

Did the study use appropriate methods of measurement and manipulation?

_____

______

Did the study control for quality?

_____

______

Did the study address ethical issues?

Success in publishing a quantitative research article requires attention to three interrelated elements: (1) the complete concept, (2) the achievement of the study, and (3) the description of the study. Although the three major elements are important, the guidelines presented below primarily address the third component, because a study that is well written but has a weak research design is just as likely to be rejected as a study that is well-designed study but poorly written. The following guidelines can help researchers publish their research manuscript. A published research article is usually some type of study that was carried out and is reported in a structured format that is presented in a logical sequence.

Structured Format and Content

In developing a manuscript for a research publication, researchers need to use the traditional format, language, and style that researchers use in reporting their study. The manuscript needs to briefly and clearly describe the study. It needs to follow a set of principles in a logically and efficient way that includes a title, an abstract, and four sections that consist of introduction, methodology, results, and discussion (IMRaD). In 1979 the American National Standards Institute adopted Standard Z39, which established IMRaD as the official standard for presenting scientific information that is in common use. Figure 7.1 explains the IMRaD format (Annesley, 2010c).

Fig. 7.1

IMRaD structure for a quantitative report

Activity 7.2: Applying the IMRaD Structure

Select a quantitative manuscript in development, one that has been rejected, or a publisher journal article. Use the questions Fig. 7.1 to evaluate its adherence to the IMRaD structure. What strengths and weaknesses did you identify?

Online Tool

Richard Jewell has advice on writing papers using the IMRaD structure and several sample papers in Chapter 50, posted at: www.​tc.​umn.​edu/​~jewel001/​CollegeWriting/​home.​htm.

The IMRaD format is generally used to report original quantitative research. It offers an appropriate and systematic interpretation of a research study to help readers identify what is known, what is not known, and why the study was conducted (Introduction); who the subjects were, what materials/instruments and procedures were used, how the determined using the materials/instruments and procedures (Methodology); what was learned (Results), and what significance and meaning of the study has (Discussion) (Todorovic, 2003). To address each of these questions, a research manuscript needs several components, which are found in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1

General components of quantitative research article

Component

Description/purpose

Title

Would readers understand the nature of the research study and determine if they wish to read it from the title?

Abstract

Would readers know what the study was about from a brief description of the study?

Would readers understand the study from a summary that ranges between 200 and 300 words?

Would readers identify the relevance in the study based on the key words that are used for indexing purposes and on-line searches of databases?

Introduction

Do the brief descriptions of previous related studies support the current research?

Does the theoretical framework justify the need for the current research study?

Does the introduction conclude with the hypotheses or research questions and the purpose of the study?

Methodology

Does it include a description of everything that is needed to replicate the study?

Does it explain and justify the methodology that was used?

Does it describe procedures, materials, measures, analyses, and subjects that are used (including ethics and consent)?

Does it describe and justify the sample size calculation?

Does it describe and justify the statistics used to analyze the data?

Results

Do they describe all findings (including significant, negative, and non-significant results)?

Do they complement the description of the outcomes with appropriate tables, graphs, and figures?

Discussion

Does it emphasize the major findings and compares them with findings from previous related studies?

Does it discuss any limitations of the study?

Does it provide recommendations for future research and practice?

References

Do they provide complete references that were cited in the text?

Do they use the current edition of the APA manual to cite references in text and to list them in the references’ section?

Guidelines on Writing Each Section of the Quantitative Manuscript

Quantitative researchers sometimes make the mistake of thinking that successful publication of an empirical research article is all about the statistical design and data. As important as these things are, it is equally important to present the material effectively.

Developing a Title

The proverb, “You don’t get a second chance to make a first impression,” (Annesley, 2010i, p. 359) can be applied to the title. It too provides the first impression of the manuscript to readers, reviewers, and/or editors. The words in the title need to describe the content in a clear, brief, informative, and relevant way that is appropriate to the target audience (Annesley). The title has accurate information to help readers determine the relevance of the study to their research and to guide electronic indexing services to rely on the description in the title to guide readers in searching for any literature related to their research. An appropriate title has “… the fewest possible words that adequately describe the contents of the paper” (Day & Sakaduski, 2011, p. 9). The American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2010) style manual sets a limit of 12 words on a title (not counting articles and prepositions). Titles need to be balanced; that is, they are not too long or too short. Lengthy titles generally have an unnecessary number of wasted words such as those that begin with “Investigations on …”. In contrast, short titles are extremely vague such as the title, “Writing Reports” gives the reader no information about the article. Consequently, each word in the title needs to be methodically selected, be related to other words, and properly placed in the title. Effective titles (a) define the manuscript’s main problem; (b) initiate its topic; (c) are specific, clear, precise, and complete; (d) avoid using abbreviations; and (e) are of interest to readers (Peat, Elliott, Baur, & Keena, 2002). Annesley proposes several guidelines in developing a title for a quantitative study:

Be Concise. A title should include keywords that describe the content of the research report and be fewer than 12 words. Avoid words such as “a study of,” “investigation of,” “development of,” or “observations on” because they usually are unnecessary. Also avoid using terms such as “new,” “improved,” “novel,” “validated,” and “innovative” because they cause readers to think, “I’ll be the judge of that.”

Use titles that suggest the type of study. For example, the word “relationships” suggests a correlational study, the word “effects” suggests an experimental or quasi-experimental study, and the word “factors” implies factor analysis.

Be Informative. Titles need to provide sufficient information to briefly describe the research report. They should include the independent variable, the dependent variable, the observed effect, and the population studied.

Use Keywords and Terms Wisely. Key words and terms need to focus on the content of the study to attract the readers’ interest. These are used throughout the article and will be used for indexing purposes as well. As you select keywords, consider the terminology that other scholars might use to search the literature rather than using terminology that is unfamiliar to most researchers.

Focus on the Journal and Target Audience. Journals provide specific instructions on the number of words or characters in a title and the use of subtitles. Review back issues of the intended outlet to get a feel for the way that titles typically are written.

Avoid Abbreviations. Abbreviations that are not well known may confuse readers and result in less effective dissemination of the work.

Readers usually read the title first, because it represents all of the sections of the study. Annesley (2010i) states that the title is “the face of the paper—the descriptor, the advertisement, the pitch. Like a billboard, it is your 10 s opportunity to connect with the passerby (the reader)” (p. 357). Many times, a working title that was used during the development of the research needs to be revisited and revised to be more precise after the research has been completed. Be certain to do this and to develop a clear, concise, and precise title that is your research “in a nutshell”.

Writing an Abstract

Abstracts summarize the study in a word count that typically ranges between 200 and 300 words. The abstract persuades readers to read the complete study. Usually researchers depend on the abstract to identify studies that are related to their research. Therefore, the abstract provides a brief and comprehensive summary that matches the text of the manuscript (Sharp, 2002). Since abstracts summarize the whole study in one paragraph, it is important that the abstract is well-written, which means that the abstract needs to briefly describe all of the sections in the study. Use the information in Activity 7.3 to evaluate an abstract that you have written or to guide you in preparing one.

Activity 7.3: Self-Assessment of the Quantitative Research Abstract

Look at an abstract that you have written or are developing and use these questions to evaluate it (Koopman, 1997). Does the abstract:

build motivation to read on? state the importance of the study, the problems in this area, and the contributions to the field?

identify the problem and its scope?

clarify the approach? Include the critical variables and the procedures used in the study?

share the key findings? provide answers to the research questions with quantitative data?

mention conclusions and implications? Describe the nature of the contribution made?

An abstract is self-sufficient and independent of the manuscript. It should assist researchers to immediately determine its relevance to their research. Hence, abstracts offer a concise but complete summary about the study in a well-organized, well-written, and clear style. They summarize the study by communicating its purpose, methodology, major results, and conclusions (Selvanathan, Udani, Udani, & Haylett, 2006).

Key words that define or identify topics in the study are included in the manuscript’s title page (Sharp, 2002); journals typically include them below the abstract. Readers use these key words to determine if the study is related to their research. Remember that the keywords are used for indexing purposes also, so you will want to use terminology that would be used by others when conducting an online search of the literature to make your work more accessible and increase your “academic digital footprint” (Croce, 2013).

Writing the Introduction for a Quantitative Study

The introduction provides the reader with background information on the research topic. In several sentences it describes what is known about the topic, gaps to be filled, and its importance. From the outset, the introduction asserts the importance of the study clear through a concise statement of purpose (Milardo, 2015). The introduction establishes the foundation for the study (Annesley, 2010d) and helps readers to understand it. It critically reviews and analyzes the outcomes of published studies to justify the researcher’s study, develop a theoretical framework, and validate the study’s questions/hypotheses and methodology. The introduction has four components:

1.

a statement of the study’s purpose

2.

the research questions or hypotheses and how these will be addressed

3.

the projected results

4.

the rationale (including the theoretical framework) that contributed to the conceptualization of the project

5.

the anticipated contribution to the field (Udani, Selvanathan, Udani, & Haylett, 2007)

Figure 7.2 identifies three stages in writing the introduction (Derntl, 2014).

Fig. 7.2

Three stages in writing the introduction for a quantitative study

Generally speaking, the introduction should be fewer than two double-spaced pages (El-Serag, 2006). Make it concise by crafting a well-defined rationale that focuses on the purpose of the study and the research questions/hypotheses, as this is the best way to “walk readers through” your reasoning. A “script” for generating the first draft of an introduction to a quantitative research article is:

We hypothesized that …

We tested the hypothesis that …

We asked whether …

To answer this question, …

This prompted us to investigate whether …

To resolve this apparent difference …

We solved this problem by …

The purpose of our study was … (Annesley (2010d, p. 708).

Note that this is a way to get started; you’ll need to rewrite the introduction so that it flows and does not sound formulaic.

Activity 7.4: Evaluating the Introduction to a Quantitative Manuscript

Use these questions to evaluate the introduction section of a quantitative manuscript:

Is there is a clear and unambiguous question or problem statement?

Is there a brief summary of what is already known on the topic?

Are key terms defined, using authoritative sources?

Is there a clear and unambiguous thesis statement (main message)

Has the importance of the paper been made clear (relevance or significance)? (Fahy, 2008, p. 115).

Writing the Methodology Section

Ideally, the methodology section provides sufficient information to guide other researchers to replicate the study, assess the outcomes, and compare the findings with other studies. It includes a description of the:

procedures that were used to address the research questions/hypothesis

subjects, materials, and assessment measures

selection of the subjects (including ethical treatment of human subjects)

collection of the data

analyses of the data, including the statistical methodology and software package that were used (El-Serag, 2006).

The methodology section assists readers in understanding (a) how and why the experiments were conducted; (b) the relationship between the experiments and the other sections (e.g., results, conclusions); (c) how to successfully replicate the study; and (d) how to validate the results and conclusions based on the strength of the procedures, research design, and statistical analyses. Any procedures and measures that were used and modified based on those found in published studies are also described and justified (Udani et al., 2007). All of these details are written in several subcategories with appropriate subheadings to organize the information. To determine if all critical details are included, consider following a “who/what/when/where/how/why” format (Annesley (2010j) as described in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2

Questions to draft the methodology section

Who

Who recruited the subjects; kept the files; and collected, examined, and analyzed the data?

What

What criteria were used for selecting the subjects?

What materials, procedures, and measures were used?

What kind of study was it?

What interventions were used?

What variables were measured?

What statistical analyses and software package were used?

What validation and reliability estimates were used?

When

When was the beginning of the study?

When were the data collected?

When were the data analyzed?

When were the findings determined?

When was the study completed?

Where

Where were the files stored?

Where were the subjects registered?

Where was the study conducted?

Where were the analyses conducted?

How

How were the subjects recruited and selected?

How was the size of the sample determined?

How were the groups defined and determined?

How were subjects assigned to groups?

How many treatments were conducted?

How were the data collected, recorded, analyzed, and saved?

How were the data measured and reported?

Why

Why were the specified subjects selected?

Why were the procedures selected?

Why was a selected treatment performed?

Why were procedures conducted in a specific sequence?

Adapted from Annesley (2010j)

The methodology section describes the (a) scientific procedures; (b) subjects, measures, materials and equipment; (c) procedures; (e) evidence; and analyses of the data that were used in the study (Maloy, 2001). It is important to include the details for specific experiments. Specifically, it should discuss the sources of evidence and the analyses of the data. In addition, the methodology section should reflect the information that is found in all of the other sections.

Sources of Evidence

The research site, group, subjects, events, data, measures, and units in the study are considered to be sources of evidence, because they were used to address the research questions or hypotheses in relation to the research problem. The characteristics, procedures, selection, and justification for these sources of evidence are described (Saracho, 2013). Data are sources of evidence typically include participant and nonparticipant observations; unstructured or semi-structured interviews; documents and other artifacts; audio- or video-recordings; and standardized measures including surveys, tests, structured interview protocols, and categorical demographic information that were used to gather data across cases or units of research analyses (American Educational Research Association, 2006). Raw data are not reported but are saved and made available to those who request it. Sometimes interested researchers (e.g., journal editors, reviewers, readers) request to examine the raw data (Sharp, 2002).

Data Analyses

A doctoral candidate is planning her dissertation and, although she has completed four required research courses, she is unsure of which statistical tests to use. She fears exposing her ignorance by asking one of her instructors but is equally fearful of making a mistake if she chooses statistical tests without some expert guidance. Fortunately, there is a research lab staffed by statistics majors where she can inquire about the appropriate statistical test. However, their rule is that they are not permitted to simply tell students what to use; the student has to arrive with some possibilities in mind and, even this causes her to procrastinate about using the university’s support services. As this situation illustrates, one of the biggest challenges is “what to use when” to analyze the data. Particularly for inexperienced researchers, determining the correct statistical tests to use with a data set can be confusing. A basic concept in quantitative research in parsimony; this means that it is appropriate to select, not the most elaborate or mathematically sophisticated analysis, but the simplest one that matches the data set. While it is common to ask for second, third or more opinions about this, it also is helpful to use a decision tree or chart first.

Online Tool

When planning your quantitative study, try using the decision tree from Muhlenberg College posted at: http://​www.​muhlenberg.​edu/​pdf/​main/​academics/​psychology/​stats_​decision.​pdf.

Since the use of a statistical test depends on the nature of the data, this selection needs to be explained and justified. Fortunately, there are many online tools that follow help with selecting the appropriate statistical tests and support you in justifying your decision.

Online Tool

The Institute for Digital Research and Education provides a very helpful chart that answers the question, What statistical analysis should I use with these data? http://​www.​ats.​ucla.​edu/​stat/​mult_​pkg/​whatstat/​.

Some researchers gather more data than they need. For their statistical analyses (e.g., analyses of variance, factor analyses, regression analyses), the focus is on data that relate to their research questions or hypotheses. The statistical analyses that are used to analyze are described and justified in detail to inform other researchers and an informative way to assist researchers to understand their research. The analyses and report of the results focus on the research questions/hypotheses and lead to the conclusions that emanate from the research (American Educational Research Association, 2006).

Online Tool

This YouTube video https://​www.​youtube.​com/​watch?​v=​rulIUAN0U3w from the Statistics Learning Centre, watch “Choosing Which Statistical Test to Use—Statistics Help” guides you through the seven most commonly used methods of quantitative analysis. There are others in the series as well.

Statistics

The statistical procedures in analyzing the data are described and justified. In addition, the computer statistics software program (such as SAS, SPSS) that is used to analyze the data needs to be identified. Measures used to summarize the data are presented such as mean (SD), median (range), or median. Tests used in significance testing should be described, including the underlying P value used to establish significance (Boyd, Rifai, & Annesley, 2009).

Jenkins (1995) suggests a checklist that can be used in developing the methodology section (see Table 7.3).

Table 7.3

Methodology section for a quantitative study

Outline of the study design

Subjects

 Method of sampling and recruitment;

 Number of subjects; and

 Justification of sample size

 Inclusion, exclusion and withdrawal criteria;

 Method of allocation to study groups

Variables

 Independent, dependent, extraneous, controlled

Pilot studies

 Outcome of any pilot studies which led to modifications to the main study

Materials

 Equipment, instruments or measurement tools (include model number and manufacturer)

Procedures

 Detailed description, in chronological order, of exactly what was done and by whom

Major ethical considerations

 Institutional review board approval, compliance with principles of informed consent and ethical treatment of human subjects

 Possible conflicts of interest

Data reduction/statistical analyses

 Method of calculating derived variables, dealing with outlying values and missing data

 Methods used to summarize data (present verb tense)

 Statistical software (name, version or release number)

 Statistical tests (cite a reference for less commonly used tests) and what was compared

 Statistical significance

From Jenkins (1995, p. 287)

Reporting Results in a Quantitative Study

The results section needs to be brief but thorough. Begin with a sentence or two about the study and discuss only those findings that relate to the hypotheses/research questions based on the data (Maloy, 2001) and the purpose of the study. First the subject’s characteristics (such as sex and age distribution, initial and final numbers in each group, and dropouts) and outcomes for each group (treatment vs control groups) are discussed. When multiple groups of subjects are provided with several interventions, outcomes are presented from general to specific. Then related findings are combined into topics and discussed to offer a clear-cut description of the outcomes.

Activity 7.5: Analyzing the Results Section of a Quantitative Manuscript

Use your own manuscript, identify a published journal article that has earned an award or, use Google Scholar to locate a research article of interest that has been cited extensively. Review the methodology section of the manuscript using the outline in Table 7.3.

Researchers use tables and figures with scattergrams and graphs to communicate their results. These provide a visual description that assists readers to grasp, comprehend, and remember information. Tables, graphs, and figures should be simple, clear, and relatively self-explanatory (Cunningham, 2004). Effective visuals enable readers to see trends, relationships, outcomes, categories, or general experimental parameters (Annesley, 2010e) but they also need to be referred to in the body of the manuscript. They also should be used judiciously and formatted as required by the specific outlet (e.g., APA Style). Tables and figures are included only if they (1) will save a large amount of text and (2) distinctly assist readers to understand the outcomes. In studies with a few significant results, it may suffice to discuss them in the text of the manuscript without any visuals. On the other hand, major outcomes that use multiple data points are better understood when they are presented in tables, graphs, and/or figures. Many times authors make the mistake of using a table when a single sentence would suffice, submit more than seven tables for a short article, or include everything that was generated by the statistical software package rather than the pertinent information. Be thorough, but be concise.

Activity 7.6: Writing an Effective Results Section

To draft a results section, try the following: (1) Briefly describe an experiment without detail of Methods section (a sentence or two). (2) Report main result(s), supported by selected data (e.g., representative/most common, best case/example of ideal or exception. (3) Order multiple results logically (e.g., from most to least important or from simple to complex). (4) Use the past tense to describe what happened.

Online Tool

Vanderbilt University offers a very helpful resource on how to design visual arrays of data, “Reporting Quantitative Results” at: http://​virg.​vanderbilt.​edu/​AssessmentPlans/​Results/​Reporting_​Results_​Quantitative.​aspx.

Discussion

Researchers use the discussion section to interpret the meaning of the outcomes. The discussion guides readers to understand the study and its significance to the field (Hess, 2004). Researchers critically analyze, compare, and discuss their results based on the stated problem, research questions/hypotheses, and methods. The discussion section also is a place where writers revisit the literature review. They compare the outcomes of their study with those from previous published studies to justify their study’s outcomes, limitations, and conflicts with other studies. Before drawing conclusions, writers need to discuss and evaluate their study’s agreement with, contradictions of, and/or relevance to extant knowledge in the field (Maloy, 2001). After establishing this, writers can then move to a discussion of their study’s contribution to scientific knowledge, the implications for practice, and possible directions for future research (Booth, Columb, & Williams, 2008). A well written discussion provides an effective completion to a scientific manuscript paper, because it ascribes meaning to the outcomes in the study (Annesley, 2010h).

The discussion section needs to be carefully structured, because it is frequently the weakest component of the manuscript (Skelton & Edwards, 2000). A common error in the discussion section is to use “rhetoric”, overstate findings, and generate assertions that go beyond what is supported by the data (Docherty & Smith, 1999; Hess, 2004). Conversely, some authors “undersell” their work and fail to make the contributions clear.

Writers of quantitative research can improve the discussion section of their manuscripts by using the following questions as a guide:

Did the author/researcher:

State the study’s major findings?

Explain the meaning and importance of the findings?

Relate the findings to those of similar studies?

Consider alternative explanations of the findings?

State the relevance of the findings?

Acknowledge the study’s limitations?

Make suggestions for further research? (Hess, 2004, p. 1239).

Citations and References

In preparation for conducting and writing the study, you will read many previously published articles that directly or indirectly relate to your research. This information helps to “situate” the present study in the body of knowledge (BoK). For instance, studies that (a) helped researchers define their topic and identify the knowledge gaps that need to be filled are cited in the introduction; (b) described measures, materials, and methods that were used in the study are cited in the methodology section; and (c) helped support and interpret the study’s outcomes are cited in the discussion section. Therefore, the accuracy and value of the citations and references become very important (Annesley, 2011).

Rigor in searching for and accuracy in documenting these sources is just as important as statistical precision. In addition to acknowledging others’ contributions, citation of sources reveals other work that influence the present study, aids in drawing conclusions and interpreting the findings, assists editors in identifying suitable peer reviewers, and supports peer reviewers in evaluating the work. To illustrate the importance of accuracy in citing sources, a journal article was sent out for anonymous peer review to several people who were leading authorities and whose names appeared in the reference list. However, not only did the author spell one of the reviewer’s names incorrectly, he also attributed the results of a study to the wrong person. As you can imagine, this did not yield positive reviews and it was not because the reviewers took it personally. Errors of this type call into question, not only the author’s attention to detail but also how conversant she or he is with the subject matter. It is important to check and double-check details to avoid embarrassing errors such as this. References should be accurate, original source documents that have been read and validated by the researcher (Annesley, 2011).

While there are different referencing styles, the one most commonly used with research is the American Psychological Association (APA) style. In APA style, references are cited in the text and are listed in alphabetical order at the end of the manuscript (Derntl, 2014). Each citation that is inserted in the text indicates that the information needs to be credited to a researcher’s previously published and related study. The citation has the name of the author, comma, and the publication date of the cited study. When a citation in a text refers to several authors’ research, these are cited in alphabetical order. These citations are listed alphabetically in the reference section to help other researchers and readers access these published studies (Annesley, 2011). Authors must follow these guidelines for the references section, citing the researchers’ work in the text, and formatting the manuscript. Be aware, however, that each publisher has a “house style” that may deviate slightly from the style manual in use. For example, Springer does not use the comma for in-text citations even though that is APA Style. So, if citing a work by Smith published in 2017, APA would have it as (Smith, 2017) while Springer’s house style is (Smith, 2017).

Appendices

Appendices are supplementary information at the end of the manuscript that are usually used to describe materials, procedures, or statistical analyses that were used in the text. They provide information that helps researchers and readers get a clear understanding about the study’s procedures and results. Appendices may or may not be published in the print journal. In the interest of conserving space and paper, they might be available in the online version of a publication (only) as a supplemental item.

Acknowledgements

It is a professional courtesy to acknowledge individuals or organizations who facilitated the completion of the study. Acknowledgements enable researchers to thank all those who have helped in conducting the study. They generally acknowledge anyone who offered assistance, which ranges from receiving financial assistance, help with empirical or statistical methods, to individuals who provided comments and advise on the final manuscript. These may include technical or support staff in the researcher’s department, academic staff from other departments, institutions, or organizations. Acknowledgments usually express the researcher’s appreciation in a concise manner but should avoid strong emotive language. For example, researchers may want to thank someone who provided them with technical support and state the following acknowledgment:

We wish to thank Professor Ringgold for his statistical assistance in analyzing the results.

Acknowledgements also are used to credit others who contributed to the work but did not write the manuscript, for example:

The authors wish to acknowledge ___ and ___, the research assistants who served as additional raters of the data to establish interrater reliability estimates.

Some researchers are provided with financial support to help them conduct the study and/or develop the manuscript. A sample acknowledgement is:

This research was supported by a Faculty Research Grant at XYZ University. The opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the positions, policy, or endorsement of the University.

Overall Evaluation of a Quantitative Study

Credibility of the study is based on the researcher’s ability to effectively design, execute, and describe the project. Therefore, it is important that researchers evaluate the presentation of their study before submitting it to a journal. Quantitative studies need to be evaluated to determine their contribution to the field. The evaluation process needs to objectively assess the strengths and the weaknesses of a report. Researchers need to consider if the strengths of the study are better than its weaknesses, the results influence practice, and the results suggest future research directions. Evaluating the quantitative research report may initially seem like an overwhelming chore but using a systematic approach can help researchers be more at ease and capable of evaluating their quantitative research reports (Russell, 2005). What if you could get a “report card” on your quantitative study prior to submitting it? Authors are sometimes unaware that there are many such self-evaluative tools in existence. One that we found helpful is in Table 7.4. Going through a set of questions such as these is especially useful if you are writing a quantitative research report with a team and different people are writing various sections of the manuscript.

Table 7.4

Tool for self-evaluation of quantitative research

Introduction and review of the literature

__________Is the problem introduced?

__________Does the problem establish the importance of the study?

__________Is there a discussion on how the study will advance knowledge in the field?

__________Are research questions and research hypotheses well stated?

__________Are relevant theories described?

__________Is there background information about the problem?

__________Is the next step essential to research a problem identified?

__________Is the purpose of the study described based on previous research?

__________Is there a flows from one topic to another?

__________Are headings and subheadings helpful to readers in understanding the major points?

__________Is there a critical analysis of previous research (strengths vs weaknesses)?

__________Is the cited research current and appropriate?

__________Are primary sources mainly cited?

__________Are gaps in the literature identified?

Methods and subjects

__________Was random sampling used?

__________Was stratified random sampling used?

If random sampling wasn’t used:

__________Were subjects selected from the target group?

__________Were subjects from diverse sources included?

__________Were the limitations addressed?

__________Were the subjects well described?

__________Were demographics of the sample discussed?

__________Was an adequate sample size used?

__________Were the guidelines of informed consent followed?

Instruments

__________Were examples of test questions provided?

__________Was the item-response format (e.g., Likert, multiple-choice) specified?

__________Were the testing environment and testing limitations described?

__________Was the selection of the instruments justified?

__________Was information provided on how to obtain the instruments?

__________Was the evidence of instrument reliability and validity described?

Data collection procedures

__________Were subjects randomly assigned to groups?

If random assignment was not used:

__________Was evidence provided that showed the similarity in the groups?

__________Were the procedures in collecting the data well describe?

__________Was a natural setting provided for the experiment?

Results

__________Were the statistical procedures clearly described?

__________Were the appropriate statistical procedures used?

__________Were the results that were statistically significant described?

__________Was the statistical information described in relation to the research hypothesis and research question?

__________Were related statistics presented in a table with highlights discussed in the results?

Discussion

__________Were readers reminded of the study’s major purpose and results?

__________Was information provided about the significant results?

__________Were the interpretation of the results of the study described in detail?

__________Were recommendations provided for future research?

__________Were recommendations provided for practitioners?

__________Were limitations discussed in relation to the study?

__________Were the consistencies of the results from previous studies discussed?

__________Was the information gap from previous studies addressed?

Adapted from Pyrczak (2012) and Hittleman & Simon (2006)

The process of evaluating a research study consists of an in-depth assessment of each stage of the research process. The purpose of evaluating research is to emphasize both strengths and weaknesses. Some researchers are doubtful of their interpretations. These are normal concerns, which can be resolved by reading and discussing research reports. If they practice using the criteria to evaluate research reports, they can improve their critiquing skills (Coughian, Cronin, & Ryan, 2007). Many novice and inexperienced research are unable to understand the concepts and terminology related to research and research critique. When you think about it, quantitative research is like learning another language: it uses words (e.g., vocabulary, key concepts), has specific ways of structuring sentences (e.g., syntax or grammar), and is used to convey meaning (communication). Mastering the “language of science” is every bit as challenging as becoming fluent in a language other than your native tongue. Being able to critically analyze and read research advances a field by promoting evidence-based professional practice (Russell, 2005).

Preparing the Manuscript for Submission

For many scholars seeking to publish their work, the evaluation process for research articles can seem like the proverbial “black box” in a mechanical or electronic device that performs a single task but remains complex or secretive. Authors are sometimes reluctant to subject their work into the so-called black box of editing due to misgivings about how they will fare and an aura of mystery about how the process operates (Baruch, Konrad, Aguinis & Starbuck, 2008; Stolerman, 2009). Nevertheless, many academics feel pressured to publish in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. At universities that are known to be major research institutions, faculty may even get a short list of the journals that will count towards tenure and promotion. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of manuscripts submitted fail to make it through the journal review processes. To increase your chances of success, use every tool in this chapter first. Then plan to submit a manuscript that:

is written for the readership of the journal

conforms to the writing style of the outlet

is representative of the journal’s quality

convinces the editors and reviewers the study is important

advances knowledge in the field

uses a methodology that is systematic and rigorous

selects appropriate measurement tools

analyzes data accurately

explains empirical findings

articulates the nature of the contribution made and its impact on the field (Ortinau, 2011).

Reflect also on the researcher’s role. The sixth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010) indicates that researchers are responsible for: preparing the manuscript; assuming organizational and ethical responsibilities; fulfilling the journal’s policy prerequisites; and collaborating with the journal editor, editorial staff, and publisher. Such obligations involve key issues, such as using an accurate research design to accept or reject the hypotheses, theoretical framework that supports the research hypotheses, data analyses, interpretation of the results, and required formatting of the manuscript as well as a well-written study. Clearly, researchers need to assume numerous responsibilities and demonstrate a constellation of skills to develop and submit an appropriate manuscript to a scholarly research journal.

Choosing Suitable Outlets

Far too often, authors orchestrate failure by neglecting to carefully select a suitable outlet for their work. The same manuscript that will be rejected without review by one journal can be warmly received by another. For example, consider this description from The Journal of Research in Childhood Education:

The Journal of Research in Childhood Education, a publication of the Association for Childhood Education International, features articles that advance knowledge and theory of the education of children, infancy through early adolescence. Consideration is given to reports of empirical research, theoretical articles, ethnographic and case studies, participant observation studies, and studies deriving data collected from naturalistic settings. The journal includes cross-cultural studies and those addressing international concerns.

Important to the purpose of this journal is interest in research designs that are integral to the research questions posed, as well as research designs endorsed by the scientific community. Further, the Journal seeks to stimulate the exchange of research ideas by publication of small-scale studies carried out in a variety of settings (homes, centers, classrooms, hospitals, and other community environments), and whose results are reported where appropriate with the inclusion of effect size information.

First of all, you know that they will consider quantitative research. Secondly, you know that they have an international audience. Finally, it is clear that their emphasis is on the education of children. So, not matter how wonderful your study of graduate students in your state might be, it will not be considered.

Before submitting a manuscript to a journal, try the following strategy:

confirm that their manuscript is appropriate for the selected journal

review the journal website to learn more about the outlet’s mission, readership, and requirements

study the journal’s guidelines for submission

peruse manuscripts previously published in the outlet

proofread the manuscript to make sure that the journal is appropriate for the manuscript and meets the journal’s expectations.

An editor asked a group of authors “What would you guess as the top reasons for manuscript rejection?” The audience mentioned several possibilities, all having to do with writing quality. “Actually, it is simpler than that. First, I read the title. If it is outside the scope of our publication, it is rejected. For example, the journal focuses on leadership, specifically the leadership of school principals. If the title has nothing to do with that, we’re not interested. The second thing that I look at is the length. I will not impose on my all-volunteer reviewers by sending them a fifty page manuscript to review. If the author has not followed the guidelines, the manuscript is returned to them—either as ‘revise before review’ or as an outright rejection.” The journal’s website offers researchers manuscript specifications, requirements, and guidelines (Albers, Floyd, Fuhrmann, & Martínez, 2011; Floyd et al., 2011; Nihalani & Mayrath, 2008a, 2008b), which are also found in the hard copy of the journal in a section titled, “Instructions for Authors.” These instructions offer authors guidelines to follow in preparing their manuscript. For instance, it indicates the length in words, main parts, referencing style, and how to set up tables, figures, and other illustrations. Authors who disregard the journal’s guidelines dramatically decrease their chances for acceptance of the manuscript (Dixon, 2011). One journal editor estimated that she receives, on average, 15 manuscripts every week of the year. With this number of submissions, it is easy to see why those that do not conform to the guidelines would be rejected.

Manuscript Submission

Authors can also use the journal’s website to electronically submit their manuscripts. They follow the directions for submission that are prompted in its website. Most journals also require authors to submit a cover letter that verifies that the manuscript is the author’s own work and that it is only being submitted to the selected journal. Manuscripts are submitted to one journal at a time and can only be submitted to another journal when the journal editor where the manuscript was first submitted declines to publish it.

When authors submit a manuscript to a journal, the editor or editorial assistant acknowledges the receipt of the manuscript, assigns it a number, and checks to see if the manuscript is appropriate for the journal. The editors may determine that the manuscript is unsuitable and reject it without sending it out for review. Another common decision is “revise before review”. This means that the author must modify the manuscript before the editor will send it out to reviewers (Albers et al., 2011; Floyd et al., 2011).

Peer-Review Process

For more than two centuries peer review has been used, because it is considered the seal of reliable science. Editors use the peer review process to select the best papers for their journal. Since experts lack expertise in all areas, reviewers with the appropriate knowledge assist editors in identifying the appropriateness of the manuscript for their journal. Basically, the review process is about a community of researchers who assess the value of the manuscript and provide useful and constructive comments to improve the manuscript (Udani et al., 2007).

The submission of a manuscript to a journal starts the peer-review process to determine the quality of the manuscript, its contribution to the field, and its applicability to the journal (APA, 2010). After the editors decide that the manuscript is suitable for the journal, they assign it to an editor to send a blind copy (no author identification to make it anonymous review) to reviewers (typically three) who know the area to assess the manuscript. When the peer-review process is completed, which usually takes approximately 2–4 months, the editor decides the manuscript’s disposition (Floyd et al., 2011), summarizes the reviewers’ commentaries with recommendations, communicates the information to the author, and lets the author know the decision to “accept, revise and resubmit,” or “reject” the manuscript. Authors who revise and resubmit a manuscript write to the action editor a letter addressing the revisions based on the reviewers’ comments. The editor’s reasons for rejecting a manuscript can be to modify the manuscript and submit it to a different but appropriate journal (Martínez, Floyd, & Erichsen 2011). The peer-review process can be discouraging, annoying, irritating, and time-consuming, but it is thought to be a valid and scientific practice (Albers et al., 2011). The peer-review process is a cooperative undertaking, because an intelligent and forthcoming review can considerably enhance the clarity of the submitted manuscript, which makes it essential to scientific publications.

Ultimately, the decisions that a researcher makes about all of the issues in this chapter will expand or limit opportunities to share work with others and make an enduring contribution to the field. A very common mistake is to assume that the truly important part of quantitative research is all about statistics and that “writing it up” is just a formality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The way the work is presented is just as important as the work itself. If the ideas are muddled, the writing is awkward, or the requirements of the journal are flagrantly disregarded, all of the work invested in conducting a rigorous research project will go unrecognized. Stated bluntly, research outcomes become meaningful when they are published. Benjamin Franklin once observed that there is no higher honor than to have one’s work “respectfully cited” by respected peers and this is no less true in higher education. In fact, peer review is a cornerstone of Academia and earning the approval of fellow experts is an important part of the scholar’s life. While the increase in the number of researchers within various disciplines has enhanced scholarly publications and communication among scientists, it also has intensified competition for the few available slots for publication of quantitative research. As one small illustration, a quarterly research journal publishes, on average, ten manuscripts per issue. This means that, all year long, just 40 manuscripts from among those submitted will be accepted and disseminated. The editor estimates that over 400 manuscripts are submitted each year, which means that about 10 % find a place of publication in this outlet. Understanding this common scenario suggests several important takeaway messages from this chapter on quantitative manuscripts.

Conclusion

A team of researchers consisting of two Educational Psychology professors, one Curriculum and Instruction professor, a school administrator and a program director worked together on a project for an entire school year. One professor and the school personnel were the program developers; they implemented the program and collected the data. One member of the team was a statistician; he analyzed the data. Another was a prolific author on the subject; she wrote the literature review. The literature review was revised significantly 17 times before sharing it with the team and the statistician said, “It would have taken me months to write that—and it probably would not have been that good.” The statistician analyzed data gathered on the experimental and control groups; he returned to the data set several times to get different “cuts” of the data and to complete a post hoc test. Proud of their work, they submitted it to the premier journal in the field and, 12 weeks later, the decision was “revise and resubmit”. Instead of balking at the outcome, they corresponded back and forth and make every effort to address each recommendation. The editor responded with a few minor suggestions that required additional attention. After those were completed, the work was accepted. The entire process, from project to print, took 2 years but, when the final revision was filed and accepted, the editor wrote, “I understand your study well now and we are pleased to be publishing it in the journal.” Contrast this experience with the expectations of some authors who, feeling pressured to publish in time for a fall review, begin sending out e-mails in May to editors asking if it is possible to get something published by October. Given that each round of reviews takes 8–12 weeks and that leading journals often are planned 1 or 2 years in advance of actual publication, such inquiries only serve to annoy editors and expose ignorance of scholarly publishing processes. When it comes to peer-reviewed academic writing, abandon all hope of immediate publication, uncritical acceptance, and bulging bank accounts. Replace it with the expectation that it will take time that revision will be necessary, and that rewards are many times intangible. To bring expectations back down to earth, remember three things. First, developing research manuscripts is just as difficult as designing and conducting the study. Researchers—both inexperienced and experienced—need to revise the manuscript many, many times; they also need to revisit the work based on feedback from colleagues who are both familiar and unfamiliar with the area of study. Secondly, manuscripts need to be clear, straightforward, and understandable. However, if you carefully follow the very structured formats outlined in this chapter to generate their first drafts, you will be well on your way to producing a better research manuscript. Third, part of the responsibility of a quantitative researcher is to clearly communicate the purpose of the study, research questions, and expected outcomes; accurately describe the methodologies (e.g., subjects, measures, treatment); and appropriately present the results to assist the editors and reviewers to determine the quality and the importance of the manuscript that is submitted for publication. By adhering to the guidelines offered here, quantitative researchers will significantly improve their chances of getting a manuscript accepted for publication as an article, book chapter, or even a book.

References

Albers, C. A., Floyd, R. G., Fuhrmann, M. J., & Martínez, R. S. (2011). Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 669–689.CrossRef

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40.CrossRef

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Annesley, T. M. (2010c). If an IRDAM journal is what you choose, then sequential results are what you use. Clinical Chemistry, 56(8), 1226–1228.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010d). “It was a cold and rainy night”: Set the scene with a good introduction. Clinical Chemistry, 56(5), 708–713.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010e). Put your best figure forward: Line graphs and scattergrams. Clinical Chemistry, 56(8), 1229–1233.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010h). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671–1674.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010i). The title says it all. Clinical Chemistry, 56(3), 357–360.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010j). Who, what, when, where, how, and why: The ingredients in the recipe for a successful methods section. Clinical Chemistry, 56(6), 897–901.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2011). Giving credit: Citations and references. Clinical Chemistry, 57(1), 14–17.CrossRef

Baruch, Y., Konrad, A., Aguinis, H., & Starbuck, W. (Eds.). (2008). Opening the black box of editorship. New York: Pelgrave Macmillan.

Booth, W. C., Columb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef

Boyd, J. C., Rifai, N., & Annesley, T. M. (2009). Preparation of manuscripts for publication: Improving your chances for success. Clinical Chemistry, 55(7), 1259–1264.CrossRef

Coughian, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658–664.CrossRef

Croce, N. (2013). Enhancing your academic digital footprint. New York: Rosen.

Cunningham, S. J. (2004). How to write a paper. Journal of Orthodontics, 31(1), 47–51.CrossRef

Davie, G. S. (2012). How to write a research paper, proposal, or thesis. Retrieved from https://​masscommunicate.​files.​wordpress.​com/​2012/​10/​mct-how-to-research.​pdf

Day, R., & Sakaduski, N. (2011). How to write and publish a scientific paper. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Derntl, M. (2014). Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), 105–123.CrossRef

Dixon, N. (2011). Writing for publication for the first time—Try the hunter style. International Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 1(2), 38–45.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. British Medical Journal, 318, 1224–1225.CrossRef

El-Serag, H. B. (2006). Scientific manuscripts: The fun of writing and submitting. Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy, 64(6 Suppl), 19–22.CrossRef

Fahy, K. (2008). Writing for publication: Argument and evidence. Women and Birth, 21(3), 113–117.CrossRef

Floyd, R. G., Cooley, K. M., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., & Hingle, C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields. Journal of School Psychology, 49(6), 617–647.CrossRef

Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care, 49(10), 1238–1241.

Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2006). Interpreting educational research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jenkins, S. (1995). How to write a paper for a scientific journal. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 41(4), 285–289.

Koopman, P. (1997). How to write an abstract. Retrieved October 2015, from http://​www.​ece.​cmu.​edu/​~koopman/​essays/​abstract.​html

Maloy, S. (2001). Guidelines for writing a scientific paper. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved from http://​www.​marshfieldclinic​.​org/​proxy/​mcrf-admin-oswp-rm-guidelines_​for_​writing_​a_​scientific_​manuscript.​1.​pdf

Martínez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 691–720.CrossRef

Milardo, R. M. (2015). Crafting scholarship in the behavioral and social sciences: Writing, reviewing, and editing. New York: Routledge.

Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008a). Educational psychology journal editors’ comments on publishing. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 29–39.

Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008b). Publishing in educational psychology journals: Comments from editors. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 29–39.CrossRef

Ortinau, D. (2011). Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 150–156.CrossRef

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2002). Scientific writing—Easy when you know how. London: British Medical Journal (BMJ) Books.CrossRef

Pyrczak, F. (2012). Evaluating research in academic journals. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Russell, C. L. (2005). Interpreting research in nephrology nursing. Evaluating quantitative research reports. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 32(1), 61–64.

Saracho, O. N. (2013). Writing research articles for publication in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 45–54.CrossRef

Selvanathan, S. K., Udani, R. D., Udani, S. D., & Haylett, K. R. (2006). The art of the abstract. Student: British Medical Journal, 14, 70–71.

Sharp, D. (2002). Kipling’s guide to writing a scientific paper. Croatian Medical Journal, 43(3), 262–267.

Skelton, J. R., & Edwards, S. J. L. (2000). The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. British Medical Journal, 320(7244), 1269–1270.CrossRef

Stolerman, I. (2009). Preparing manuscripts and responding to reviewers’ reports: Inside the editorial black box. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Saava, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (2nd ed.) (pp. 124–137). London: International Society of Addiction Journal Editors. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​parint.​org/​isajewebsite/​bookimages/​isaje_​2nd_​edition_​chapter9.​pdf

Todorovic, L. (2003). Original (scientific) paper: The IMRAD layout. Archive of Oncology, 11(3), 203–205.CrossRef

Udani, R. D., Selvanathan, S. K., Udani, S. D., & Haylett, K. R. (2007). Writing up your research. Student: British Medical Journal, 15, 406–408.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_8

8. From Qualitative Research to a Journal Article

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

There is a world view and art to writing qualitative research that can be misconstrued, particularly by those inexperienced with qualitative research methods. The chapter identifies common “missteps” in writing the qualitative research report. Chapter 8 walks the reader through each important writing task associated with qualitative research, from the title and abstract to each section of the manuscript. The chapter also includes guidelines and checklists that writers can use to assess each component of a manuscript and generate publishable qualitative research articles.

A group of doctoral students is enrolled in the first of three research courses that focus on qualitative methods. One student comments, “When I read some examples of published qualitative studies, I noticed some things. The people were referred to as participants rather than subjects. I also saw examples of the participants’ verbatim comments in several places in these articles.” These two observations help to explain how the qualitative researcher/author’s style departs from that of the quantitative researcher/author’s approach. Quantitative research has its origins in agricultural experiments. For example, a few acres of land are divided into plots and a single variable is manipulated to see which conditions (e.g., different seeds, plants, or fertilizers) result in the best crop yield. The conditions here are relatively easy to control and one can say with some confidence what caused the observed effects. Qualitative research, on the other hand, has its roots in sociological study of human beings. The researcher (literally) lives with the population under study, makes no attempt to manipulate variables, and takes copious observational notes that include the actual words of individuals under study. Qualitative study is naturalistic and the researcher generally is more of a participant/observer. Then, because the focus is on human beings rather than plants, there is much more unpredictability. A statement that captures the crux of qualitative research is widely attributed to Albert E. Einstein, “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Scholars seeking to write and publish qualitative research rely far less on numbers to respond to questions and rely instead on words and images. They are all about capturing the lived experience of their participants. As a result, writing qualitative research typically requires some mastery of narrative discourse because the story is told through words. Rather than striving for generalizability across situations and dismissing the “outliers”, qualitative researchers revel in the particular and are fascinated by the unusual. Rather than asserting that the data speak for themselves and using statistical analysis to guide interpretation, writers of qualitative research invite multiple perspectives on the data they present, acknowledging that their point of view is but one of many possible interpretations. This does not mean, however, that “anything goes”. Qualitative researchers look for patterns, supported by their data, just as quantitative researchers use statistical formulas to bolster their arguments. One type of research is not “easier” than the other; rather, both rely on rigor of different types and both are used to answer specific research questions.

A good example that is applicable in many fields is attrition amongst college students pursuing a degree and/or certification or who are novices in a profession. Quantitative researchers would tend to get a little bit of data from a large number of people; for instance, a national survey of attrition among nurses during their first 5 years of employment. Conversely, qualitative researchers’ claims to authority would tend to rest on depth than breadth; they might conduct interviews with a small number of professionals who left the profession in hopes of understanding the influences on a decision to exit the profession. The nature of the research questions determines whether qualitative or quantitative approaches are the best fit.

Numerous academic disciplines, especially the social sciences—use qualitative research as a mode of inquiry. Since qualitative researchers use different methodologies and writing styles, it is difficult to describe how to write a research study. Qualitative research is composed of many approaches that are used for data collection, analysis and writing the report. What makes a good qualitative research report? There is no “one

Online Tool

The National Science Foundation offers and helpful overview of the most commonly used qualitative data collection methods posted at: http://​www.​nsf.​gov/​pubs/​1997/​nsf97153/​.

size fits all” answer because qualitative research is not a single practice; it involves a wide range of philosophies, research purposes, intended audiences, methodologies, data sources, and reporting styles (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). This chapter guides you through the process of writing a qualitative research report. Its goal is to motivate both novice and experienced researchers to systematically write a qualitative research report that is of publishable quality.

Online Tool

To get a sense of the different “world view” of qualitative and quantitative research, watch as two avatars debate the strengths of each paradigm https://​www.​youtube.​com/​watch?​v=​ddx9PshVWXI.

Understanding Qualitative Research

To illustrate the characteristics of qualitative research, consider this hypothetical study of patients diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This disease is more commonly referred to as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease” after the famous baseball player who was debilitated by the condition. It occurs when specific nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary movement gradually degenerate. The loss of these motor neurons causes muscles to weaken and waste away. Early symptoms include loss of motor control in hands and arms, tripping and falling, persistent fatigue, and twitching/cramping. There is no cure. Ultimately, paralysis sets in and the patient can no longer speak, swallow or breathe (Source: MedicineNet.​com). A quantitative researcher would study patients from a “counting” perspective—how many people have the condition, how long they survive, if particular populations seem more susceptible, and what treatments can alleviate their suffering. While this is very important information, the “lived experience” of ALS would be of most interest to qualitative researchers, who would raise questions such as the following:

How do participants describe changes in their physical condition and the resultant limitations since they were first diagnosed with Lou Gerhig’s Disease? How do they make sense out of living and coping with the debilitating trajectory of the disease?

How do people afflicted with ALS construct a definition of the disease? What metaphors and symbols do they use in these descriptions?

What perceptions do they have of interactions with family members and friends related to their condition?

How do they describe the medical personnel, medical treatments, and health care agencies and policies they have encountered?

What are the emotional responses and consequences of the disease for patients? How has ALS shaped their concepts of self?

How do ALS patients make sense out of their affliction?

How do they talk about their terminal illness and prepare for their impending death?

As this example illustrates, description and interpretation of lived experience are the primary goals of qualitative research. Qualitative and quantitative research differ in at least five essential ways:

1.

Philosophical outlook and underlying assumptions

2.

Ways in which research time is invested

3.

Strategies for gathering and analyzing data

4.

Nature of the contributions to knowledge

5.

Voice in which findings are communicated.

Table 8.1 compares/contrasts the researcher’s role in qualitative and quantitative research.

Table 8.1

The researcher’s role in qualitative and quantitative research

Qualitative

Quantitative

Philosophy

Aligned with phenomenology; regards individual variation as the focal point of research

Aligned with logical positivism (the scientific method); seeks to delineate procedures that other researchers can replicate

Mode of thought

Depends on inductive/metaphorical thinking; regards all research as interpretive

Depends on deductive/linear thinking; relies upon the data to “speak for themselves”

Approach

Emphasizes depth over breadth (e.g., case study, in-depth interviews, etc.)

Favors breadth over depth (e.g., surveys, large scale assessments, etc.)

Researcher’s stance

Seeks to engage in dialogue with others or even to function as an advocate for underrepresented or oppressed groups

Seeks to speak with the voice of authority and remain at a distance from the subjects

Perspective on findings

Invites multiple perspectives and expects varying interpretations of study findings

Asserts own interpretation as the most reasonable or accurate, given the control exercised over the variables

Analysis

Uses writing skills and the narrative mode to synthesize observational data and artifacts

Uses statistical formulas and computation to analyze numerical data

Claims to truth

Bases claims to truth on the verisimilitude of data that have been gathered from different sources to reinforce credibility

Bases claims to truth on the scientific method and mathematical precision

Contributions

Illuminates thinking by shedding light on the particular in great detail

Informs through carefully controlled procedures designed to justify the generalizations from a sample to a larger population

Qualitative research is empirical and is conducted in a natural setting. Researchers gather data on the phenomenon they are studying. Qualitative researchers become stationed in the participants’ natural environment for a lengthy period of time to examine the phenomenon and different circumstances that affect it. Whereas the rigor of quantitative research relies on statistical precision, qualitative research depends on the depth and duration. Qualitative researchers organize the data to support their ideas, hypotheses, and actual definitions. Qualitative researchers investigate qualities or entities to understand them in a specific setting. Their research is grounded on the concept of contextual understanding. Qualitative researchers believe that the individuals’ specific physical, historical, materials, and social surroundings influence the way they think and act, which are interpreted by drawing on their larger contexts (Smith, 1987).

Qualitative research uses an inductive and interpretive (Van Maanen 1988) approach to describe an account of the individuals’ insights of reality through their dialogue, which is used to develop part of the texts. Qualitative researchers use observations to investigate human behavior in depth and study the participants’ explanations for their behavior, including descriptions of particular ways that individuals experience and understand a phenomenon. The description focuses on who said what to whom as well as the what, where, when, why, and how of a specific situation. It records in detail situations that occur during the period of study, which allows qualitative researchers to explain the individuals’ practices. Qualitative study assumes that there is not one, universal truth but may truths—depending upon the perceptions of the people in the process. It documents these multiple perspectives through meticulous descriptions of authentic events in real-life situations that shed light on the individuals’ social processes, interactions, and meanings. If, for example, you wanted to conduct a qualitative study to explore the reasons that doctoral candidates give for remaining at the “all-but-dissertation” stage, you would interview them to get their perspectives rather than send out a survey.

Traditionally, qualitative methods generate information only on the specific cases that are investigated. Unlike quantitative research, the goal of qualitative research is not to generalize from a representative sample to the larger population using statistical formula. Instead, qualitative research describes the particular in considerable detail and invites others to decide the implications of the study for their situations. Qualitative researchers prize depth over breadth: they study individuals, social groups, or specific contexts as ways to illuminate the phenomenon under study. The role of the qualitative researcher frequently is referred to as “participant observer” because the researcher is immersed in a context to attain the “emic” or insider’s perspective from key informants. Qualitative research aims for less distance between the researcher and the researched; in fact, they use the word “participants” rather than “subjects” to convey the idea that research is conducted with (rather than on) people in the study.

Activity 8.1: Qualitative Research Questions

The questions that qualitative researchers ask differ are intended to describe. Rudestam and Newton (2014) identify five basic types of questions:

1.

Chronology: How does the process develop over time?

2.

Critical incident: What are the noteworthy events in the process?

3.

Key influences: What appears to facilitate (or hinder) the process for these participants?

4.

People: Who are the key participants in the process and what are their roles?

5.

Outcomes: What are the outcomes for these participants in this setting?

Draft some qualitative research questions for a study you would like to conduct.

Qualitative Research Methodologies

Qualitative research uses many methods of inquiry that have an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its field of study. The purpose of the qualitative researchers’ study helps them to select from a range of qualitative research methodologies (e.g., narrative research, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, case study) and data sources (e.g., interviews, questionnaires, documents, photographs, observations) to understand and describe social phenomena. There are several different research approaches, or research designs, that qualitative researchers use. Creswell (2013a, b) provides the following examples:

Narrative has ethnographic characteristics that focus on storytelling where a story is described, analyzed, and interpreted.

Phenomenology has a description of a phenomena based on the way informants construct meaning without using theories.

Ethnographic research is a practical study of a specific culture and their understandings of their cultural framework.

Grounded theory is an inductive research methodology that is based on the observations of several data sources including quantitative data, review of records, interviews, observations, and surveys.

Historical research describes past and present-day events based on a current framework to consider probable solutions to contemporary issues and problems such as: Where have we come from, where are we, who are we now, and where are we going?

Qualitative researchers also have their personal styles and writing techniques. For instance, a narrative study describes an individual’s life, an ethnography depicts an individual or group’s cultural behavior, and a case study has an in-depth description of a case or cases (Creswell 2013a, b). The major tasks for qualitative researchers include analyzing and coding the data, using related research to interpret the meaning, and generating themes to write a scholarly publication.

Online Tool

The University of Missouri-St. Louis offers a chart that provides an overview of qualitative research methods http://​www.​umsl.​edu/​~lindquists/​qualdsgn.​html.

Writing the Qualitative Research Report

Each qualitative research design has a repertoire of research methodologies and requires a different style of reporting, so writing a scholarly qualitative research article to be published in a reputable journal becomes challenging. Although there are fewer hard rules in writing the research report in qualitative research, the manuscript must follow the journal’s guidelines.

The sections below provide some instructions on writing a publishable qualitative study. Based on the restrictions found in journals, specific practices are described with examples to clarify the procedures. Note that some of the examples that follow are fictitious, so it is inappropriate to cite “real” references. Therefore, in some of the examples the indicator (ref) or (refs) is used to indicate that appropriate references would be cited there. Where names of authors have been used, they are also fictitious. The subheadings in this paper (such as illustrated thus: Literature Review) are used to indicate headings that might be used in the research report.

Most qualitative research studies have a flexible design. Clissett (2008) and Polit and Beck (2014) suggest an outline of the qualitative research, along with caveats about each stage (see Table 8.2).

Table 8.2

Outline of the qualitative research process

Stage of process

Caveat

Conceptualizing and planning the study

Identify the research problem

At the beginning, the topic of the study is far-reaching but with time it becomes more focused

Write a literature review

The literature review directs the researcher to the prominent issues related to the research problem

Identify, choose and get permission to enter research sites

Sites are identified and selected based on the extent to which they provide researchers with information to address the research problem

Design the study

At the beginning the design tends to be very open in the expectation that it will be narrowed as the study develops. Temporary goals and purposes are typically established, but as the study progresses, they will be reviewed and revised

Attend to ethical issues

Ethical issues need to be considered, because qualitative researchers usually have a personal relationship with the participants

Conducting the study

Collect data

Interviews, artifacts, observations, and conversations are used to collect data

Analyze data

Sometimes data are collected and analyzed at the same time

Disseminate outcomes

Research outcomes are disseminated through publications or presentations

In writing the qualitative research report, it is important to consider five features: (1) emergent design, (2) literature review, (3) sampling strategies, (4) data collection, and (5) data analysis (Clissett, 2008).

Emergent Design

The design of a qualitative study needs to be flexible; hence the term “emergent design” is used to describe it. Researchers begin by developing ideas on ways to collect the data and make revisions as their study progresses. The flexible design includes selecting participants and sampling strategies. Participants are selected and recruited based on the knowledge they can contribute to the study, which can be amended as the study progresses. Qualitative researchers are usually often guided by the criterion of data saturation. In other words; data collection terminates when little that is new emerges from the data.

Writing the Introduction

The introduction establishes the scene and puts the research in context. Researchers declare the particular research topic of focus for their study and describe findings in related published studies. They explain the significance of their study and state the research questions, which might be very general. For example, “How do teachers assess their practices?” The research questions guide researchers in developing the manuscript. Researchers use the research questions to describe the purpose of the study. They could state that the purpose of the study was to address the research questions. For example, a research question might be, How do teachers respond when they are required to implement a new curriculum? At the end of the manuscript, researchers need to be able to determine to what extent the purpose of the study was reached and the research questions were answered. Therefore, it is important that the research questions are clearly stated. Major components of the research question can be used as headings or subheadings within the manuscript.

Writing the Review of the Literature

Research questions guide researchers to lead their thinking about their research. The review of the literature provides an understanding of major concepts, theoretical framework, and research bases for the study. A rationale is established with a brief description about the approach that was used to conceptualize the study. Findings from both qualitative and/or quantitative studies are presented. The way the findings of the study relate to those in prior research and how this study can add to prior knowledge is discussed. Previous research is carefully selected and reported in an integrated manner. The report explains who conducted the research and when. What were the procedures and results? An example of such reporting might be as follows:

In a small scale study of 15 teachers who went to teach in the public school after working at a Montessori School for 10 years, Brown (ref) completed two rounds of interviews to identify the factors that those teachers used to deal with pressures associated with their new teaching position. He found that most teachers depended on family or close friends for support. Additional strategies that they reported using to cope with pressures included breathing exercises, physical activities and recording significant events in a diary. A small number reported that they had considerable difficulty managing their job-related stress. There were no age or sex differences.

Most related studies should be described in this way. Others can be grouped together. For example, if a number of studies have been carried out using similar methods, with similar outcomes, these can be reported as follows:

A number of studies used the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), which was developed by Kabat-Zinn (1990), to show that it is a particularly helpful intervention to reduce stress for primary school teachers (multiple refs).

Reporting on Sampling Strategies

In qualitative studies, the sample usually depends on the key informants’ accessibility and willingness to participate in the research project. Purposeful sampling (rather than random sampling) is used to recruit volunteers with experiences related to the phenomenon under study (e.g., homeless military veterans, school superintendents fired from their jobs, emeritus faculty members who continue to publish after retirement, undocumented immigrants from Mexico). Researchers begin by enlisting participants from the target group. They then ask these participants to recommend other members of that group to add to the total number of key informants. The sample grows in size as the study gets rolling, hence this is referred to as “snowball sampling.” There is no argument made that this is a representative sample because the goal is to study individuals rather than to generalize from a sample to a population, as in quantitative research. Sometimes qualitative researchers go to a research site (such as a school) that has all the participants that they need. Therefore, in the sample section, researchers need to describe the number and type of participants in their study.

Example:

Fifteen teachers agreed to participate in the study. Snowball sampling was used to identify participants by asking each teacher who was interviewed to identify another teacher who had knowledge about the situation. While there is no definitive rule about the number of participants recommended for this type of qualitative study, several researchers have recommended between six and 30 informants, depending on the depth and duration of the interviews and observations (refs.). Some qualitative researchers have conducted single-subject studies in this field (refs); therefore, the researcher assumed that 15 teachers would provide sufficient varied and detailed accounts for the purposes of this study.

Explaining Data Collection

Researchers differ in the way they collect data. Some researchers, such as the authors of this book, believe qualitative data should be collected based on a theoretical framework. Other qualitative researchers argue that theory will impose a structure on the data too early and instead rely entirely on “thick description” about how the data were collected, analyzed, and findings interpreted. When scholars believe that qualitative research requires theoretical framework they use it to guide the pursuit of their research questions (Phillips, 1986). Either way, qualitative researchers need to describe in detail how they collected the data, including the research methodologies and data sources.

If you do not use quantitative data collection techniques such as frequency counts, test scores, or Likert scales, what methods would you use? The tools of the qualitative researcher rely on words and images much more than numbers. In general, these tools are observational field notes, conversations, in-depth interviews, and document and artifact analysis. The in-depth interview is usually used. It can be a semi-structured interview where the researchers use a short list of questions as a guide during the interview but more questions are added based on the participants’ responses. Qualitative researchers listen to the participants and ask them to expand or clarify relevant issues. Seidman (2012), for example, has developed a three interview strategy. The first interview develops history/background, the second focuses on details of current experience, and the third reflects on meaning. Most qualitative researchers use interview and observation methods to collect data. They systematically observe and record the participants’ words and actions as well as describe the context. However, researchers use a variety of data collection techniques to construct a detailed account of a single or multiple case. How these techniques were used need to be described. For example, a doctoral student sought to study the leadership styles of female university presidents. She “shadowed” several of them for a few days, analyzed public documents from their respective universities, interviewed them, and asked them to write about their most and least successful decision or initiative during their tenure as president.

Activity 8.2: Qualitative Data Collection

Think about a qualitative study that you would like to conduct. Given that the main types of data collection are observations, interviews, and artifacts, what types of data would you want to collect? Make a list. Then draft an explanation of your data collection strategies.

The examples above can be adjusted to use with other data collection approaches. Qualitative studies are more convincing when researchers use multiple approaches to collect data. They become the sources of their validity. Using a combination of interviews, observations, documents, and/or artifacts enriches the quality of qualitative research because this results in triangulation, defined as evidence from multiple sources to increase validity.

Describing the Data Analysis

Analyzing qualitative data can be perplexing. There are no worldwide guidelines to analyze, interpret, and summarize data. Researchers usually group narrative texts into a logical structure. The data analysis goes beyond description and become interpretive by examining what the participants said or did to understand and interpret their meaning, attitudes, and values.

Qualitative researchers vary in the way they report their data analyses. An extensive amount of literature on how to analyze qualitative data and examples is available in texts such as The coding manual for qualitative researchers (Saldaña, 2013), Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013), and Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach (Ethnographer’s Toolkit) (LeCompte & Schensul, 2012). Regardless of how researchers write the analysis section, the process needs to be reported to readers in a way that identifies—and justifies—the methods selected. These methods need to (a) be related to the purpose of the study and (b) describe specific strategies (member checks, triangulation, etc.). Burnard (2004) provides the following example:

All of the interview transcripts were read by the researcher and coded in the style of a grounded theory approach to data analysis (refs). Eight category headings were generated from the data and under these all of the data were accounted for. Two independent researchers were asked to verify the seeming accuracy of the category system and, after discussion with them, minor modifications were made to it. In the grounded theory literature, a good category system is said to have ‘emerged’ from the data (refs). Other commentators have noted that, in the end, it is always the researcher who finds and generates that system (refs). (Burnard, 2004, p. 178)

In a 5-month study, Saracho (2004) identified the roles that teachers assume in young children’s literacy-related play experiences, she analyzed her systematic observations and videotapes of the teachers’ actions and interactions to identify the teachers’ roles. The following is part of her description.

To categorize the roles of the teachers in a literacy-play environment, episodes were identified and transcribed from a series of videotapes. Precise transcriptions were made of the teachers’ and children’s actions and interactions. The roles of the teacher were selected from all the documented episodes. A methodical process that conformed to a defined set of criteria was employed in determining and eliminating the categories (Saracho, 1984). Specifically, Saracho’s (1984, 1988a, 1988b) procedure of analysis was used to categorize and delineate the roles of the teacher where the transcriptions are read, reread, and divided into sections that depict discrete units of literacy-related play behavior. Such units were categorized based on the pertinent role of the teacher that was defined. Frequency counts of behaviors in connection to each role were calculated. (Saracho, 2004, pp. 201–202)

Qualitative researchers need to identify and describe how they analyzed the data in relation to their research questions and purpose of the study. The descriptions need to provide sufficient detail on what they did, including member checks, triangulation, and any other methods that were used.

Activity 8.3: Qualitative Research’s Demands on the Writer

A quantitative study of college students’ library use would tend to rely on numbers (e.g., tabulating circulation figures) while a qualitative study would rely on words (e.g., observations of and interviews with library patrons). Qualitative research questions focus more on how; in this case, the actual ways that students use the library. How might the writing demands for each task differ? Make a two-column chart that compares/contrasts the skills that are most necessary for writing quantitative and qualitative research.

Writing About Findings

Some researchers report only their findings, while others simultaneously report their findings and support them with findings from previous studies. The examples from Burnard (2004) in Table 8.3 illustrate the difference between these two types of reporting for a study on learning to cope.

Table 8.3

Ways of reporting qualitative findings

Report only on findings

Including previous studies in findings

A number of respondents found that they learned to cope by talking about their stress to mentors, clinical practitioners and educators. In particular, they found it useful to read widely on the topic as a way of attempting to understand what was happening to them. One suggested that:

A number of respondents found that they learned to cope by talking about their stress to mentors, clinical practitioners and educators. In particular, they found it useful to read widely on the topic as a way of attempting to understand what was happening to them. This echoes the findings of Daniels (Ref) who found that ‘educational therapy’ in which students were helped to find as much information about stress as they could, made a difference to their coping with it. One respondent suggested that:

I think it takes the sting out of it really. Once you have some idea of what stress is about and what causes it, you can start to deal with it. The worst thing was, like, not knowing what was happening to me. I learned quite a bit from a computer search I did in the School

I think it takes the sting out of it really. Once you have some idea of what stress is about and what causes it, you can start to deal with it. The worst thing was, like, not knowing what was happening to me. I learned quite a bit from a computer search I did in the School

Another respondent noted that simply understanding stress did not necessarily help you to cope with it

Another respondent noted that simply understanding stress did not necessarily help you to cope with it. The respondent seems to indicate the gap that many psychological researchers have noted between cognitive understand and changed behavior (see, for example, refs)

I know the theories about stress but somehow, in the end, it’s you. You have to cope somehow. It’s where the theory breaks down a bit. Knowing the theory doesn’t always help you to cope

I know the theories about stress but somehow, in the end, it’s you. You have to cope somehow. It’s where the theory breaks down a bit. Knowing the theory doesn’t always help you to cope (p. 179)

Some researchers prefer to identify themes or categories from the data. They believe this is an integrative strategy in analyzing the data. Since qualitative analysis usually requires some cutting and pasting, there is a continuous possibility that when the data are reduced to manageable chunks, they may be reported without enough context to provide an accurate meaning. Skillful reporting of qualitative findings involves more than selecting a few pithy quotations and interpreting their meaning. The data excerpts need to be related to the interpretations. For example, in a study on the roles that teachers of young children assume in the classroom, Saracho (1984) used the data to identify categories and descriptions of the teachers’ roles in early childhood education. She identified, described, and supported with previous research the roles of decision-maker, organizer of instruction, diagnostician, curriculum designer, manager of learning, and counselor/advisor. Studies that are used to support the findings need to be clear and relevant. Researchers need to provide sufficient evidence to show that the previous published studies support the findings.

Qualitative studies are sometimes criticized for being anecdotal and individually interpreted. To address this concern about researcher bias, findings need to meet two of Guba and Lincoln’s (1989) trustworthiness criteria: Credibility and confirmability. Credibility refers to the degree to which the findings correspond to the participants’ personal interpretations. Confirmability refers to the degree to which the data support the findings and conclusions (Clissett, 2008). Therefore, it is important that qualitative researchers provide enough information about the participants (e.g., participants’ expressions and beliefs) to support their findings and make them “come alive to the reader” (Drisko, 2005, p. 592).

Online Tool

Harvard University’s Foundations of Qualitative Research in Education website provides print and video guidelines on writing qualitative research questions, conducting literature reviews, and writing research proposals. http://​isites.​harvard.​edu/​icb/​icb.​do?​keyword=​qualitative.

Writing the Discussion and Conclusion

The substance of the discussion depends on how the findings were presented. If in the section on findings, researchers support their findings with previous published research, the discussion section may be deleted. However, if only the findings were presented, then the discussion should present the findings and support them with those of previous published studies. The discussion section focuses on explaining the findings and their interpretations. Researchers report the findings in a complete and accurate manner. Qualitative researchers need to avoid speculating about the meaning of their findings or interpreting the participants’ meaning without support from the data (Burnard, 2004).

Most published qualitative research articles have a concluding section to (a) relate the findings to the previous studies, (b) formulate innovative conclusions, (c) reaffirm the limitations of the study, and (d) provide recommendations or implications based on the findings of the study. Since all studies have limitations, qualitative researchers need to provide a statement (or restatement) of the limitations of the present study to caution other qualitative researchers who might consider replicating the study and provide recommendations for practice, policy, or future research (Drisko, 2005). For more about writing this section, see Lather (2013).

Activity 8.4: Triangulation in Qualitative Research

Usually, qualitative researchers use multiple data sources (a process called triangulation) or another person to code data to address threats to validity. In the qualitative study you’ve imagined, identify some mechanisms for increasing credibility and confirmability.

In the conclusion section, researchers summarize their findings and make practical recommendations based on their findings and interpretations. They may evaluate their study, share the limitations, and address the questions that were not answered. All conclusions need to be based on the data that were collected and appropriate original data that were described to support interpretations and the possibility that the findings of the study can be transferred to other contexts or settings. Qualitative researchers need to justify this transferability. The conclusions section of a qualitative research report also makes recommendations for future research.

Online Tool

For an example of a qualitative study, watch “Sample Qualitative Research Outline” PowerPoint posted on YouTube by Rey Ty (2008) www.​youtube.​com/​watch?​v=​DfjD-hj91Qc.

Writing the Abstract

The abstract is the last step in writing the manuscript. It summarizes the complete study in one paragraph. Although the length of the abstract usually ranges between 200 and 300 words, its content should briefly include the following elements:

A well-defined statement of the purpose of the study, research questions, and significance of the study.

A description of the sample and sampling techniques that were used.

Data collection methods including what data were collected, from where, from whom, and by whom

Data analysis strategies including analytic techniques, definitions of concepts, categories, and themes

Findings based on the research questions and interpretations.

Abstracts are well organized and well written to provide complete information about the study.

Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Qualitative studies examine intricate phenomena. Well-designed and well-written studies can contribute to knowledge of the field and guide future research. Most journals provide guidelines that specify a structure to make sure that the published research is of high quality. McWilliam (2000) provides a summary of key indicators that helps to evaluate the quality of the research. Use the checklist in Table 8.4 to assess the quality of a qualitative research report.

Table 8.4

Indicators of quality in qualitative research reports: a checklist

Yes

No

Does the qualitative report describe

The theoretical background?

How the research questions were derived?

How the participants were selected?

The participants’ roles?

How the data were recorded?

The depth and duration of data collection?

How the data were reduced?

The steps for arriving at findings or themes?

How often and thoroughly the original data were consulted during analysis?

How participants or others contributed to verifying information?

The level of information (e.g., transcripts, summaries, manuscripts) used in member checks?

The relationship of the findings to theory and other studies?

A framework can be developed to assess any type of qualitative design. Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig (2007) developed a 32-item checklist called “Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) is a 32-item checklist that qualitative researchers use as a guide in their work. Table 8.5 is a checklist based on the COREQ.

Table 8.5

Checklist to evaluate qualitative studies

Item

Evaluation questions

Area 1: Research group

Personal qualities

1. Interviewer/organizer

Who conducted the interview or organized focus groups?

2. Qualifications

What were the researchers’ areas of expertise? (Knowledge of the subject area, methodologies, etc.)

3. Preparation and experience

What are the researchers’ preparation and experience?

Association with participants

4. Establishing relationships

When was a relationship with the participants established?

5. Communication with participants

Were the participants informed about the researchers’ personal goals, purpose, assumptions, and reasons, interests in, and method of conducting the study?

Area 2: Research design

Theoretical framework

6. Methods and theory

What research methodology was used? Grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis?

What theory was used to support the study?

Participants’ description

7. Selection

What process was used to select the participants? Purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball?

8. Recruitment

What process was used to recruit participants? Personal contact, telephone, mail, email?

9. Selection criteria

What are the essential qualities for selecting participants?

10. Rejection and declined

How many contacts declined to participate or dropped out? Reasons? How many volunteers were rejected? Reasons?

11. Sample size

How many participants were used in the study?

Background

12. Location for collecting data

Where were the data collected? Home, school, workplace, community?

13. Spectators

Who was present during data collection other than the participants and researchers?

14. Description of participants

What are the major characteristics of the participants? Were demographic data included?

Data collection

15. Interview schedule

What were the questions or prompts for the interviews? Were they opened or closed? How long were the interviews? Were they pilot tested?

16. Quantity of interviews

How many interviews were conducted?

17. Technology

What type of technology was used to collect data? Audio or video recording?

18. Recording of field notes

When were field notes recorded? During and/or after interviews or focus groups?

19. Data saturation

How was the level of data saturation achieved? (e.g., no need for new data, new themes, or new coding to be able to replicate the study)

20. Sharing transcriptions

Were transcriptions shared with participants for comments and/or revision?

Area 3: Analyses and final report

Data analyses

21. Data coders

Were coders trained? Were coders used to determine validity and reliability? If so, how many were used?

22. Description the coding system

Was there a description of what data were coded and how data were coded?

23. Identification of themes

Were the process of determining themes and generating codes from the data described?

24. Software

If software was used to code the data, was it described?

25. Member checks

Were data, analytic categories, interpretations, and conclusions tested with the participants to obtain feedback?

Final report

26. Quotes

Were quotes from participant used to support the themes/findings? How were quotes used and identified?

27. Correspondence of data and findings

Did the data presented matched the findings?

28. Presentation of key themes

Were the key themes distinctly presented in the findings?

29. Presentation of secondary themes

Were different situations or minor themes described?

Adapted from Tong, Sainsbury, and Craig (2007)

The criteria included in the checklist can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

Activity 8.5: Self-Evaluation of a Qualitative Research Report

Using Table 8.5 as a guide, write answers to each question for a published manuscript or one that you have written or are developing. Create a list of strengths and weaknesses and make a plan for addressing the flaws.

Conclusion

Two respected and widely published researchers—one quantitative and one qualitative–were chatting together while they waited for the Research Committee of their professional organization to convene. The quantitative researcher said, admiringly, “I don’t know how you figure out what to write. Me, I just get my SPSS print out and ‘write around’ it. The work that you do interests me because, although I can use a national data base to generate information, it still won’t tell me much about individual experience.” The qualitative researcher said, “Your work is important because it documents general directions in the field. In my view, we need both—the general and the particular—to make well-informed decisions.” As this candid exchange suggests, quantitative and qualitative each has a role to play and each merits respect when it is carefully planned, conducted, and presented in a manuscript.

Rigorous qualitative research is an empirical type of inquiry. Nevertheless, skepticism from some researchers persists. A common misconception is that qualitative research is less intellectually challenging because it does not use higher mathematics. However, the challenge in qualitative research is to invest long periods of time in gathering data, to derive the essence from a large and diverse collection of data sources, to think abstractly in order to generate themes, and to write eloquently about interpretations. In any qualitative research that you conduct, strive to address the questions that quantitative research cannot answer adequately. Honor the traditions in qualitative inquiry by publishing work that is rigorous and serves to advance the quality of the paradigm (LaRossa, 2012).

References

Burnard, P. (2004). Writing a qualitative research report. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 12(3), 176–181.CrossRef

Clissett, P. (2008). Evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 12(2), 99–105.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013b). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline of practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Drisko, J. W. (2005). Writing up qualitative research. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(4), 589–593.CrossRef

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain and illness. New York: Delacorte.

LaRossa, M. (2012). Writing and reviewing manuscripts in the multidimensional world of qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(4), 643–659.CrossRef

Lather, P. (2013). Methodology -21: What do we do in the afterward? Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 634–645.CrossRef

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2012). Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach (Ethnographer’s Toolkit). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

McWilliam, R. A. (2000). Reporting qualitative studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(2), 77–80.CrossRef

Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Phillips, L. R. F. (1986). A clinician’s guide to the critique and utilization of nursing research. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2014). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams, & Wilkins.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2014). Surviving your dissertation: A guide to content and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (No. 14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saracho, O. N. (1984). Perception of the teaching process in early childhood education through role analysis. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, International, 19(1), 26–39.

Saracho, O. N. (1988a). An evaluation of an early childhood teacher education curriculum for preservice teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38, 81–101.CrossRef

Saracho, O. N. (1988b). A study of the roles of early childhood teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38, 43–56.CrossRef

Saracho, O. N. (2004). Supporting literacy-related play: Roles for teachers of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 203–208.

Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, M. L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 173–183.CrossRef

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357.CrossRef

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_9

9. From Mixed-Methods Research to a Journal Article

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

Mixed methods research has been referred to as the “third paradigm” because, at its best, it is a skillful blend of the first two research paradigms: quantitative and qualitative. This chapter begins with the validity issues that need to be addressed when seamlessly merging research methods with distinctively different philosophies and methods. It then supports the reader in writing each component of a mixed methods research article. The chapter includes: activities that build insight into the third paradigm, specific examples drawn from the published literature, and guidelines for composing each component of the written report. The chapter concludes with identifying suitable outlets for mixed methods research and supplying criteria for evaluation of the mixed methods journal article.

A researcher wants to study how the professionals in her field develop an ethical code and professional dispositions. There is a quantitative dimension to her basic questions, namely, do they know the main components of the code and can they pass an objective item test on it? There is also a qualitative aspect to her question: Do they, when faced with an ethical decision during their practicum, turn to the code as support for their actions? When conducting research, there are many situations such as this one where quantitative approaches alone and qualitative approaches alone will not suffice. Mixed methods research combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies, which is a research paradigm that is gaining acceptance and use across disciplines (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Such recognition is observed in the publications found in journal articles, conference proceedings, and books as well as the founding of several mixed methods research journals (e.g. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Journal of Mixed Methods Research) and the establishment of special interest groups in professional organizations (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). In addition, the publication of the Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010), which is the most comprehensive textbook in this area, has provided researchers with some theoretical and practical tools for conducting mixed methods research. Mixed methods research (also referred to as mixed research) is sometimes referred to as the third research paradigm since qualitative and quantitative are the initial two paradigms (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner 2007). Mayring (2007) calls mixed methods research “a new star in the social science sky” (p. 1); “it is an intuitive way of doing research that is constantly being displayed through our everyday lives” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 1).

Online Tool

Watch the YouTube video of John Creswell, a leading textbook author and editor/founder of the Mixed Methods Research Journal, answer the question: What Is Mixed Methods Research? Posted at: www.​youtube.​com/​watch?​v=​1OaNiTlpyX8.

To illustrate the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative approaches, consider the metaphor of commentators at a national sporting event. Most of the time, they work in teams of two people. One person is primarily responsible for describing a linear, play-by-play unfolding of the game (a more quantitative approach). The second team member—often referred to as the “color commentator” highlights individual stories and details about the individuals on the playing field (a more qualitative point of view). The contributions of each member of the broadcasting team are equally valuable (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Together, they offer a version of “mixed methods thinking” that results in two different, yet complementary perspectives of the same phenomenon. At its best, mixed methods research “actively invites us to participate in dialogue about multiple ways of seeing and hearing, multiple ways of making sense of the social world, and multiple standpoints on what is important and to be valued and cherished” (Greene, 2007, p. 20). The third paradigm fulfils its potential when it affords researchers the opportunity to better address their research questions (or problems), when they are able to appreciate its usefulness while using it and when they are well aware of its challenges (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

The purpose of this methodological chapter is to (a) describe mixed methods research as the third research paradigm in educational research, (b) review several approaches in writing the research report, (c) describe a theoretical framework with examples for writing a publishable mixed methods research article, (d) identify possible outlets to publish research reports, and (e) provide a way to evaluate the quality of a mixed methods research report.

Online Tool

Southern Alabama University has posted a document that analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research at: http://​www.​southalabama.​edu/​coe/​bset/​johnson/​lectures/​lec14.​htm.

Mixed Methods Research: The Third Paradigm

For more than a century, the advocates of quantitative and qualitative research paradigms have engaged in an ardent dispute. The last several decades have witnessed intense and sustained debates about quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Unfortunately, this can create a divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers, even causing them to see themselves as being in competition with each other (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). These researchers’ debates concentrate on the differences between quantitative and qualitative methodologies instead of the similarities (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005). Tashakkori and Creswell (2007) define mixed methods as “…research in which the investigator collects and analyzes data, integrates the findings, and draws inferences using both qualitative and quantitative approaches or methods in a single study or a program of inquiry” (p. 4). In order to achieve this, researchers need to fulfill at least six roles, as highlighted in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1

Role of the mixed methods researcher

Collects and analyzes persuasively and rigorously both qualitative and quantitative data (based on research questions);

Mixes (or integrates or links) the two forms of data concurrently by combining them (or merging them), sequentially by having one build on the other, or embedding one within the other;

Gives priority to one or to both forms of data (in terms of what the research emphasizes);

Uses these procedures in a single study or in multiple phases of a program of study;

Frames these procedures within philosophical worldviews and theoretical lenses; and

Combines the procedures into specific research designs that direct the plan for conducting the study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 2)

As with all decisions about selection of a research method, writers of mixed methods research reports need to provide a rationale for their decision to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches within the same study. To determine whether mixed methods are justified, try answering the five questions that follow.

Will the use of mixed methods…

1.

Attain greater comprehensiveness in the research?

2.

Aid in more fully understanding and assessing different dimensions of the phenomenon under study?

3.

Strengthen the credibility of the findings by combining quantitative and qualitative data?

4.

Advocate for disempowered groups in society?

5.

Rely on one methodology to guide the other in the study’s sampling, data collection or analysis?

Although both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are used together in mixed methods research, each method retains its distinctive role in the inquiry. O’Cathain, Murphy, and Nicholl (2007a) explain these roles in a pragmatic way (see Table 9.2).

Table 9.2

Roles of different methods within a mixed method study

Stage

Components

Roles

1. Defining the research question

A qualitative method can generate a hypothesis for a quantitative method to test, establish the theoretical framework for the quantitative method, or help conceptualize the whole study

2. Address the range of research questions

Understanding how interventions work in the real world

A complex intervention may operate differently in practice from the original intention and qualitative research can address how an intervention is used in practice while quantitative research is used to measure outcomes. The strength of qualitative research to assess processes has been noted in social research

Getting a range of perspectives

Qualitative research can help researchers to gain access to the views of participants while quantitative research allows researchers to explore their own agenda

3. Designing the study

Determining the sample

A quantitative method can facilitate the sampling strategy for a qualitative method; for example, a survey can distinguish representative from non-representative cases

Improving the conduct of a method

When designing a trial, qualitative research may help to design appropriate recruitment strategies and information. This could be used for other quantitative methods such as surveys

Designing study instruments

A qualitative method can help to design good survey instruments, and aid scale construction from them. In the context of evaluation, it can identify outcomes important to different stakeholders and include them within instruments

Developing or optimizing interventions

When evaluating an intervention like a service, qualitative methods can help to develop the intervention develop an understanding of how the intervention works and who it might be most effective for, and indicate why the intervention has not worked

4. Analysis

The results from one method can affect the analysis of the other method, or qualitative and quantitative data can be combined for further understanding. For example, qualitative data can be ‘quantitized’, that is, numerically coded for analysis with the quantitative data

5. Making use of the findings

Interpreting the findings

Each method can provide different aspects of a phenomenon. A qualitative method can explain factors underlying relationships in a quantitative study, confirm or contradict survey findings, interpret statistical relationships, explore puzzling responses or results, or offer case study illustrations. It may change the interpretation of findings, for example, urging that a treatment is not rejected as ineffective simply because it was not used, but finding a way of it being used so that it might be effective. In the context of evaluation, qualitative methods can describe the context in which the study operates, in particular what is going on with controls, thus aiding interpretation

Determining generalizability

A quantitative method can help to generalize a qualitative study, for example a survey can situate the context of case studies

Implementation

Qualitative methods can be used to consider the results of a study and their application within a real world context, drawing on pluralistic views of different stakeholders

Source: This article is available from: http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1472-6963/​7/​85

© 2007 O’Cathain et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0)

Recently, researchers have been conducting and writing articles that combine both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies within the same study. Such a merger of methodologies meets the criteria for the mixed methods research paradigm (Creswell & Tashakkori, 2007; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) recommend that readers examine numerous mixed methods research articles to determine how researchers use different methodologies (e.g., quantitative, qualitative) in their studies. An examination of published mixed methods research studies in journal articles can provide a better understanding of this methodology. The four examples below all have at least one quantitative methodology (intended to collect numbers) and one qualitative methodology (intended to collect words), where neither methodology is essentially connected to any specific inquiry paradigm (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham 1989).

Example 1: Knaggs, Sondergeold, and Schardt (2015) examined how a college preparatory program contributed to college enrollment and perseverance, and students’ attitudes in the program. The researchers mixed quantitative and qualitative data. For the quantitative data, they used college data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) database. For the qualitative data, they used focus group interview questions that were open-ended and semistructured.

Example 2: McCrudden, Magliano, and Schraw (2010) examined how the relevance of instructions influenced readers’ personal reading intentions, reading goals, text processing, and memory for text. They randomly assigned undergraduates to one of three pre-reading instructional conditions and then asked them to read for understanding. They used corresponding data sets. The quantitative data provided differences in reading time and recall while the qualitative data explained why the differences occurred.

Example 3: Kallemeyn, Schiazza, Ryan, Peters, and Johnson (2013) examined how to engage history teachers in effective professional development. They described teachers’ classroom practices in relation to (1) historical content and skills, (2) teachers’ involvement in professional development, and (3) their schooling contexts. For the qualitative data, they integrated case studies and final interviews. For the quantitative data, they administered a survey. The data from the initial case study interviews provided information to develop survey items.

Example 4: Hayden and Chiu (2015) examined the development of elementary preservice teachers’ reflective practices as they solved problems that they encountered while teaching in a reading clinic. Using exploratory qualitative analysis they collected and analyzed the preservice teachers’ written reflections to identify relationships among problem exploration, teaching adaptations, and problem resolution. Then they used confirmatory quantitative analysis to determine any significant relationships.

Note how these projects combined quantitative and qualitative methodologies to:

Evaluate a strategy or program in practice (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005)

Examine social and behavioral processes that are difficult to study when using one type of methodology (either quantitative or qualitative) in isolation

Integrate multiple perspectives and

Address complex research questions

Effective combinations of qualitative and quantitative methodologies capitalizes on the strengths of each and offers better ways to address the research questions (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner 2007).

Online Tool

For an introduction to research designs that use both quantitative and qualitative approaches, check out the Research Rundowns blog, Mixed Methods Research Designs, posted at: https://​researchrundowns​.​wordpress.​com/​mixed/​mixed-methods-research-designs/​.

Approaches to Writing a Mixed Methods Research Study

If you elect to use mixed methods research, you will need to have a high tolerance for making complex decisions because a single, universally acceptable format for writing mixed methods research studies does not exist. The report can be written in multiple ways. Researchers write their study in a way that appropriately and effectively communicates their study to the intended audience. Essentially, “authors from a number of disciplines . . . consider how to present their work through a variety of forms and by choosing carefully the rhetorical devices that best elicit their intended meaning” (Ely, Vinz, Downing, & Anzul 1997, p. 55) such as narratives (e.g., vignettes, anecdotes), layered stories, pastiche (concurrently indicating several points of view), APA format, and others. The onus of responsibility is on the writer to persuade readers of the merits of the study (Sandelowski, 2003). A mixed methods research paper needs to include complete information about the study help researchers understand the procedures and results (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech 2009). However, researchers first need to understand the mixed methods research paradigm.

Activity 9.1: Mixed Methods Research by Chronology

Think about a study you are considering or have conducted. Different mixed methods studies employ quantitative and qualitative approaches at different junctures in the research. For example, a researcher might being by conducting exploratory interviews and, from those data, design a survey (qual first, then quan). Conversely, a researcher might analyze a large data set and then conduct focus group interviews to delve deeper into underlying reasons for responses (quan first, then qual). Or, a researcher may collect data concurrently, for instance, scoring a professional’s treatment plans for clients, observing them in a clinical setting, and interviewing both the clinicians and clients (quan and qual together). Which approach best suits the research questions that you have in mind?

The uniqueness of mixed methods research studies consists of the purpose of combining methods, establishing a priority for each methodology within a study, and the sequence in which each methodology is used including complementarity, confirmation, and development (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl 2008).

Before designing a study, researchers should carefully consider the “best” way to write their report to include all the necessary information within the context of the study. They need to use an approach that is creative and informative to maintain the readers’ interest and help them understand the study. The following sections describe one approach, but hopefully researchers will create their own approach and presentation style that best fit their mixed methods research studies and intended audiences (Leech, 2012).

Activity 9.2: Key Elements in a Mixed Methods Study

Using the basic components of mixed methods research in Table 9.3 as a guide, draft sections of a mixed methods research report. Use them as “building blocks” for a research article later on. If you have already begun a mixed methods paper, use these criteria to evaluate what you have written. Was there anything that you overlooked?

Table 9.3

Key components of a mixed methods research manuscript

Although researchers need to consider the best way of presenting a mixed methods study they will, at least, need to:

1. State the research question(s), both quantitative and qualitative

2. Assess the appropriateness of using mixed methods research, given the purposes of the study

3. Choose a specific mixed methods research design and supply the rationale for that choice

4. Gather both quantitative and qualitative data

5. Analyze the quantitative data with the appropriate statistical test and analyze the qualitative data using the most suitable qualitative analysis

6. Interpret the data from a quantitative, qualitative, and blended perspective

7. Legitimize the data by demonstrating how it simultaneously meets quantitative and qualitative criteria for quality

8. Make conclusions that emanate from the insights afforded by the mixed method approach

Based on Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004)

Writing a Mixed Methods Research Report

Written reports of empirical studies need to be both warranted and transparent. Warranted means that enough evidence is reported to validate the findings and inferences that were presented. Transparent means that detailed information about the process of the study is described (American Educational Research Association (AERA), 2006). When writing about a mixed methods research study, researchers can use directions from numerous professional associations and books, including the American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2010) manual, the American Educational Research Association’s (AERA) two guides on conducting and reporting research (i.e., Standards for Reporting on Empirical Social Science Research in AERA Publications (AERA, 2006) and Standards for Reporting on Humanities-Oriented Research in AERA Publications (AERA, 2009), and the reporting standards from APA (APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group, 2008).

Writing the mixed methods research report presents many challenges. Although there are several approaches, one of the approaches is the standard APA (2010) format (Leech, 2012).

It organizes the report into the sections of: introduction, literature review, method, results, and discussion. The style in which empirical articles are written should be straightforward (Milardo, 2015). See Table 9.4 for a brief description of each component in this format.

Table 9.4

Standard APA (2010) format

Component

Content

Title

Tells the story that is found in the article in fewer than 10 words. The phrase mixed methods research may be integrated in the title

Abstract

Summarizes the study in approximately 250 words including the rationale (for study and use of mixed methods research), purpose, goals of the study, research questions, related scholarly work (e.g. theories and research studies), participants, data collection techniques, and interpretation

Introduction

Provides a foundation, a persuasive reason for the importance of the study, a review of the literature, and briefly describes the purpose, research questions (or problems), objective(s), research methodology, and the study’s contributions to the field

Methodology

Discusses the rationale for specific procedures such as selecting participants, research setting, and data sources (e.g., structured/unstructured interviews, standardized measures, questionnaires, observations, document analyses), and specific procedures for collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, validating hypothesized relationships, and selecting mixed methods research components, procedures, and processes

Data Analyses

Describes the methods of analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data in relation to the mixed methods research questions and the techniques that were used to analyze the data including statistical analyses, member checks, triangulation, and others

Results

Presents the results of the mixed methods research analyses using a framework that is based on both qualitative and quantitative data and justifies the supporting evidence

Discussion

Discusses the scientific information that was obtained from both qualitative and quantitative data and its impact on the area of study, mixed methods research questions, contributions to knowledge based on previous studies, and recommendations for research and practice

References

Assists in determining the significance of the theoretical framework that supports the process in the study. The selected journal will identify its required format style, which is usually the one recommended by the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010)

Online Tool

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) offer detailed guidelines for writing mixed methods research at https://​obssr.​od.​nih.​gov/​scientific_​areas/​methodology/​mixed_​methods_​research/​section2.​aspx.

According to Leech (2012), the standard APA (2010) format has a number of benefits.

The obvious subdivisions help both researchers and readers to expect the information that is in each subdivision

Both researchers and readers are used to this format.

Most journals require this format.

The standard APA (2010) format is to the point and is the most frequently used.

Drawing upon the mixed methods research writing framework (Leech, Onwuegbuzie, & Combs 2011) and standard APA (2010) format, the following sections provide some guidelines with examples on how to write a publishable mixed methods research report.

The title is the first text that is seen by and attracts the readers. For the writer, a precise title helps to bring closure to the manuscript. The words in the title must be carefully chosen to describe the content of the study; effective titles are clear, concise, informative, and relevant to the target audience (Annesley 2010a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j). Some mixed methods researchers include this phrase to indicate to readers that they used this research paradigm in their study. Here are two brief descriptions of mixed methods studies and their titles:

Example 1: Bernardi, Keim, and von der Lippe (2007) examined the social influence on family formation in eastern and western German young adults at an early stage of their family formation. They used a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses.

Title: Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed-methods study in Eastern and Western Germany

Example 2: Hayden and Chiu (2015) examined the development of elementary preservice teachers’ reflective practices as they solved problems when they taught in a reading clinic. They collected and analyzed the teachers’ written reflections to identify relationships among problem exploration, teaching adaptations, and problem resolution.

Title: Reflective teaching via a problem exploration–teaching adaptations–resolution cycle: A mixed methods study of preservice teachers’ reflective notes

Activity 9.3: Writing the Title of a Mixed Methods Study

Locate several examples of mixed-method study article titles. To find many examples quickly, look at the tables of contents for two journals that publish mixed methods research only: Journal of Mixed Methods Research and the International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches.

Most journals set a word limit of approximately 250 words for the abstract. The selected journal specifies its word count requirement in the authors’ guidelines section. The Society for Research in Rehabilitation (no date) recommends the structure in Table 9.5.

Table 9.5

Writing abstracts for mixed methods research

Research question/objective and design: state the research question/objective and its importance. Describe methodological or theoretical perspectives

Sampling: describe the participants and how they were selected

Data collection: describe data collection strategies (interviews, field notes, standardized tests) including what data were collected, from where, from whom, and by whom

Data analyses: describe the procedures used to analyze the qualitative and quantitative data including definitions of concepts, categories, and themes as well as how these were developed and relate to the data

Quality of data and analysis: describe the strategies that were used to improve the quality of the data analysis (e.g. triangulation, participants’ validation) and validity (e.g. consider cases, alternative explanations, team analysis, peer review panels)

Findings: summarize important findings based on interpretation and theory

 Application of critical thinking to analysis: consider the researchers’ impact on data collected and analysis such as their critical method and position of data collected

 Theoretical and empirical context: describe the evidence from the design and analysis that contribute to prior knowledge

Conclusions: support the conclusions based on data collected, interpretations, transferability to groups, participants, and settings beyond those studied

Activity 9.4: Writing an Abstract for a Mixed Methods Study

Use Table 9.5 as an outline to generate a draft of an abstract for a mixed-methods study you have planned or would like to conduct. How did this structure help to direct your writing efforts? Now remove the headings and fashion it into a paragraph.

If you first follow an outline (Activity 9.4) and then fashion it into a paragraph, you can reread the revised abstract and continue to edit until the abstract is precise, flows, and stays within the word limit (Bondi & Sanz, 2014).

Keywords listed under the abstract are subject terms that help readers find articles that are related to their work. In identifying key words, researchers need to list those words that best describe their study. After they have a list of important keywords, they can examine their title and abstract to mesh these keywords with those in the title and abstract (Mack, 2012).

Writing the Introduction

The introduction in a mixed methods research report begins with the importance of the study and the use of mixed methods. It can begin with some of the participants, the scene (i.e., where the research took place), and the plot (i.e., the main research question). Next it provides review of the literature and the problem statement, goals of the study, research objectives, rationale for use of the mixed methods, the research purpose(s), and the research questions (Leech, 2012).

Flecha’s (2014) study of the Roma people (commonly referred to as Gypsies) illustrates beginning the study with a case drawn from the qualitative part of her study. The Roma are one of the most persecuted social groups in the world, and the historical background (quantitative) provides the context:

The Roma are the most important nonmigrant ethnic minority in Europe. They have historically been object of multiple discriminations that have damned them at the margins of society: slavery, expulsions, persecutions, Nazi genocide, and criminalization, among others. The European Union has already alerted that the Roma are one of the groups with highest risk of suffering poverty in Europe. (pp. 245–246)

Because Flecha (2014) has used qualitative approaches as well, she also describes the individual in considerable detail and narrows the gap between researcher and researched as is customary in qualitative research (Habermas 1984):

On December 6, 2011, Rafael, a Roma father of three, did not go to the school to coach the boys on his basketball team. Instead he was a speaker at the INCLUD-ED ¹ Final Conference at the European Parliament. Rafael’s life has changed profoundly in the last 5 years: he has left prison, overcome his drug addiction, and worked as a volunteer at the La Paz school. He is now a worker member of the recently created cooperative in the La Milagrosa neighborhood in Albacete, Spain. Speaking to an audience of policy makers, professionals, NGO representatives, researchers, and members of the Parliament, Rafael described how his involvement in the research project was the catalyst for all these changes. (p. 245)

Review of the Related Literature

The review of the literature is critical in conducting mixed methods research studies. In the literature review process, researchers rely on mixed methods research synthesis. This consists of “an interpretation of a selection of published and/or unpublished documents available from various sources on a specific topic that optimally involves summarization, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of the documents” (Onwuegbuzie, Collins, Leech, Dellinger, & Jiao, 2007, p. 2).

As with literature reviews in qualitative and quantitative research, the purpose of is to inform the researcher about:

What has been done and what needs to be done

Which variables other researchers consider to be important to the topic

What relationships exist between theory/concepts and practice

Limitations of previous studies and ways to avoid duplicating them

Which major research techniques and designs have been used thus far

Contradictions and inconsistencies in the extant research literature

Strengths and weaknesses of the different research techniques that have been used (Onwuegbuzie, Collins, Leech, Dellinger, & Jiao 2010).

A literature review helps to shape a well-defined theoretical/conceptual framework to guide the research process. In the following example, Arnon and Reichel (2009) demonstrate how their review of the literature has shaped their conceptual framework and enabled them attain a high level of synthesis:

The “good teacher” is an idiomatic phrase, a prototypic concept of the desirable, ideal teacher that is expressed by many people. In fact, different people comprehend it differently and assert different characteristics for the good teacher. The image of the good teacher reflects people’s personal experience (Bannink & Van Dam, 2007) and the norms and values of their culture (Schwab, 1973).

In the portrait gallery of the ideal teacher, as designed by a long list of educational philosophers from ancient to postmodern times, we find variety in the images of teachers and their basic qualities and values. We note, for example, the teacher as midwife (Socrates), as an artist in the use of knowledge (Plato), as a role model (Aristotle), as a liberator (Freire), as an educator in accordance with nature (Rousseau), as an existentialist (Frankel), as a mediator (Feuerstein), as child centered (Neill), and as a postmodernist (Foucaul) (Arnon & Reichel, 2007; Reichel & Arnon, 2005, p. 173).

As this example illustrates, the review of the literature is extensive, thorough, and current. The writer refers to primary sources that focus on the research problem (Boote & Beile, 2005). Some researchers believe that the purpose of the literature review may be slightly different for quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Technically, quantitative is a test of a theory whereas the very purpose of qualitative can be to allow a theory to “bubble up” from the data—for example, grounded theory. The commonality is that, both in quantitative and qualitative research, the findings from others’ studies are appropriately compared, contrasted, and related to the present study. When reviewing others’ research, writers assess their findings with respect to trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, legitimation, validity, plausibility, applicability, consistency, neutrality, reliability, objectivity, confirmability, and/or transferability (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010; Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins 2012). The review of the literature for a qualitative study requires you to assess findings for each empirical study in all three paradigms: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research (Leech & Onwuegbuzie 2010). In addition, the review of the literature should provide a concise and logical description of the validity of inferences for each reported study to provide authenticity (Dellinger & Leech, 2007).

Methodological Framework

The use of mixed methods research is justified by explaining why the study was conducted and what gap it will fill in the literature. The most common rationale for using mixed methods research is the need to completely understand the participants’ experiences, a goal that would be unattainable with quantitative or qualitative methods alone. The rationale is explained based on the participant(s) or group(s), especially in relation to the historical, cultural, linguistic, social, and/or psychological composition of the sample members (AERA, 2006). Main rationales for mixing quantitative and qualitative methodologies consist of participant enrichment, instrument fidelity, treatment integrity, and significance enhancement (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton, 2006). Mertens (2010) makes a case to use mixed methods research to understand communities and move toward redressing inequity in society. The rationale for a mixed method study is a reflection of its purposes, as outlined in Table 9.6.

Table 9.6

General purposes for mixed methods research

Prediction

Contribution to knowledge

Personal, social, institutional, and/or organizational influence

Degree of change

Understanding of complicated events

Experimentation with contemporary ideas

Creation of contemporary ideas

Communication of information to constituencies

Exploration of an earlier period

Returning to Flecha’s (2014) study of the Roma people, here is her rationale for using mixed methods research:

A mixed methods strategy has addressed this kind of refusal by the Roma and other groups and creates venues for active participation in the entire research process … [this] makes it possible to include the voices of all social actors, especially those at the grassroots, who do not hold a university degree, and who have been traditionally excluded from the creation of scientific knowledge. (p. 246)

Activity 9.5: Why Use the Third Research Paradigm?

Using the list in Table 9.6, decide which of the purposes of mixed methods research apply to a report you are planning to write. Now draft a brief rationale for using mixed methods.

Mixed methods researchers may identify two or more goals for each methodology—quantitative and qualitative (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010; Newman, Ridenour, Newman, & De Marco 2003). Returning to Arnon and Reichel’s (2009) study of “the good teacher,” they identified the following four goals:

1.

To demonstrate the use of a mixed method research design that is both explorative and confirmative by concurrently integrating qualitative and quantitative research strands.

2.

To compare in the same research the simultaneous and equal use of open-ended questions, as a qualitative research tool, and closed questions, as a quantitative research tool for gathering data in a shared representative sample of a telephone survey.

3.

To display a conversion in the qualitative strand from verbal data analysis to quantitative data and its statistical analysis.

4.

To infer research conclusions from the integrated mixed model research design. (p. 172)

Generally, research questions indicate the problem that the researchers are studying. Explicitly, research questions are probing statements that are “an extension of the statement of the purpose of the study in that it specifies exactly the question that the researcher will attempt to answer” (Johnson & Christensen, 2004, p. 77). Research questions are developed based on theories, past research, previous experience, or practice. Questions offer a framework to guide researchers as they: conduct the study, systematize it, show its importance, and strive for continuity throughout the research process. Research questions also set the limits of the study and explain its boundaries (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006).

Research questions provide critical guidelines in mixed methods research. They need to be interactive, emergent, fluid, and evolving. According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2006), “mixed methods research questions combine or mix both the quantitative and qualitative research questions. Moreover, a mixed methods research question necessitates that both quantitative data and qualitative data be collected and analyzed” (p. 483). A study of doctoral students’ experience with reading research articles, for example, identified research questions and categorized them according to the research paradigm:

Quantitative research questions

1.

What is the level of reading comprehension among doctoral students?

2.

What is the level of reading vocabulary among doctoral students?

Qualitative research question

3.

What are the perceived barriers to reading empirical articles of doctoral students?

Mixed methods research questions

4.

What is the prevalence of each of the perceived barriers to reading empirical articles of doctoral students?

5.

How do these perceived barriers to reading empirical articles relate to one another?

6.

What is the relationship between reading ability (i.e., reading comprehension, reading vocabulary) and perceived barriers to reading empirical articles of doctoral students?

7.

Which perceived barriers predict the levels of perceived difficulty doctoral students experience in reading empirical research articles? (Benge, Onwuegbuzie, Mallette, & Burgess 2010, p. 59)

Activity 9.6: Writing Research Questions

Using the examples above, try to write at least one quantitative research question, one qualitative research question, and two to three mixed methods research questions for a study that you plan to conduct.

Writing the Methodology Section in Mixed Methods Research

The methodology section provides enough information to understand how the study was conducted. It includes how the participants, data collection techniques, and data analysis were selected and used. Such information helps researchers enhance the credibility, validity, and readability of the study.

The participants and the rationale for their selection need to be described in detail to establish the credibility and validity of the study. For example, it is important to let readers know who the participants were, where they live, how many participated, and any other relevant information. A description should also be provided about the initial and final sample sizes for both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the study (Leech, 2012). Here is an example of how to write the descriptions of participants and settings:

Participants

Participants were 912 college students who were attending a midsize public university in a midsouthern state. The sample size represented 10.66 % of the student body at the university where the study took place. These students were enrolled in 68 degree programs (e.g., education, mathematics, history, sociology, dietetics, journalism, nursing, prepharmacy, premedical) that represented all six colleges. The sample was selected purposively utilizing a criterion sampling scheme… The majority of the sample was female (74.3 %). With respect to ethnicity, the respondents comprised Caucasian American (85.4 %), African American (11.0 %), Asian American (1.0 %), Hispanic (0.4 %), Native American (0.9 %), and other (1.3 %). Ages ranged from 18 to 58 years (M = 23.00, SD = 6.26). With regard to level of student (i.e., undergraduate vs. graduate), 77.04 % represented undergraduate students. A total of 76 students were preservice teachers. (Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier, & Moore 2007, p. 123)

Setting

The university where the study took place was established in 1907 as a public (state-funded) university. Containing 38 major buildings on its 262-acre campus, this university serves approximately 9,000 students annually (8,555 students were enrolled at the university at the time the study took place), of whom approximately 1,000 are graduate students. The university’s departments and programs are organized into six academic colleges and an honors college that offers an array of undergraduate and master’s-level programs as well as select doctoral degrees. The university employs more than 350 full-time instructional faculty. It is classified by the Carnegie Foundation as a Masters Colleges and Universities I, and it continues to train a significant percentage of the state’s schoolteachers. (Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier, & Moore 2007, pp. 123–124)

Activity 9.7: Writing the Description of the Participants and the Setting

Make a list of relevant details about the participants and the setting for the study you have in mind. Then, using the preceding examples, draft that section of a mixed methods research report.

During the last decade, a surplus of mixed methods research designs have emerged. Novice and experienced researchers encounter the challenge of finding and selecting the best possible mixed methods research design for their study. When describing the design, be certain to include: (a) the framework, (b) the rationale for choosing it, and (c) any discrepancies between the chosen design and those used by other researchers. As you write about the design, give attention to the quantitative and qualitative aspects, the specific design used for experimental and quasi-experimental research, and the precise disposition of the research designs (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010). Here is a sample description:

The mixed-methods research design used in this investigation could be classified as a fully mixed sequential dominant status design. This design involves mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches within one or more of, or across, the stages of the research process. In this study, the qualitative and quantitative approaches were mixed within the data analysis and data interpretation stages, with the qualitative and quantitative phases occurring sequentially and the qualitative phase given more weight. (Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier, & Moore 2007, p. 125)

Writing the Data Collection Section in Mixed Methods Research

As with other forms of empirical research, the data collected in a mixed methods study address the research questions or hypotheses. The data collection process should correspond to the mixed methods research design in the study. This means that researchers synchronize their procedures where both quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously or chronologically where one kind of data are collected and analyzed before the second data collection. For both the qualitative and quantitative methodologies, researchers need to select and provide detailed descriptions of all data collection instruments, such as developer of the instruments (with appropriate citations); format of the instruments; when, how, and why they were administered; the context and focus of data collection; the duration of data collection; and information about the quality of the data collected such as score reliability, score validity, and interrater reliability (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2010). Here is a description of data collection for the mixed methods study of doctoral students’ reading challenges with empirical research articles.

In the first class session, all participants were administered the following two instruments: the Nelson-Denny Reading Test (NDRT) and the Reading Interest Survey (RIS). The NDRT, developed by Brown, Fishco, and Hanna (1993), was used to measure reading ability. This instrument, which is appropriate for Grades 9 to 16, college students, and adults, is a 118-item test containing two subtests: Vocabulary (80 items) and Comprehension (38 items). Each item on the NDRT contains a five-choice response option. This test was selected because of its widespread use among researchers, adequate score reliability, and score validity that have been reported in the literature, as well as the fact that normative data are available on very large samples of high school and college students (Brown et al., 1993). For the present investigation, both the reading vocabulary scores and reading comprehension scores were analyzed. Score reliability (i.e., KR-20) was .85 (95 % confidence interval [CI] = .82, .88) for the reading vocabulary subtest and .69 (95 % CI = .63, .75) for the comprehension subtest. The RIS contains 62 open- and closed-ended items; therefore, the mixed data collection style used in the present study could be referred to as Type 2 data. (Burgess, Benge, Onwuegbuzie, & Mallette 2012, p. 12)

Mixed Methods Research Data Analyses

Simultaneously to the data collection, data are analyzed to merge the findings for triangulation; to validate quantitative data through qualitative data for triangulation; to convert the data for comparison; or to construct data that will focus on other kinds of questions than the initial ones (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Mixed methods research depends on the analyses and interpretations of both qualitative and quantitative data. The use of both methodologies enhances the researchers’ interpretations of significant findings when researchers make a parallel analysis (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006). Exemplary mixed methods research yields a “synergy of both [qualitative and quantitative approaches] allows for a comprehensive analysis that can balance a persuasive, generalizable analysis with nuance and complexity” (Jacobs, 2003, p. 14).

In mixed methods research, researchers choose those techniques that correspond to the study’s purposes and combine the data at one or more stages of data analysis (Parylo, 2012). The quantitative data are analyzed using quantitative methods, while the qualitative data are analyzed using qualitative methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). As mentioned previously in this chapter, data analysis can occur at different stages in the sequence. For instance, researchers can first analyze their qualitative data and then conduct a quantitative analysis using the themes and codes from the qualitative analysis. The transformation of qualitative data into quantitative data can be accomplished using sophisticated tools, such as factor analysis. Conversely, researchers can first analyze their quantitative data and then conduct a qualitative analysis, for example, developing a narrative profile based on a set of test scores or subscale scores that represent a domain (Onwuegbuzie & Combs 2011). Here is a description of the data analyses for a mixed method study: that were used by the researchers:

Concurrent analysis of qualitative and quantitative data, or “parallel mixed analysis” or “triangulation of data sources”—to mention some of the terms found in the literature. The use of two methods of questioning could contribute to cross-validation of qualities attributed to the ideal teacher (triangulation). At this stage, we analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data separately and concurrently

Sequential analysis of the qualitative data—first by qualitative content analysis to obtain its categories, and then by quantitizing techniques. After converting the qualitative categorical data into numerical binary codes, we analyzed them statistically. (Arnon & Reichel, 2009, p. 182)

Writing the Results Section of a Mixed Methods Study

Based on the research questions, the study’s significant findings are clearly discussed in the mixed methods research report (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Interpretation in qualitative research should focus on searching for insights into what makes a real difference in the participants’ quality of life or those with whom they interact, including statistically significant effects (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). For example, here is a synopsis of how Parylo and Zepeda (2014) interpreted their findings:

In a study that examined how district leaders of two school systems depict an effective principal, Parylo and Zepeda (2014) conducted a membership categorization analysis and found that district leaders believed that an effective principal had (1) a track record of being a good manager, (2) instructional skills, (3) interpersonal skills that included being a team player and community leader, and (4) perceptual characteristics. The researchers used these findings to construct a graphical model portraying an ‘effective principal’ from the point of view of district leaders. They also offered implications for policy, research, practice, and leader preparation.

Writing the Discussion

The discussion section might include summarizing the findings, arriving to some conclusions, validating/legitimating the data interpretations, and reformulating the research question(s) to guide researchers with future studies.

After summarizing the findings, researchers arrive at some conclusions. For example, in the study of doctoral students’ reading of empirical research described earlier, Benge and colleagues (2010) concluded that

reading ability likely plays an important role in the learning context. Moreover, the negative relationship between levels of reading ability and some of the emergent themes and meta-themes suggests that inadequate reading ability can place a student at risk of not learning the skills necessary to be a consumer of research…by not reading key empirical articles. As such, interventions aimed at improving reading ability among doctoral students likely might help to address their research needs. (p. 71)

Validity Issues in Mixed Methods Research

All research findings are exposed to threats of descriptive validity (accuracy of explanations), interpretive validity (researchers’ interpretations of the participants’ behavior), internal validity (instrumentation), and external validity (Campbell, 1957; Onwuegbuzie, 2003).

Both the quantitative and qualitative data need to be assessed for data validation/legitimation. Legitimation is the trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, confirmability, and/or transferability of the researchers’ inferences (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). Lack of legitimation “means that the extent to which the data have been captured has not been adequately assessed, or that any such assessment has not provided support for legitimation” (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004, p. 778).

For qualitative data a detailed description of any threats to trustworthiness, credibility, dependability, authenticity, verification, plausibility, applicability, confirmability, and/or transferability of data (Creswell 2013a, b; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña 2013) needs to be provided. All verification procedures used need to be discussed. The overall mixed methods research need to have an in-depth discussion of legitimation concerning the quantitative and qualitative analyses. Returning to the study of doctoral students and challenges they faced in reading research, the authors provided this discussion of threats to validity and legitimization of their approach:

Validity of findings from quantitative phase. Threats both to internal validity and external validity prevailed with respect to the quantitative findings (Campbell, 1957; Campbell & Stanley, 1963, 1966). The biggest threat to the internal validity of the quantitative findings was instrumentation because of the relatively low reliability coefficient (i.e., .69) pertaining to the reading comprehension scores, which can affect statistical power (Onwuegbuzie & Daniel, 2004).

With regard to external validity, because the sample represented doctoral students at a single university (i.e., threat to population validity and ecological validity) from whom data were collected at a single point in time (i.e., threat to temporal validity), it is not clear the extent to which the present findings generalize beyond the sample to doctoral students from other institutions in other regions of the United States and beyond.

Legitimation of findings from qualitative phase. The biggest threats to the qualitative findings were descriptive validity (i.e., factual accuracy of the reasons provided by the doctoral students) and interpretive validity (i.e., the extent to which a researcher’s interpretation of the reasons provided represents an understanding of the students’ perspectives and the meanings that they attach to their words and actions)… However, descriptive validity and interpretive validity were enhanced by member checking … all the themes secured endorsement rates that yielded at least small-to-medium effect sizes suggests that data saturation took place.

Legitimation from the mixed research phase. It can be seen that nine threats were addressed to some degree. Nevertheless, despite the extremely rigorous nature of the mixed research design, replications of this inquiry are needed to assess the reliability of the current findings. (Burgess, Benge, Onwuegbuzie, and Mallette 2012, pp. 23–24)

A part of mixed methods research that is sometimes surprising to authors is reformulating the research questions. Based on the results, the goal, objective, rationale, purpose, and research questions are examined to propose new research questions. The mixed methods research report needs to explain how the research questions can be reformulated. Reformulating all research procedures leads to recommendations for future research that will conclude in a validation, replication, or expansion of the study (Leech, 2012; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2011). To illustrate, Burgess, Benge, Onwuegbuzie, and Mallette’s (2012) study found five themes that described doctoral students’ reasons for reading research articles. In addition, a series of canonical correlation analyses showed relationships between reasons for reading empirical articles and (a) reading intensity (i.e., frequency of reading empirical research articles, number of empirical research articles read each month) and (b) reading ability (i.e., reading comprehension, reading vocabulary). Based on these findings, Burgess, Benge, Onwuegbuzie, and Mallette (2012) reformulated the mixed methods research question for researchers to use in the future: What is the relationship between doctoral students’ reasons for reading empirical literature and their perceived barriers to reading empirical literature? (p. 28)

Evaluating the Quality of Mixed Methods Research Reports

Researchers have described the importance of mixed methods research and have increased their publication of mixed methods research studies. Creswell, Fetters, and Ivankova (2004) identified issues that researchers can consider when designing a mixed methods research study while general criteria have been established for planning, designing, reporting and assessing mixed methods research studies (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; O’Cathain et al., 2008). Several researchers and organizations have published guidelines on how to review quantitative and qualitative studies, but specific guidelines are needed with mixed methods research (O’Cathain et al., 2008). It is critical that researchers have a refined set of criteria to evaluate the quality of their reporting in mixed methods research studies. O’Cathain and colleagues, (2008) recommend several guidelines to use in reporting a high quality mixed methods study. Table 9.7 provides guidelines to assess designs and inferences made in reports of mixed methods research studies, while Activity 9.8 provides guidelines on evaluating a mixed methods research report.

Table 9.7

Checklist to assess a mixed methods research manuscript

1. Is the use of mixed methods research justified?

2. Is the design for mixing methods described?

3. Is the design clearly communicated?

4. Is the design appropriate for addressing the research questions?

5. Has rigor of the design been considered (proposal) or adhered to (report)?

Assessment of the inferences made in reports of mixed methods studies

1. Is there clarity about which results have emerged from which methods?

2. Are inferences appropriate?

3. Are the results of all the methods considered sufficiently in the interpretation? (O’Cathain et al., 2008, p. 95)

Activity 9.8: Critiquing a Mixed Methods Manuscript

Use the following questions to review a mixed methods study that is published or as a tool for self-assessment of a study you are drafting. Did the researcher describe: (1) the justification for using a mixed methods approach to the research question? (2) the design in terms of the purpose, priority and sequence of methods? (3) both the quantitative and the qualitative methods in terms of sampling, data collection and analysis? (4) where integration has occurred, how has it occurred and who has participated in it? (5) any limitation of one method associated with the presence of the other method? and (6) any insights gained from mixing or integrating methods? (O’Cathain et al., 2008, p. 97).

Mixed Methods Research Journals

More mixed methods research procedures are being used in research studies, which has prompted research journals to recognize this third paradigm and for the founding of new research journals that focus on mixed methods research to emerge. Presently, an abundant number of journals are accepting and publishing mixed methods research studies. The increased recognition is evident in the websites, conferences, and workshops that focus on this type of methodology. Table 9.8 suggests some outlets for mixed methods research articles.

Table 9.8

Journals that publish mixed methods research

Some examples of journals that publish mixed methods research are:

American Behavioral Scientist

American Journal of Education

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Educational Researcher

Evaluation and Research in Education

International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

International Journal of Research in Education Methodology

International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice

Journal of Counseling and Development

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology

School Psychology Quarterly

The Journal of Effective Teaching

The Qualitative Report

Conclusion

In work with living things, hybridization is a major mechanism for reducing flaws and producing hardier stock. Plants, for example, are cross-pollinated in the hopes of capturing the best attributes of each. New plants are produced that have greater resistance to pests or diseases, resilience under different growing conditions, or higher crop yields per acre. However, there are no guarantees. Some of the anticipated goals may not be achieved and the hybrid plant could turn out to have other, more serious limitations. Mixed methods research has similar risks and rewards. Ideally, it propels the field forward but it also can become mired in complexity and fail to deliver on its promise. Without a doubt, blending the two research paradigms requires a research skills, high level conceptualization and strength in scholarly writing.

At its best, mixed methods research is an intellectual and practical combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies that is designed to address complex research questions more extensively and more completely (Morse, 2010). This third research paradigm aims high and attempts to generate “the most informative, complete, balanced, and useful research results” (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner 2007, p. 129). A mixed methods research study can lead to insights that cannot be obtained from a qualitative or quantitative research alone (O’Cathain, Murphy, & Nicholl 2007a, 2007b). Above all, mixed methods researchers need to generate a well-written report that reflects “the highest standards of ethical practice both with respect to human participation and with respect to the execution of professional conduct and judgment in research” (AERA, 2006, p. 39).

References

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40.CrossRef

American Psychological Association Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What do they need to be? American Psychologist, 63(9), 839–851.CrossRef

American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities- oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481–486.CrossRef

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Annesley, T. M. (2010a). Bars and pies make better desserts than figures. Clinical Chemistry, 56(9), 1394–1400.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010b). Bring your best to the table. Clinical Chemistry, 56(10), 1528–1534.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010c). If an IRDAM journal is what you choose, then sequential results are what you use. Clinical Chemistry, 56(8), 1226–1228.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010d). “It was a cold and rainy night”: Set the scene with a good introduction. Clinical Chemistry, 56(5), 708–713.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010e). Put your best figure forward: Line graphs and scattergrams. Clinical Chemistry, 56(8), 1229–1233.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010f). Show your cards: The results section and the poker game. Clinical Chemistry, 56(7), 1066–1070.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010g). The abstract and the elevator talk: A tale of two summaries. Clinical Chemistry, 56(4), 521–524.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010h). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56(11), 1671–1674.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010i). The title says it all. Clinical Chemistry, 56(3), 357–360.CrossRef

Annesley, T. M. (2010j). Who, what, when, where, how, and why: The ingredients in the recipe for a successful methods section. Clinical Chemistry, 56(6), 897–901.CrossRef

Arnon, S., & Reichel, N. (2007). Who is the ideal teacher? Am I?—Similarity and difference in perception of students of education regarding the qualities of a good teacher and of their own qualities as teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(5), 441–464.CrossRef

Arnon, S., & Reichel, N. (2009). Closed and open-ended question tools in a telephone survey about “The Good Teacher”: An example of a mixed method study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 172–196.

Bannink, A., & Van Dam, J. (2007). Bootstrapping reflection on classroom interactions: Discourse contexts of novice teachers’ thinking. Evaluation and Research in Education, 20(2), 81–99.CrossRef

Benge, C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Mallette, M. H., & Burgess, M. L. (2010). Doctoral students’ perceptions of barriers to reading empirical literature: A mixed analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 55–77.

Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed-methods study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed-Methods Research, 1(1), 23–47. doi:10.​1177/​2345678906292238​1-27.CrossRef

Bondi, M., & Sanz, R. L. (Eds.). (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change. New York: Peter Lang.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.CrossRef

Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny reading test: Manual for scoring and interpretation, forms G and H. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Burgess, L., Benge, C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Mallette, M. H. (2012). Doctoral students’ reasons for reading empirical research articles: A mixed analysis. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(3), 5–33.

Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312.CrossRef

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963, 1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rational and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67–100.

Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7–12.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013b). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Developing publishable mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 107–111.CrossRef

Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(4), 309–332.CrossRef

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: Living by words. New York: Routledge.

Flecha, R. (2014). Using mixed methods from a communicative orientation: Researching with grassroots Roma. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8(3), 245–254.CrossRef

Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). New York: Wiley.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.CrossRef

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Boston: Beacon Press.

Hayden, H. E., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Reflective teaching via a problem exploration–teaching adaptations–resolution cycle: A mixed methods study of preservice teachers’ reflective notes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 133–153.CrossRef

Jacobs, E. (2003). Mixed methods and moving to opportunity. The Educational Exchange, IX(3), 14–15. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://​www.​hfrp.​org/​evaluation/​the-evaluation-exchange/​issue-archive/​

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRef

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133.CrossRef

Kallemeyn, L., Schiazza, D., Ryan, A. M., Peters, J., & Johnson, C. (2013). Ambitious U.S. history teachers bringing professional development into the classroom: A mixed methods study. Research in the Schools, 20(1), 39–56.

Knaggs, C. M., Sondergeold, T. A., & Schardt, B. (2015). Overcoming barriers to college enrollment, persistence, and perceptions for urban high school students in a college preparatory program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 7–30.CrossRef

Leech, N. L. (2012). Writing mixed research reports. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 866–881.CrossRef

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88(1), 61–69.CrossRef

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Mixed research in counseling: Trends in the literature. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling, 44, 169–180.CrossRef

Leech, N. L., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Writing publishable mixed research articles: Guidelines for emerging scholars in the health sciences. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5(1), 7–24.CrossRef

Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from http://​www.​qualitative-research.​net/​index.​php/​fqs/​article/​view/​291/​641

Mack, C. (2012). How to write a good scientific paper: Title, abstract, and keywords. The Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMES, and MOEMS, 11(12), 020101.

McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 229–241.CrossRef

Mertens, D. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 469–474.CrossRef

Milardo, R. M. (2015). Crafting scholarship in the behavioral and social sciences: Writing, reviewing, and editing. New York: Routledge.

Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morse, J. M. (2010). Procedures and practice of mixed method design: Maintaining control, rigor, and complexity. In A. Tashakkori & E. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 339–352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRef

Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & De Marco, G. M. P. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007a). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 147–163.CrossRef

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007b). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research, 7(1), 85. doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-7-85. Retrieved from http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1472-6963/​7/​85

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research. Qualitative Health Research, 18(11), 1574–1585.CrossRef

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10, 71–90.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., & Jiao, Q. G. (2010). A meta-framework for conducting mixed research syntheses for stress and coping researchers and beyond. In G. S. Gates, W. H. Gmelch, & M. Wolverton (Series Eds.), & K. M. T. Collins, A. J. Onwuegbuzie, & Q. G. Jiao (Vol. Eds.), Toward a broader understanding of stress and coping: Mixed methods approaches (pp. 169–211). The Research on Stress and Coping in Education Series (Vol. 5). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer. International Journal of Education, 3(1), E13.CrossRef

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2004). Reliability generalization: The importance of considering sample specificity, confidence intervals, and subgroup differences. Research in the Schools, 11(1), 60–71.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4), 770–792.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(5), 375–387.CrossRef

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474–498.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41(1), 105–121.CrossRef

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 17(Art. 56), 1–28.

Onwuegbuxie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., & Jiao, Q. C. (2007, April). Mixed methods + literature reviews = mixed research syntheses: A framework for conducting and writing rigorous, comptehensive, and insightful literature reviews. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D., & Moore, C. W. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-methods analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 113–160.CrossRef

Parylo, O. (2012). Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods: An analysis of research design in articles on principal professional development (1998–2008). International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(3), 297–313.CrossRef

Parylo, O., & Zepeda, S. J. (2014). Describing an ‘effective’ principal: Perceptions of the central office leaders. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 34(5), 518–537.CrossRef

Reichel, N., & Arnon, S. (2005). Three portraits of teachers in the view of students of teaching: The ideal teacher, the teacher of teachers and the image of the student him/herself as a teacher. Dapim, 40, 23–58.

Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? Writing and reading mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 321–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schwab, J. (1973). The practical translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501–522.CrossRef

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–211.CrossRef

Taskakkori, A. M., & Teddlie, C. B. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Part III
Writing as Professional Development

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_10

10. From Consumer to Producer of the Literature

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

Even if an author prefers not to take on a major project such as a book, it is possible to participate in book projects at different levels. Graduate students/graduate assistants, for example, often develop the instructor’s manual or student study guide for a college-level textbook while professors and doctoral students might collaborate to contribute a chapter to an edited book. This chapter guides the reader through a wide range of opportunities to become involved with scholarly book writing. It also teaches scholars how to: conceptualize a book to meet the needs of a clearly identified audience, conduct a market analysis of competing works, and propose their ideas to an editor, both verbally and in the form of a written proposal. The chapter concludes with a candid discussion of scholarly book publishing, from negotiating a contract to realistic expectations for royalties.

Shortly after I was hired as an assistant professor, one of my colleagues placed an unusual hardbound book in my faculty mailbox. It was called The Nothing Book. It consisted of rainbow colored, completely blank pages. Inside the front cover, the senior professor had written, “I predict great things from you. Use this little book like a journal to list your goals and accomplishments. Wishing you every success, Emily.” At the time, my goals seemed very difficult to attain; I wanted to publish one article in the leading journal in my field, to get tenure and promotion and, even though I dreamed of writing a book someday, that goal was just too lofty to commit to paper. What I failed to realize at the time was that book authorship is an apprenticeship rather than a single event. It relies on involvement at different levels that prepare you to fulfill the book author’s role. The more that you seek out opportunities to gain experience and learn about publishing, the more you prepare yourself to become a book author.

Getting Involved in Book Projects

When the conversation turns to writing a book, many students and faculty members assume that it is out of the realm of possibility for them. Widely published author Stephen Brookfield (2015) speaks to these concerns when he writes:

I remember as a graduate student thinking that books were produced by people with intellectual weight who had something to disclose. My own intellect and opinions seemed puny by comparison. I simply did not think I deserved to write a book since I had nothing important to say. To overcome such intimidation it is necessary to demystify the air of portentousness surrounding the idea of book publication…we need to scale back the expectations we place on ourselves to move the tectonic plates of our discipline. (p. 1)

As an antidote to these paralyzing expectations try to identify modest, yet important, goals for book writing. You might organize material in a more accessible way, identify new connections and synthesize, explore a perplexing aspect of a field more deeply or in a new manner, propose a different direction for research, or investigate one small and neglected niche in a field (Brookfield, 2015).

Aspiring book authors also may mistakenly assume that they need dazzling curriculum vitae or have to generate an entire book, all by themselves, in order to be associated with writing and publishing scholarly books. There are, however, many ways to be involved in book projects that do not require you to write an entire book by yourself. For example, you might seek out opportunities to:

Serve as reviewer for other authors’ book manuscripts

Develop ancillary materials (i.e., the PowerPoint slides, test items, website, instructor’s manual) for a college textbook

Contribute short examples or co-author a chapter for a college-level textbook written by others

Author or co-author a book chapter in an edited book

Co-edit or edit a book; usually you would write one or two chapters while other authors contribute the remaining material

The amount of previous experience with publishing required to fulfill these roles can vary as well. For instance, if an established textbook author already has a book contract and invites you to contribute/co-author, you may not need much more than that individual’s endorsement and guidance. The nature of the specific task also affects the roles that you can fulfill related to a book project. When college textbook authors need to develop ancillary materials for their textbooks, such as the student study guide, the publisher often will ask for a recommendation from the author of someone who could do that work competently. Many times, a graduate student is identified. Sometimes, practitioners in the field are more knowledgeable about a particular aspect of a book. After reviewers of a 6th edition textbook asked for more applications of technology, the authors created a format for this textbook feature and invited their graduate students to write them. These graduate students were classroom teachers who used technology on a regular basis and could provide (with permission, of course) samples of children’s work. The textbook authors then edited each entry a few times and ten different doctoral candidates now had at least one small publication to add to their CVs. Working on book-related projects such as these not only improves academic authors’ writing skills but also introduces them to the publishing world. So, getting involved with book publishing is not as far out of reach as it may first appear.

This chapter is arranged, more or less, in order of difficulty and time commitment. It begins with reviewing others’ books, contributing a chapter to a book, editing a book, and, finally, the most formidable task: authoring or co-authoring a book.

Reviewing Book Proposals and Book Manuscripts

One way to prepare yourself for writing books is to review them. It is not necessary to be a widely published scholar in order to serve as a reviewer. Many times, textbook sales representatives will invite you to review a book that you have been using when it is ready to go into a subsequent edition. Or, if it is a new book for a course that you teach, they might seek your input while the manuscript is being developed. You also can volunteer to provide this service to publishers by sending them a letter and your curriculum vita. While each publisher has guidelines for the review, Table 10.1 identifies some of the most frequently asked questions about book proposals, chapters, and entire manuscripts that reviewers use to critique the work. Internalizing these criteria is a good way to prepare yourself for book of your own someday.

Table 10.1

Questions to guide book reviewers

Do you know the proposer of the book? Do you consider him/her/them to be qualified to undertake the project?

Would the book make a significant contribution to the field? Is it worthy of support?

What is your overall opinion of the material? Does it appear to meet a specific need?

Is the title appropriate? Does it actually describe the book’s content?

Who is the primary audience for this type of material? Will the intended audience find the book useful? How do you see the book being used?

How does the philosophy behind the book fit into current thinking in the field?

Is the book well organized? Is its structure helpful?

Are there any topics that have been left out? To your way of thinking, will these are these omissions adversely affect the sale of the book?

What is your opinion of the writing? Is the author writing for the intended audience?

What are the book’s greatest strengths? Please be specific

What are the greatest weaknesses, and what would you do to strengthen those areas?

Is the book well organized? Are there any organizational devices that would make the book more useful?

Are there any particular chapters that are exceptionally good or, on the other hand, any that you find lacking in comparison to the others? What ones, and why do they stand out to you?

Are there sections in the proposed contents of the work that would need expansion and/or development? Are there important views that the editor(s) failed to consider in his/her/their proposed content?

Do you notice any redundancy across chapters? Is there material that could be condensed or deleted?

Do you think you would use the book based on the material you have seen? How? Would you recommend the book to your colleagues? Why or why not?

Which books, if any, do you see as this book’s primary competitors? Does this project compare favorably? Unfavorably? How?

What is your recommendation: to proceed with the publication of the work, to request revisions, or to decline to pursue the publication?

Adapted from Springer’s Guidelines for Book Manuscript Review

Writing a Book Chapter

Another way to venture into book publishing is to generate one chapter. Many authors and editors seek authors or co-authors for chapters in books. For example, if an author is writing a comprehensive textbook for a course and feels that his or her background is inadequate, an author or co-author might be the solution. For an edited book series, editors rely extensively on chapters submitted by various authors. Many times, professors will accept these invitations and use them as an opportunity to mentor one or more colleagues, former students, or current students.

Activity 10.1: Identifying Opportunities to Contribute a Book Chapter

Look on your bookshelf. What edited book series do you see in your field? Who is the editor? Go back through the reference lists for papers you have written and search for (Ed.) or (Eds.) and then go online to view the publishing company’s catalog. If it is a series, find out more about it. Usually, the publisher will list all volumes published thus far in the series and forthcoming titles (see, for example, an overview of Springer’s book series posted at: http://​link.​springer.​com/​search?​query=​Book+Series). Try to locate a series that would be a suitable outlet for your work.

Table 10.2 offers general recommendations on writing chapters for books.

Table 10.2

General advice on writing a chapter

1. Talk with published authors. If they are aware of your areas of interest and expertise, they are more likely to think of you when an opportunity arises

2. Seek out calls for papers. These may be advertised in professional journals, distributed electronically, or printed out and disseminated at meetings

3. Understand your role. When you are invited, the editor or author should explain what you will contribute and how it will be acknowledged

4. Read before you sign. Go through the letter carefully and read all of the attached documents before agreeing to participate. If any of these conditions are not acceptable to you, you should decline the offer

5. Begin immediately. The day that you receive the invitation, start collecting resources and making notes. Revisit the file and revise what is there many, many times long before the deadline approaches. Above all, do not wait until the last minute

6. Revisit the guidelines. Too often, authors read the letter of invitation when it first arrives and then write the chapter without referring back to the guidelines

7. Ask for an exemplar. Book editors should provide you with very specific guidelines and, if possible, a model of the style, length, and tone that is sought. Many times, the book editor writes one or more chapters for the book and would be willing to share his or her work with you

8. Follow the format requirements. Prepare the manuscript as required in terms of the referencing style, page limit, spacing, margins, and visual material (i.e., tables, figures, charts, graphs, photographs, captions). Some publishers, such as Springer, use a template that helps to get the chapters assembled in a book-like fashion from the start, so allocate time to learn how to do this

9. Proofread and double-check references. Every mistake that you make will come back to you later. You will get list of author queries and need to address each one. Missing references can be particularly troublesome

10. Understand the review process. Usually, the author or editor will read it first and provide feedback. Then it will be sent out for anonymous peer review and revised again. After that, it is typical to see a typeset copy and make the final edits

11. Provide brief biographical information. Edited books often include brief notes about the authors’ achievements. Ask for an example of how the publisher wants this done and follow that format

The Edited Book

The advantages of edited books are numerous; first, if the contributors are carefully selected for the quality of their writing and adherence to deadlines, a book on a timely topic can be produced more quickly. Second, by involving authors with highly specialized expertise, a chorus of perspectives on an important topic can be achieved, thereby providing a “deeper and wider” analysis than a single author might be able to produce.

Usually, those who edit books need to have some name recognition in the field. Editors of books usually:

Make a plan for cohesiveness. An edited book is not a collection of disparate chapters unified only by the cover page. From the very beginning, the editor needs to communicate the unifying vision for the work, its purpose, and the specifics about format of all chapters.

Look beyond local colleagues. Editors go in search of the necessary expertise and assemble a “wish list” of chapter authors. If the publisher also sponsors a journal, as is the case with many professional associations, they probably will start there. Other ways that they will locate authors is to send out calls for papers and distribute them as flyers at conferences or via technology (e.g., listservs, special interest groups) or by “backwards searching” through the reference lists of recently published articles. Sometimes, peer reviewers of the proposal will recommend a suitable author for a chapter. The goal is to assemble a diverse group of experts.

Evaluate chapter authors as writers. Knowing the person based on informal professional interactions is not sufficient. It is very important to know the person as a writer. Most editors will oversample a bit in the expectation that, due to circumstances beyond their control, at least 10 % will neglect to submit a chapter. It can be very difficult to locate a substitute author for that particular topic who can submit a chapter quickly to avoid postponing or derailing the whole project.

Assess the skills of collaboration in authors. An edited book is a team effort so select authors with a reputation for doing high-quality work, turning it in on time, and graciously accepting recommendations for revision. Some authors will become indignant when they are asked to revise; in one memorable instance of this, a chapter author refused to condense a chapter that was twice the length limit and wrote, “it would do violence to the integrity of my work to condense it.” Book editors will want to avoid working with this type of prima donna.

Make hard decisions. Even when chapter authors do submit a chapter, the work sometimes is not acceptable for a variety of reasons. Over the years, there have been book chapter authors who lost the instructions, submitted a manuscript that was written for a different purpose/audience, neglected to make the recommended revisions, or threw together something at the last minute that made a very poor showing in comparison to the other chapters. This leaves the editor with the difficult decision that a chapter needs to be cut.

After you have made the decision to contribute to an edited book, you will need to make a plan for fulfilling expectations for the chapter. Chances are, you are working with someone who is respected and influential in the field so it is important to create a favorable impression. Some ways to achieve this are in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3

Contributing to an edited book

1. Clarify the project’s purpose. Usually, the letter of invitation will describe the purpose of the project. If you know the editor, you might ask to see a copy of the book proposal if he or she is willing to share it

2. Understand the contract. It is rare for the authors of chapters for edited books to get financial compensation in the form of an honorarium or royalties. Much of the time, these books are published more as a service to the profession than as a way to supplement income and even the editor gets little more than a small honorarium. Perhaps the most common form of compensation is one free copy of the book to the first author. Another consideration is copyright. Usually, authors are required to assign copyright to the publisher. If this is unacceptable for some reason, they need to know this in advance. Follow the principles of informed consent where contract is concerned

3. Read the guidelines. From the beginning, create a separate folder for this project. You will need to refer to the guidelines multiple times so keep them at hand. Ideally, the evaluation criteria for chapters would have been shared from the outset. If not, request them—and be sure to apply them to your own work upon its completion

4. Locate an exemplary chapter. If the editor can supply an example of a chapter that was particularly well written, this can be a great help in fashioning your own chapter. If the edited book is part of a series, go back and look at chapters from previous volumes as well. This gives a sense of the preferred style, particularly if the editor was the same as the one for the current volume

5. Adhere to the deadlines. Others’ professional careers may be counting on the book to come out on schedule, so it is very inconsiderate to delay the process by being late with revisions and final edits. If you can foresee that you will not be able to fulfill your obligations, let the editor(s) know as soon as possible so that a suitable replacement can be identified

6. Respond thoughtfully to reviews. Any reputable publisher of edited books will use an anonymous peer review process. It is important for authors to revise manuscripts in accordance with this feedback and submit the revised manuscript by the specified deadline

7. Attend to details. If the editor has not supplied you with a checklist of what needs to be submitted, create your own. It is customary to expect authors to supply such things as a signed contract, a copyright transfer agreement, an abstract of the chapter with keywords for indexing purposes, and a brief biography

8. Be a writing mentor. Prolific, well-respected authors often are invited to contribute to edited book projects yet they probably have reached a point where they certainly do not “need” another publication. Edited books can become a tool for mentoring as they coach a less experienced author in producing a book chapter

9. Try co-editing or editing. After gaining considerable experience with reviewing proposals for edited books and contributing chapters to them, you may want to propose a volume on a particular topic for the same series or even pursue the establishment of a new series with a publisher. Realize that name recognition in the field often is required, however. If that does not yet exist, collaboration with a well-known scholar is one way to break into book editing

Editing a book and/or contributing to an edited volume constitutes a responsibility to a group of respected scholars. If a person fails to generate the chapter as promised, this can leave everyone in a holding pattern until the situation is satisfactorily resolved. Over the years, there have been a few times when an admired editor contacted me to say that she or he needed a really big favor. Each time, I could anticipate that the request would be to write a chapter in record time because a replacement was necessary. The book editor’s role is to:

Conceptualize the unifying theme of the work and communicates this to authors

Provide a timeline for the project

Supply each contributor with explicit guidelines for the chapter (e.g., length, referencing style, format considerations, permissions, author bio)

Provide, if possible, a sample chapter to follow

Read chapters as submitted

Render decisions about the necessity for and degree of revision prior to external review

Decide if a manuscript is unsalvageable and terminate the assignment in consultation with the publisher

Return manuscripts to contributors for revision with deadline for resubmission

Submit manuscripts to publisher for external review

Advise contributors of changes needed and deadline for resubmission

Carefully review the proofs and make corrections

Treat authors with courtesy and respect.

Becoming a Book Author

The successful publication of articles in peer-reviewed outlets is an affirmation of the author’s competence while the publication of books establishes a scholar’s reputation. When an article earns positive reviews from peers who have no vested interest in seeing a faculty member succeed, it is a vote of confidence. Journal article acceptance suggests that the author knows how to write in a way that others in the field respect. Yet, when an article is published, it is in a table of contents along with the article titles and names of several others. Unless a reader is citing the work, he or she may not even notice who wrote it. If you doubt that this is true, think about how you read articles before you went to graduate school—chances are, you focused on the topic and did not pay that much attention to the author’s name unless you came across it several times. A monograph—a short book on a specific topic—or a full-length book pulls the author out of the mix and draws more attention to her or his work.

Some reasons for getting involved in writing monographs or books include:

to make a contribution to the field

to learn about a topic in considerable depth

to produce a compilation of what is known about a topic

to earn tenure, promotion, sabbatical leaves, or grants

to gain access to other opportunities, such as supported travel

to learn more and develop specialized expertise

to establish reputation and enhance visibility

to make a modest supplement to income

Novelist Annie Dillard (1989) captures the relationship between author and book when she writes: “I do not so much write a book as sit up with it, as with a dying friend. During visiting hours, I enter its room with dread and sympathy for its many disorders. I hold its hand and hope it will get better” (p. 52). Books are such big projects that they easily spin out of control. It takes considerable forethought and planning to successfully launch a project of this magnitude. Use the strategy in Activity 10.2 to get started.

Activity 10.2: Planning the Nonfiction Book

Think about a book you might want to write someday by answering the following questions:

The subject matter of my book is:

The specific audience for my book is:

Other books written on this topic for the audience include:

The focus, thesis, or approach of my book is:

This topic and focus are suited for this audience because:

This book is timely and would sell because:

Three publishers who would produce this type of book are:

Specific features of these competing books are:

The book I am proposing is different from or better than these books because:

The potential contribution of my book is:

The resources that I will need to produce the book include:

The book would probably be about ____ pages with ____ chapters.

Distinguishing features that make my book unique are:

One common question about book writing has to do with your suitability for fulfilling that role.

Fulfilling the Author’s Role

Many an author has launched a book project with a period of hopeful dreaming. He or she envisions a wide audience for the work, eager to get their hands on a copy and poring over the pages. An author may imagine hefty royalties akin to those earned by the celebrated authors of bestselling novels and popular nonfiction. As a first step, it is better to set more realistic expectations. Think about your own behavior as you browse through the book displays at a conference or look at a publisher’s catalog. Most of the time, only a few books grab your attention and fewer still would cause you to request an examination copy to consider as a textbook for a college course; even fewer would urge you to part with your hard-earned cash and place an order. Furthermore, the potential audience for scholarly works is much, much smaller than a popular press best seller and competition is keen for those small markets. To illustrate, suppose that an author is proposing to write a college-level textbook on adult learning theory. The audience for that book probably consists of graduate students—a very small percentage of the total population—and, to narrow it even further, graduate students enrolled in a program that has an adult learning theory course. The instructor for that course also has to be willing to switch to a different textbook and rewrite the syllabus. Many times, the book currently in use has: been written by an internationally recognized expert in the field, been so successful that it is now in its 10th edition, and garnered considerable support from the publisher’s advertising budget. Knowing all of this helps to explain why most college-level textbooks do not survive beyond the first edition. Nevertheless, new books are needed to propel the field forward. Most of the time, this requires authors to invent something with an element of originality and to anticipate future trends in the field (Clark & Phillips, 2014). Use the material in Activity 10.3 as a way to analyze your suitability for book authorship.

Activity 10.3 Initial Questions About Book Authorship

Consider each of the following questions before you commit to working on a book:

Does the book project mesh well with your expertise, interests, and work life?

Have you identified a work that is largely original rather than relying heavily on previously published sources?

Will you rebound from numerous recommendations for revision from the reviewers and revise the work accordingly?

Are your expectations for direct financial rewards realistic? Can you accept that they could be nonexistent or insignificant?

What is your employer’s perspective on the value of the project? Will the book be recognized as a bona fide scholarly achievement, given the departmental, college, and university-wide policies of the tenure, evaluation, and promotion committee?

Review the points in Table 10.4 to reflect on book authorship as a possibility for you.

Table 10.4

Useful characteristics for authors of scholarly books and monographs

Experience commensurate with the role. Whatever book-related project you undertake, it should be at or slightly above your existing level of competence with the task. If, for example, you have experienced success with teaching undergraduate students, preparing a student study guide or an instructor’s manual for a college-level textbook could be an excellent way to develop as an instructor. Collaborating with a more experienced book author is another way to boost potential for book authorship

Knowledge of competing (and complementary) works. Before you can make a contribution, you first need to thoroughly assess what is already out there. Practically every book publisher will require you to complete a market analysis as part of a book proposal, so do this as a first step. Otherwise, you run the risk of producing a proposal for a book that is very similar to what is already in print

Resilience in the face of disapproval. You can expect that, if a book proposal (also called a prospectus) is subjected to multiple reviews, there will be many recommendations for improvement. As with the dissertation, the author’s responsibility is to formulate a response that would address those concerns, not based on how much work it will be or time it may take, but in the spirit of improving the work. Much of the time, potential book authors give up at the first whiff of criticism

An ability to anticipate future directions in a field. If you merely follow trends and it takes 2 years from proposing the book to publishing it, the material might be dated before it is printed. Successful authors use their knowledge of the discipline to “look down the road” and predict trends, issues, controversies and policies that will produce changes in the field

Commitment to the task and to deadlines. Book authors who have acquired a good reputation with publishers hold themselves to deadlines just as assiduously as they hold college students to deadlines. They get the work done, do it well, and turn it in on time—no excuses

The capacity to generate many good ideas. In the field of creativity, words such as “generativity” or “fluency” are used to describe the individual who is capable of coming up with many different ideas, solving problems, and producing something with a fresh perspective or approach. It is misleading to think that “having an idea” for a book is sufficient; actually, any useful book is replete with good ideas

Realistic expectations for outcomes. If the motivation to write and publish scholarly work is skyrocketing to fame and amassing a fortune, you are almost certain to be disappointed. A more reasonable and modest goal is to make a worthwhile contribution to the field. If, by chance, that work gains recognition and earns some revenue, then it is a pleasant surprise

Interpersonal skills and business sense. Academic authors need to attract the publisher’s attention to their project, persuade the editor that is worthy of the investment, negotiate the contract, respond to peer review, and go through the entire production process. Many book authors are surprised to learn that their job is far from over after the entire manuscript has been submitted. Usually, there is rewriting, responding to the edited copy, making corrections to the proofs, tracking down missing references, and so forth. Authors also are expected to respond to marketing questionnaires, help with writing advertising copy, or promote the book through conference presentations. Authors need to deal with all of this with aplomb and professionalism

Selecting a Publisher

An editor and author were enjoying dinner together to celebrate the successful launch of an edited book series. The author said, “You don’t have to answer this question if it would divulge trade secrets, but I have a question for you. When you receive a proposal for a book, what happens next in your offices?” The editor smiled and replied, “There is a meeting of all of the editors for the various divisions within the company. We sit around a table in a board room and each editor is given just a few minutes to describe any project for which he or she is seeking support. After the presentation, the group decides if the project merits the investment. Obviously, resources are limited, so we need to make wise business decisions. If I fail to persuade my colleagues, then the contract will not be offered.” The author replies, “That process is very interesting—it is similar in some ways to how we propose new courses or curriculum at the university. May I ask how you prepare for these meetings?” “Ideally, the author’s proposal and the reviews do much of that for me. I go through these documents, highlight the most persuasive information, and write notes in the margins that will help to answer colleagues’ questions. I also use my best judgment about which projects to pursue. If I sign too many contracts for books that do not make a profit, I would be fired from my job.” As this candid conversation reveals, publishing is a business. What this means for authors is that they too need to be professional, practical, and business-like in their dealings with publishers. There is a wide range of possible publishing outlets for books, as summarized in Table 10.5.

Table 10.5

Categories of book publishers

Professional organizations. Most leading professional associations publish not only journals but also monographs, edited books, and books for their members. These publishing programs frequently have the goal of providing resources for professional development at affordable prices. In the interest of supporting their members, authors rarely receive payment or royalties; however, the authors often are given more editorial support, the works are widely disseminated (thereby establishing the author’s reputation), and a publication for an association often leads to invitations to speak at conferences

Commercial publishers. These publishers are business-driven and will seek to be successful by securing some of the larger markets for books. The most common category here is the college-level textbook. Any book that survives will need to “hit its numbers”; for a college textbook, that may be only about 5,000 copies for the first edition. If the book is successful and more copies are sold, more will be printed and the possibility of a subsequent edition will be explored. Most textbook publishers in the U.S. are dealing with hard decisions about converting the traditional hardbound textbooks into e-books and keeping their market shares. Another category of commercial publisher consists of those who publish books to be marketed directly to professionals for the purpose of professional development. For example, Sage—noted for its books on research—has an affiliate called Corwin that publishes resources for practitioners

Scholarly publishers. These publishers need to make a profit in order to survive; however, they still will publish books that have a comparatively small audience in the interest of advancing the field. University presses are a good example; they are affiliated with a university and, even though they need to sell books, they tend to be less profit-driven than commercial publishers. Usually, university presses are subsidized to some extent by the universities that bear their names. The institution allocates funding for the privilege of having a respected publisher affiliated with them

Given these different types of publishing houses, how should you go about identifying suitable publishers for a book that you have in mind? Some recommended ways are described in Activity 10.4.

Activity 10.4: Identifying a Suitable Publisher

There are a number of different strategies to identify suitable outlets for a monograph or book. As a first step, look on your own bookshelf. Who publishes the type of book you have in mind for the audience you’ve identified? Next, chat with authors and talk with colleagues. What experiences have they had with specific publishing companies, both good and bad? Each publisher has certain areas of focus. Scan through their catalogs in print or online. If you go to all the time and trouble of writing a book, you’ll surely want people to know about it and read it. Ask yourself these questions: Is the publisher prominent in my field? Does the publishing house have a good reputation for service, quality, innovation, tradition? Does it market books effectively to the intended audience through effective advertising and a sales force? Are their editors known to be ethical, knowledgeable, helpful, and professional?

After you have identified a potential publisher for the work, make sure that you understand their audience, market, and purposes. Many publishers, for instance, have series of books that focus on an area of interest. Here is Olivia Saracho’s statement of purpose for an edited book series:

The purpose of the series is to present current knowledge related to various aspects of the field. Each volume is devoted to a single broad topic. Individual chapters in each volume are designed to present reviews and analysis of the literature in relation to recent theory, research, and analysis of practice concerning some facet of that topic. Each contribution should present a clear and significant presentation that should have implications for researchers, scholars, policy makers, and practitioners.

Each edited book provides a forum for ideas. Scholars from diverse areas are invited to contribute their unique perspective to the field that should be enriched by discourse relating to a variety of viewpoints. To this end, we encourage scholars to address questions concerning the field in a scholarly manner within the series and to submit work that integrates, analyzes, and critiques elements of the literature such as research and theories. This should be done in a way that is accessible to a broad range of readers in the field. Each chapter included in a volume must be written in a style and format that will be accessible to researchers, theoreticians, administrators, practitioners, and policy makers.

Before you approach a publisher with a book prospectus, be certain to read the purpose for their publishing program.

Proposing a Book

Two faculty members who had co-presented at several conferences were discussing the difficulty in locating a suitable textbook for a course that each of them taught at their respective universities. In analyzing what was available amongst the published books, they fell along a bimodal distribution—either books that were written for fellow researchers that might be suitable for a doctoral seminar or books that lacked a theoretical/research base and consisted mainly of “helpful hints” offered to other professionals. This led to an idea for a book that would bridge the gap between research and practice, so they went in search of a publisher for it. The exhibits hall would close shortly and they arrived at the booth of the leading college-level textbook publisher to find the editor there by himself. After they pitched their idea for the book in just a minute or two, the editor said “As you can see, we are the premier publisher of textbooks in this field. Most of our texts have sustained their market share for many years and some are in their 10th editions. So, we are not really interested in pursuing the publication of any entirely new textbooks at this time—except for the one that you just described.” Those last eight words launched a textbook that is now in its 7th edition (Isenberg & Jalongo, in press).

As this example illustrates, authors need to quickly describe their project in a persuasive way to the editors responsible for signing new authors. Usually, they are called “acquisitions editors” because their job is to acquire new books for their list. Table 10.6 guides you in developing a succinct statement about your proposed book project.

Table 10.6

Planning to present your concept for a book

Be mindful of these points:

 Do talk with experienced and successful book authors about their experiences and seek their advice on proposing a book to a publisher. Find out which editors and companies have a good reputation, treat authors respectfully, and follow through with their commitments

 Take the time to study the publisher’s catalog and become familiar with the other books they may have published on the topic. Determine, in advance, if what you are proposing is filling a gap

 Recognize that the publishers need to make responsible decisions about which projects to support. It is estimated that the cost of producing an ordinary book is $25,000.00. The cost includes salaries of all the staff members involved (editors, production team, sales representatives, office personnel), direct mail advertising, publishers’ catalogs, travel to major conferences, and production costs (e.g., paper, printing, binding, converting the book to an e-book, etc.). In some ways, you are more like an artist seeking patronage to complete a work than an employee of the publisher

 Remember that an acquisitions editor’s continued employment depends on signing books that make money. Do not “oversell” the idea that there is no other book on earth like this; that suggests that there may not be a market for it. Instead, persuasively answer this question: Why this book at this time for this audience and publisher?

 Remember that editors may not be experts in your field. Chances are that editors for commercial publishers, such as textbooks, are experts in identifying successful authors and producing books that generate income for the company. Therefore, do not speak with them as you would disciplinary colleagues. In many cases, editors will rely on peer reviewers for the disciplinary expertise; they bring the business acumen to the mix rather than the subject matter expertise

 Speak clearly about the project. Avoid excessive jargon or name dropping; strive to communicate the marketability of your idea. Do not spend those precious moments with an acquisitions editor attempting to dazzle them with what you know, as if you were a doctoral student during a comprehensive exam. Editors assume that professors know something; what they don’t yet know is if you have a book that is timely and will sell, so focus your energies there

 Do emphasize how this book represents a stride forward. That will require such things as: insider information about emerging trends and issues in the field, recent facts and figures that predict new directions, and a thoughtful study of other published books—particularly those represented by this publisher

 Do be reader/publisher centered. Remember that, whatever you publish, it needs to make a contribution and advance the field. Preoccupation with your own need to publish is not the correct focus

Think of your idea for a book project as a 2-min commercial. Activity 10.5 offers suggestions on how to make that initial contact with an editor more successful.

Activity 10.5: The Concept for Your Book

Using the advice in Table 10.6, make a plan to briefly explain your idea for a book. Rehearse and time your presentation and keep it to fewer than 2 min because that is about all you can expect at a conference booth before you get interrupted. Ask others to listen and respond with suggestions and questions. If you are in a writing group, give everyone a chance to practice and get feedback. Were they “sold” on the marketability of the idea?

Scholars frequently overestimate how much publishing they need to have done previously before pursuing a book contract. In fact, it may be easier to secure a book contract than to publish in the top-tier research journal in your field, purely because the competition is not as fierce. The simple explanation for this is that far fewer people are willing to commit to a huge, long-term project. But, before you rule out book writing as a possibility, realize also that book projects often are supported by sabbatical leaves. Sabbaticals are not awarded with the faint hope of a scholarly product; rather, you need to build a case that the institution’s investment will pay off. So, wait until after you have secured a contract, completed a few chapters, and dealt with peer review successfully. If you already show every indication of completing the project, your application for a sabbatical leave is more likely to rise to the top. Better yet, after you have produced the book as promised, you build a case for a subsequent sabbatical leave. During 37 years at the university, I was awarded five one-semester sabbatical leaves to write books: that’s equivalent to two and a half years at full salary to write. Few could argue that this is anything less than a remarkable level of support, yet some faculty never even apply. What other occupation gives you paid leave to pursue your interests? Stated plainly, you can get time to write—but only if you have published and continue to do so.

Contrary to many an author’s expectations, you do not write the entire book first and then go in search of a publisher. Although this is the way that novelists are portrayed in the media, the development of a scholarly book follows a very different path. The initial step in getting a book contact is to write what is called a book proposal or book prospectus. Over the years, various faculty members have asked me to look at their ideas for a book. In almost every case, these documents are nowhere near what they need to be in order to garner a contract from a publisher. They frequently sound like a lengthy answer to “Here’s what I want to write about…” rather than “Based on these trends in the discipline, here is an important, timely, and marketable book that meshes with your publishing program”. When I share examples of book proposals that were awarded contracts, the most common and candid response is something along the lines of “Wow, I didn’t know you had to do all that.”

Activity 10.6: Drafting a Proposal for a Book

Think of this task as a trial balloon for your book. A publisher will require more, but this will get your prepared to write a more formal proposal (also referred to as a book prospectus).

Identify a possible book topic, title, and specific audience. Go to Amazon and Barnes and Noble on the Internet and conduct a search of other books on the subject. Read the descriptions and look inside the tables of contents of several that seem similar to what you have in mind. Print out the information on six books that are similar to (or will compete with) the one you are proposing.

Don’t be discouraged if there are many more books on your topic than you imagined. Some of the books may be dated. Others may not take the approach you are proposing. Textbook publishers, for example, often want more than one book for the same course so that they can offer alternatives and maintain their market share for that audience. Based on this admittedly cursory look at what has been published, compare/contrast major features of the book you have in mind and competing works (for example, how the book is organized).

Now you’ll need to explain how your approach is unique, needed, better, etc. Remember that this information will be used by the editor to gain financial support for your project from the company.

Gather evidence to support the marketability of the project:

The statements of leading professional organizations

Changes in accreditation standards for the profession

Surprising statistics that suggest emergent issues

Research findings that are leading to a paradigm shift

Pervasive problems or persistent controversies that merit attention

Other information to demonstrate that the project is timely and appropriate

Write a statement of purpose for your book (no more than one paragraph). Remember that it should answer the question, Why this book at this time for this audience and publisher?

Generate a list of four to six unique features that will distinguish this work from others on the market.

Write a list of some of the topics that will be included. Usually, it does not have to be a detailed outline; possible chapter titles with a paragraph may be sufficient and even preferred.

When you propose a book, keep in mind a board room table surrounded by editors. Each person has to convince her or his colleagues that the project presented merits support. Do the editor’s “homework” for him or her; provide persuasive evidence that the project will fill a niche and make a contribution. Table 10.7 is a “before/after” of the introduction to a book proposal. The first is a draft is in the first column; the revised version is in the second column.

Table 10.7

Book prospectus before and after

Before

After

Over the past 30 years, technology has changed the way individuals work, play, and communicate. Le Masurier and Corbin (2006) reported that physical activity has been replaced by modern day conveniences and “engineered out of most aspects of daily life” (p. 44). Physical activity is defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure (Meeks, Heit, & Page). Despite well-documented research that defines the importance of daily physical activity, children today are less physically active than their predecessors. Just four decades ago, children were likely to walk to school or use bicycles as a primary means of transportation. Today, children spend more time using technology and engaging in sedentary behaviors than playing outdoors or participating in physical activity (Page & Page, 2015)

Introduction

Decreasing physical activity levels among children has led to an epidemic of childhood obesity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2015) warns of the short-term and long-term health effects associated with childhood obesity, and suggests that increases in chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular disease mirror childhood obesity trends. Although high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and elevated blood sugar are among the many health complications that sedentary children may experience, the CDC posits that improving physical activity habits and reducing childhood obesity is a “winnable battle” (Blanck & Collins, 2013)

An appreciation for the interdependence of a healthy mind and body has existed for centuries throughout the world. In ancient Rome, the phrase was “Mens sana in corpore sano”—“a sound mind in a sound body”. Connections between the health of the mind and the body are an integral part of Eastern philosophy as well, such as the yoga-based Chakra system. The most recent iteration of a holistic approach to physical and mental health is supported by empirical research that documents the positive effects of physical activity on the cognitive performance of adults and children (McKenzie, Sallis & Rosengard, 2009; Ratey, 2008)

Early childhood educators are in a unique position to promote physical, cognitive, and emotional health among children. Over 60 % of children ages 3-to-5 who are not attending kindergarten attend center-based preschools outside of the home (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2008). These centers are a viable location for physical activity and health promotion programs because they serve over half of all children, ages 5 or younger

However, as is the case with many other initiatives, the youngest children are frequently overlooked. Where physical activity is concerned, there is a persistent misconception that the very young are “naturally” active and require no systematic opportunities, encouragement, or instruction in order to acquire the “minimum daily requirement” of exercise. The Institute of Medicine (2011), for example, recommends 15 min of moderate-to-vigorous exercise for every hour a child spends in child care yet that criterion is seldom met. Another damaging attitude toward children’s physical activity is a talent scout mentality in which only those children who appear to be gifted and talented athletically are given extensive support in developing physical skills. Meanwhile, those children whose bodily-kinesthetic skills are regarded by adults as ordinary or deficient in some way are excluded from opportunities to participate in physical activity. This type of bias should be no more tolerated in the realm of physical skill development than it is in opportunities for intellectual skill development

Brown et al. (2009) conducted a review of 24 preschool facilities in South Carolina and examined how often children were sedentary, engaged in light activity, and engaged in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). During one typical school day, 89 % of the activities were sedentary, 8 % included light activity, and only 3 % incorporated MVPA. In order for children to maintain adequate levels of daily physical activity and counteract the trend toward more sedentary habits in contemporary children, intentional programming designed to increase MVPA among preschoolers is essential

Rationale for the book

Over the past 30 years, technology has changed the way individuals work, play, and communicate. Le Masurier and Corbin (2006) reported that physical activity has been replaced by modern day conveniences and “engineered out of most aspects of daily life” (p. 44). Physical activity occurs when the skeletal muscles—those that initiate movement of the skeleton—are set in motion and expend energy (Meeks, Heit, & Page, 2013). Despite extensive research supporting the importance of daily physical activity, contemporary children are less physically active than their predecessors. Just four decades ago, children were likely to walk to school or use bicycles as a primary means of transportation. Today’s young children are more sedentary than ever before. There are at least five variables that exacerbate this phenomenon. First, the American Pediatrics Association (2015) reports that children devote, on average, seven hours a day on entertainment media, such as televisions, computers, phones and other electronic devices. Secondly, whereas young children once were outdoors and playing with neighborhood children, concerns about safety have brought them indoors to keep them safe (Clements, 2004). Third, the pressure to attain higher academic standards has reduced or eliminated both structured physical activities, such as physical education classes and supervised, less structured physical activities, such as recess (Ramsetter, Murray & Garner, 2010). Fourth, parents/guardians frequently do not provide models of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (Moore, Lombardi, White, Campbell, Oliveria & Ellison, 1991). Fifth, many young children are in child care or preschool settings where their teachers lack the preparation, skills, confidence, materials, and environments to lead children in physical activity (Lounsbery, McKenzie, Trost & Smith, 2011)

Yet regular physical activity during the early years not only serves to maintain a healthy body mass but also has several other physiological and psychosocial benefits related to bone and skeletal health, motor skill development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, and cardiovascular and metabolic health (Carson, Clark, Ogden, Harber & Kuzik, 2015; Timmons et al., 2012). Experts are advocating a new perspective on physical education that regards it as form of literacy; the goal is to promote healthy bodies (i.e., physical literacy) just as assiduously as literacy with print or computer literacy (McNulty & Prosser, 2011)

Lower physical activity levels among contemporary children have led to an epidemic of childhood obesity. The World Health Organization (2012) estimates that 42 million children worldwide under the age of 5 are not developing optimally due to overweight and obesity. In Canada, for example, national data estimate that 35 % of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years are overweight or obese (Shields, 2006). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2015) warns of the short-term and long-term health effects associated with childhood obesity; it is linked to increases in chronic conditions such as type 2 diabetes, asthma, and cardiovascular disease. Although high blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and elevated blood sugar are among the many health complications that sedentary children may experience, the CDC posits that improving physical activity habits and reducing childhood obesity is a “winnable battle” (Blanck & Collins, 2013). Promoting wellness during the early years is crucial for enhancing the health of society because early childhood is a formative time period during which lifelong attitudes, values, and habits associated with physical activity are set in motion (Eliassen, 2011)

Activity 10.6: Improving the Persuasiveness in Book Proposals

Compare/contrast the Before and After columns in Table 10.7. As you read, answer the following questions. How does the revised version: (1) speak to a wider audience of readers? (2) supply the editor with additional evidence to persuade colleagues to support the project? (3) answer the question, “Why this book at this time for this audience?”

Remember that, when proposing a book, you are trying to convince business-minded people to support your project.

Now that you have drafted a preliminary idea for a book using the material in Activity 10.6, ask a peer to critique it using the scoring rubric in Table 10.8.

Table 10.8

Scoring rubric for a draft book proposal

Author’s Name: _______________________

Proposed Book Title: _______________________________

Audience for the Book:

Possible Publishers for the Book:

Criteria

2 target

1 acceptable

0 unsatisfactory

Rationale/purpose

Thoroughly addresses the question “why this book at this time for this audience?”

Addresses the question “why this book at this time for this audience?”

Does not address the question “why this book at this time for this audience?”

Market analysis of competing works

Identifies 4–6 other books as well as their strengths/weaknesses; persuasively argues that the proposed book is a stride forward

Identifies fewer than four published works, their strengths and their weaknesses, in comparison to the proposed project; argues that it is a stride forward

Identifies fewer than four published competing or similar works and does not clarify how the book advances thinking

Current facts and figures

Uses authoritative sources, the statements of leading professional associations, and current trends to build a compelling argument for awarding a book contract

Uses authoritative sources, the statements of leading professional associations, and current trends to build an argument for awarding a book contract

Supplies facts and figures but they are not authoritative or organized into a logical argument that supports awarding a contract

Appropriateness for audience

A specific audience is identified and the reasons for putting this topic and audience together are convincing

A more general audience is identified and weaker reasons to bring the audience together with the content are supplied

The audience is too general and the reasons for bringing the audience together with the content are not clear

When you formally submit a book proposal, the components that typically are required consist of:

curriculum vitae

overview of the book, highlighting its unique features

evidence that this is the right book at the right time

clearly defined audience

analysis of trends and market

detailed comparison with competing works

annotated table of contents

sample chapters in the proposed format of the book

timeline for completion of the project

evidence of previous work done on this project

Each publisher has a format for proposing books, so be certain to follow their guidelines

Securing a Book Contract

One vastly experienced editor for a commercial textbook publisher explained the situation of signing authors this way: “Of the professors I talk to about a book project, about one-third will follow through and write and submit a book proposal. Of that one-third, about a third of the projects are worth pursuing in our estimation and the estimation of the reviewers; these authors will be offered a contract. However, nearly half of them will bail out when they see all of the recommendations for revision. Only about half of those still standing will finish the book and produce a first edition. Out of those produced, about 20 % will go to a subsequent edition and out of that 20 %, about 2–5 % will make a significant profit. We actually use a letter grading system that is based on the amount invested in advertising, ranging from an AAAA down to C.”

It is very difficult to know what to expect financially from writing a book; our best advice is to set you expectations very low. As one college textbook author put it, “I treat any royalty checks I happen to get as ‘mad money’ to use on whatever makes me happy. If I’m lucky, I have enough to take the kids to Disneyworld.” Some basic facts help authors to formulate ideas about what would be fair. Table 10.9 contains information relevant to book contracts.

Table 10.9

Background on book contracts

Net versus gross. To understand the difference between the net and gross, just think of your paycheck—the gross is quite a bit larger. Suppose that a publisher charges $80.00 for a book—that is the gross income. But from that amount, the publisher has to pay for personnel, office space, design, paper, printing, production, and technology; they also have to produce advertising, marketing, mailing, and send out free copies. The bookseller needs to make a profit as well. As a result, the net is about 30 % of the gross for books

Basic royalty rates. These are payments made to the author, based on sales. A typical royalty rate is about 7–10 % of the net income generated by the book—not the cover price at the bookstore (that is the gross). This means that if the net price of the book is $40.00, you would earn about $2.00 per book and, if you have a co-author, your share is $1.00 per book. Knowing this helps to answer a common question: “Should I hire an agent or a lawyer?” With compensation this low, it probably is not worth it to pay a percentage to someone to advise you

More on royalties. Be sure to read the contract carefully—royalty rates are often lower on international sales, direct sales, or electronic versions. Some publishers—such as professional associations that are nonprofit—may not pay any royalties at all since their book publishing programs often are designed to get high-quality, inexpensive resources into professionals’ hands. Where college-level textbooks are concerned, it might be advisable to include an escalation clause (for example, an increase from 8 % to 10 % after the first 7,000 copies are sold) or to renegotiate when a subsequent edition is planned. Realize too that there are no royalties on used books, only on new ones

Hidden costs. Be sure to read your contract! Too often, professors are so thrilled to have a book contract that they promptly sign it and return it without reading the document. Some publishing companies will charge you for indexing the book; this is deducted from your royalties. Given that this is something that most authors are not keen to do, you may want to insist that the publisher absorb this cost as part of your contract negotiations. Commercial textbook publishers may charge you for photographs; this too is deducted from royalties. If you decide to use any copyrighted materials, you will have to pay permission fees and these can be quite expensive so find out what the fees will be before you include any of this material in a manuscript. Given all these charges against royalties, your first statement well may be a negative number, with you “owing” the publisher money—at least until you sell more copies of the book

Breaking the contract. Sometimes, a commercial publisher (e.g., college-level textbook publishers) will give a small advance—for example, $1,000—to an author when the project is launched. Realize that these are advances against royalties, so if the book is never produced, there will be no royalties and you will have to pay it back. Scholarly publishers typically do not do this. Your contract will specify the deadline for receipt of the entire manuscript, the approximate number of words, and so forth. If you fail to comply with those terms, the publisher has the option of abandoning the project and there is nothing you can do about it

Special clauses. Some publishers include a “noncompeting works” clause. This means that you are prohibited from writing another book on the same topic for a specified period of time (e.g., 1–2 years). What if you are terribly dissatisfied with a publisher and want to take your work elsewhere? Again, it is essential to read your contract. You will need to be released from your contract, assuming that it is still in force

Harsh realities. Only about 2–3 % of the books that are proposed ultimately become published books (Moxley & Taylor, 1997)

As this information reveals, academic writing is very different from popular press ventures. Whereas novelists’ livelihood is entirely dependent on books, professors already have full-time jobs, health care, and so forth. To put it bluntly, publishers are working on small profit margins themselves and they expect universities to support scholars. We read of popular press books selling millions of copies while selling fewer than 5,000 copies would be more typical for scholarly books or even college-level textbooks. Many times, students think about how expensive textbooks are and assume that authors surely are the beneficiaries of those high prices. Yet, as this chapter has explained, the money flow gets diverted to covering other expenses, leaving a tiny trickle for the author. As one professor explained. “I have six books in print right now and, collectively, they keep my ordinary family car up to date. Most of my tangible rewards for writing have come from my employer, such as moving through the promotional sequence (and up the salary schedule) quickly or earning sabbatical leaves.”

Conclusion

A faculty member who was writing a college-level textbook for the first time called her widely-published dissertation advisor for insight about the process. He had written a highly successful textbook on research and recommended that she think of each chapter as an individual work, much like a journal article. After months of struggling with this approach, she came to the conclusion that, while that approach evidently worked well for a graduate-level statistics book, it was less effective for an undergraduate textbook on early literacy. In fact, the major breakthrough for the new textbook author was to discover a structure that could be applied across all of the chapters. Upon greater reflection, her advisor was a heavy planner. He would write an outline and generate text to match it with minimal deviation from the original plan. She, on the other hand, was a discovery drafter. Although she had been required to develop an outline for the book proposal, she was constantly moving material around, trying to determine the best way of organizing her ideas. The experienced author’s primary goal was to explain advanced statistical methods in a clear, systematic, and linear way to graduate students. The new textbook author’s goals were quite different. She needed to “translate” theory and research in a palatable way to relative novices in the field so that undergraduates studying to become teachers would actually read the book and learn from it. A second, yet equally important, goal was to convey the most successful and creative teaching she had done to fellow instructors seeking to deliver a high-quality undergraduate course.

The point here is that, while some general advice about writing books can be helpful, each author and each project that an author undertakes has different hurdles. Writing this book, for instance, creates a dual expectation that, not only for providing competent guidance but also for delivering that advice in beautifully crafted prose. It sets the daunting expectation that each of us be a “writer’s writer”. Each time we sit down at the computer to compose, the nature of the task and the characteristics of the readership should shape us as authors. Even though there are common traits of effective writing, every scholarly writing task demands something at least slightly different. Big projects, such as books, intensify everything—worries about disappointing editors and reviewers, extensive preparation for writing, demands for revision along the way, and a maddening attention to detail that is required. Surely, one of the greatest impulses with a scholarly book is to send it hurtling to the editor’s digital inbox, if only to be shed of it. Despite a large measure of aggravation, publishing a book chapter, editing, or writing a book ultimately can become a satisfying experience. When scholars succeed in publishing with a reputable company, it demonstrates that they have something to say to disciplinary colleagues, signals that peers have responded favorably, and fills a niche in the literature of their chosen disciplines.

References

Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Clark, G., & Phillips, A. (2014). Inside book publishing (5th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Dillard, A. (1989). The writing life. New York: HarperCollins.

Isenberg, J. P., & Jalongo, M. R. (in press). Creative thinking and arts-based learning: Preschool through 4th grade. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Moxley, J. M., & Taylor, T. (Eds.). (1997). Writing and publishing for academic authors (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_11

11. From a Single Work to Multiple Scholarly Spin-Offs

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

Scholarly productivity depends upon making good choices about which projects to pursue; this is how this chapter begins. One common question from graduate students and college/university faculty members is how to produce multiple publications from the same basic body of work. This chapter provides direction on “working smarter” without succumbing to self-plagiarism. Although doctoral students and university faculty typically are involved in many different types of grants and projects; they may not know how to move beyond those experiences to share them successfully with a wider audience. This chapter supports readers in planning a manuscript that follows the structure best suited for descriptions of projects and grants, namely: Needs Assessment, Design/Planning, Implementation, and Outcomes/Evaluation. Readers are advised to use logic models for program evaluation as a way to enhance success with grants and projects.

While hosting two visiting researchers from Japan, I asked if there was anything in particular that they would like to do now that their interviews and site visits were over. One of the professors had attended Columbia University in New York and said, “We want to go to a big, United States grocery store” and I obliged. As we walked through the store, one of them said, “We are not familiar with this word, B-O-G-O. What does it mean?” “Oh,” I said, “it is an acronym that means buy one, get one—the second one is free.” They looked at each other, smiled, and she replied, “We like this idea very much.” The prospect of a BOGO in writing is equally attractive to authors. Strategies for getting more than one project from the same basic literature review is what this chapter is all about. We included grants here because they are a type of writing that often is rewarded at postsecondary institutions yet their potential for publication is not necessarily realized (Naish, 2013).

The chapter begins with a discussion of scholarly productivity and components that are commonly used to evaluate faculty. It then moves into ways to identify projects with high potential for generating various types of work products that help authors to attain their goals. Next, it addresses grant proposals as a writing task. The chapter concludes with guidelines on what is acceptable—or not—where “spin-offs” in academic endeavors are concerned.

The Concept of Scholarly Productivity

A leading professor from a major research university once remarked, “Of all the things you might do at the university, earning the esteem of your colleagues is one of the most important.” To that end, Lucas and Murry (2011) advise new faculty to become good university citizens. Faculty members who have achieved (and deserve) sterling reputations as teachers, advisors, mentors, colleagues, scholars, leaders, and community members generally are good university citizens. They show up. They get work done and turn it in on time. They continue to contribute to the department, university, community and their professions, even in the absence of tangible rewards. They act on their commitment to continuous improvement in the courses they teach, the programs they direct, and the groups with whom they affiliate from local to international. They resist the temptation to exploit the less powerful by deluging newcomers with committee work or gathering up all the glory for themselves when a project turns out to be successful. Being a productive scholar surely consists of more than an impressive CV and shameless self-promotion (Boyer, Moser, Ream, & Braxton, 2015). Nevertheless, while comprehensive evaluation nearly always emphasizes the three areas of teaching, research, and service, priority definitely is given to productivity as a scholar, particularly after professors gain a few years of experience. In fact, Nygaard (2016, in press) narrowly defines scholarly productivity as how much peer-reviewed output is published by faculty.

Most institutions of higher education have specific criteria for assessing scholarly work yet, as anyone who has served on a university-wide evaluation committee can attest, weighing the relative merits of faculty members’ work across disciplines is a challenge. Over the years, there have been many different methods proposed for making these judgments (Centra, 1993; Seldin, 1984). Four areas that are commonly assessed to determine scholarly productivity and are part of the Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index (FSPI) developed by Martin and Olejnizak are in Fig. 11.1 (see http://​www.​america.​edu/​the_​faculty_​scholarly_​productivity_​index_​(fspi).​html for more details).

Fig. 11.1

Four dimensions of scholarly productivity

One way to monitor your progress toward such goals is to use a grid such as the one in Table 11.1; it was adapted from a matrix used by University of California and gives a sense of what goes into faculty members’ professional portfolios.

Table 11.1

Example of a tabular report of scholarly activity

Activity 11.1: Charting a Course for Scholarly Productivity

Using the categories in Table 11.1, assess your areas of strength and areas that need improvement. What steps can you take to address the blank spaces in the table so that you can present a well-balanced professional portfolio?

Assessing the Creative Potential in Projects

In Academia, creative thinking is a key to job satisfaction because resourcefulness and originality in scholarly work are prized across departments and colleges. When doctoral students hear that they are expected to make an original contribution to the field through a dissertation, they sometimes think this means a revolutionary, paradigm-shifting, never before imagined giant stride forward. Yet most of the time, creativity consists of developing something new from available and stored information. Creative thinkers connect the seemingly unconnected, recombine ideas into something new, see things afresh, juxtapose concepts in surprising ways, and notice things that others tend to overlook. This type of thought is particularly prized in scholarly endeavors that shape the professions they represent. Therefore, when scholars do generate something original that is valued by fellow experts, it contributes to their sense not only of doing well but of being well. As you manage your life and work, overall well-being is an important consideration. The father of positive psychology movement, Martin Seligman (2012), posits that well-being is what enables us, not merely to survive but to thrive. He regards our capacity to flourish as being shaped by five forces: positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment—all represented by the acronym PERMA. With this orientation in mind, we offer ten questions to guide you in choosing projects. Productive faculty members will tell you that they have too many projects going on and that they need to learn to say no more often. So, use Table 11.2 to do some thinking about how to be more selective about the projects you agree to undertake.

Table 11.2

Ten questions to ask about projects

1. Will I learn something new and valuable? If the activity does not stretch your thinking and prompt you to work at the edge of your competence, it may not meet the criteria for professional development. Originality and innovation are a defining characteristic of excellent work across the disciplines (Shiu, 2014)

2. What are my unique contributions? If others engaged in the task can accomplish everything without your input, it may not be the best investment of your time. Collaboration is the predominant way of generating innovative ideas (Bozeman & Boardman, 2014) and a boon to entrepreneurship (Bozeman, Fay, & Slade, 2013)

3. Is it a good match for my skills? If a task is easy, it becomes boring; if it is too difficult, it gets frustrating (Csikzentmihalyi, 2008). You need not be the leading expert in the field in order to launch a project. You should, however, be highly motivated to acquire the skills that you need and collaborate with capable others to shore up any deficiencies

4. Does the activity consistently rise to the top of my list? If a project is compelling, you will treat it as a priority; if you avoid it or make excuses for not completing the related tasks, your level of engagement is low and this may not be a good match for your strengths and interests (Shernoff, 2013)

5. Is the project full of potential? If an activity has truly captivated you then you should find it easy to imagine many different directions and possibilities. Fluency of this type is part of the creative process (Csikzentmihalyi, 2013)

6. Am I impelled to pursue the endeavor? If a project is enthralling, you would do the work, even in the absence of tangible rewards. Intrinsic motivation is a key characteristic of creative endeavors (Runco, 2014)

7. Is your level of commitment strong? Initial enthusiasm may launch a project but you need to consider if your commitment is sufficient to propel the project forward and sustain the effort through to completion. The best projects absorb thoughts, feelings, and actions

8. Are you self-directed in monitoring progress and attaining goals? According to attribution theory, those who credit their success to hard work and determination are more likely to have leadership qualities (Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007). They are not overly dependent upon others for praise nor for hand-holding. As you evaluate the potential of projects, move toward greater self-direction

9. Is the project a favorite conversational topic? The most promising projects consume us, in a good way. They dominate our thinking even beyond academic circles and we are eager to talk about the activity. This interest also extends to patience with educating others about what we are doing—and why

10. Are you so absorbed that you lose track of time? If a project is captivating, you won’t resent the time it takes; in fact, you may find that the time flies by when working on it because it is an “optimal experience” (Csikzentmihalyi, 2008)

In the field of cognitive therapy, there is a phenomenon referred to as “cognitive distortions”—exaggerated, illogical thinking that people often resort to in times of stress (Beck, 2011). Cognitive distortions can run rampant where scholarly productivity is concerned because people may feel that: others are brilliant, their skills are inadequate, the pressure to achieve is oppressive, the chances of success are slim, and—even if they are successful—it was attributable to fate. Thus, it is useful to examine how they might erode confidence, motivation, resilience, and persistence in academic writing tasks (Table 11.3).

Table 11.3

Cognitive distortions: counteracting negative thinking

Cognitive distortion

Explanation

Example

Alternative

All-or-nothing thinking and overgeneralizations

Neglecting to see the gray areas and drawing sweeping conclusions

“Even though the decision was ‘revise and resubmit’, I think that the reviews were terrible. I may as well give up; it’s never going to get published”

“If I address each and every one of these recommend-dations, I have a good shot at publication”

Blaming

Identifying a culprit

“That editor just does not appreciate the problems of authors writing in English as a second language”

“It is my responsibility to use all available resources to make my writing error-free and readable. I’m going to ask some native speakers to review the manuscript before I submit”

Discounting the positive

Attributing success to external forces rather than good thinking and diligence

“I’m just lucky, I guess, to get a place on the national conference program”

“I worked really hard on my conference proposal and it earned acceptance as a result of that effort”

Mental filter

Being overly optimistic (or pessimistic)

“If I give this dissertation chapter to my committee even though it is a very rough draft, they can save me time by telling me how to fix it”

“I’m going to wait until this chapter is as polished and professional as I can make it before sharing it with the committee. That is the surest way for them to continue to have confidence in me”

Jumping to conclusions making (negative) predictions

Thinking that it is possible to foresee the outcomes

“We probably won’t get the grant because the competition is so keen. Then I will have wasted all of that time without anything to add to my CV”

“If we don’t get funded by this group, we’ll try another source. I can use material from the grant to teach a class, in a conference presentation, or a practical article”

Should statements

Setting oneself up for disappointment

“At this stage in my career, I should be able to get a book contract, no problem”

“I’m going to turn the process of learning to write a book proposal into a professional development project. There are trusted colleagues I can ask, funded proposals to use as examples, books I can read, and conference sessions I can attend to improve my chances of success”

Magnification/catastrophizing

Overstating the negative consequences

“If I don’t get this university-wide award, everyone will be talking about my failure. I will be humiliated and disgraced”

“There is honor in the nomination. If I don’t get the award, I’m sure that someone else deserving will. At least it was a vote of confidence from my colleagues”

Taking it personally

Feeling attacked and wounded on a personal level

“When I wasn’t awarded the book contract on the first try, I was so hurt. I probably won’t try with that publishing house again; I don’t think that the editor likes me”

“Now I have revised my book proposal in response to the reviewers’ critiques. They thought of things that I did not and made some good suggestions. Now it is a much stronger prospectus”

Negative comparisons

Assuming that others have it much easier

“So much of what is published is garbage. Why was I singled out for rejection? Can’t they just accept it?”

“It’s undeniably tough to get published in a top-tier journal. I may need to try a less competitive outlet first and build up to the more impressive outlets”

Activity 11.2: Tackling Cognitive Distortions

Did you recognize any of the cognitive distortions in Table 11.3 in yourself and others? What can you do as a professional, as a colleague and/or as a mentor to minimize these negative influences?

Maximizing Scholarly Output

One common question from graduate students and college/university faculty members is how to produce multiple publications from a body of work. The concept here is not to repeat the same work; rather, it is to show how, by changing the focus, audience, and purpose it is possible to produce different publications grounded in the same basic literature review. First, set expectations realistically by considering these points:

For students, there are academic integrity policies that prohibit the use of the same basic paper to fulfill assignments from two different courses.

For faculty members, savvy tenure/promotion/evaluation committees will investigate just how similar two publications are; duplicates will not be counted as a separate publication.

It may seem as though generating two manuscripts on the same topic would be easy, but it seldom is. Although you will save time conducting a literature review, it becomes a new writing task when you change the audience, focus, and outlet.

Nevertheless, there is much to be said for “spin offs” from previous scholarly endeavors. Some advantages of building on previous work include:

Developing greater depth and breadth of understanding. When you delve into the same intellectual terrain repeatedly, this offers the best chance of a thorough knowledge about a topic, issue, trend, or professional practice.

Making the process more efficient. Instead of beginning at step one, prior work invested on a project can accelerate a subsequent, related project. Rather than conducting an entirely new literature review, for instance, you may be able to do just an update or a related literature review focused on a particular facet.

Increasing visibility. If a fellow scholar searches a topic and finds your work repeatedly, this helps to establish a reputation as a leader in the field.

Seeing new possibilities. Each success tends to build confidence and motivation to pursue other avenues for disseminating the work to different audiences for different purposes.

To illustrate how spin-offs can operate, I conducted review of the literature on faculty members’ scholarly productivity to secure a faculty professional development grant that was funded by the Provost. He recommended that I write a short newsletter article about the project for higher education administrators that was published. After that, I wrote a journal article that was published in The Educational Forum (Jalongo, 1985). Then, while browsing through the Chronicle of Higher Education, I learned about a “Best Essay Award” through the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), submitted the manuscript and it was selected for a national award. This gave me an all-expense-paid trip to the conference, a lovely dinner at the Palmer House in Chicago, and a spot on the conference program. Using the same basic literature review as the foundation, five different scholarly goals were accomplished and none of it was self-plagiarized. Each was a related yet separate task.

One way to enhance creativity is to consider both transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary strategies. Transdisciplinary refers to distinctive work products; for example, a training for practitioners, a research paper presented at a conference, and a grant proposal. Interdisciplinary perspectives extend the concept beyond a domain of study. When work is interdisciplinary, it helps to foster “out of the box” thinking and build capacity for innovation (Lyall & Meagher, 2012). This occurs in at least three different ways. First, interdisciplinarity transcends the “silo” effect in organizations that keep people walled off from one another; second, it prompts people to look beyond narrow areas of specialization; and third, it counteracts the parochialism of being immersed in the local context only. All of this nudges faculty members to step outside their comfort zones and puts them in the position of needing to figure things out. Chances are, this is going to lead to more original and interesting outcomes.

A personal/professional experience helps to explain how the transdisciplinary/interdisciplinary dynamic works.

My doctorate is in curriculum and instruction. In recent years, I have written about humane education (Jalongo 2013b) and conducted some research on the effects of the human-animal bond (Levinson et al., 2016). Most of my community service activity has focused on advocacy for children and animals. Many years ago, I became fascinated by the concept of dog training in correctional facilities. It all began with a short-lived television program called Cell Dogs. Each episode featured a project in which carefully selected inmates became expert dog trainers. Some programs worked with local shelters to make homeless dogs more adoptable by teaching them basic obedience, others prepared service dogs trained to perform useful tasks for people with disabilities, and so forth. The potential of such programs to make a contribution to the community and equip inmates with reentry skills captured my imagination. In 2001, a large, high-tech, maximum security correctional facility was built a short distance from my home. A prison dog training program idea continued to percolate but I knew almost nothing about the prison setting or which staff member to contact. During a one-semester sabbatical leave, I decided to start talking about the idea and contacting people. I discovered that one of my colleagues has a spouse who teaches classes at the prison, so I wrote a proposal, he graciously reviewed it, and delivered it to the right person. Shortly afterwards, I received a telephone call. To my surprise, several employees had been working, behind the scenes, on a service dog training program over the preceding year. According to the American Disabilities Act, a service dog is an individually trained dog that performs tasks to mitigate a person’s disability. So, if a person is confined to a wheelchair, a service dog would such things as operating light switches, opening doors, and retrieving dropped objects. The program developers had chosen to collaborate with a group that had nearly 50 years of experience, United Disabilities Services Foundation (www.​udsf.​org). In their highly respected Service Dogs program, the dogs need to master 80 different commands in order to help a person with a disability. The training takes about two years, the client with the disability is required to attend classes to learn how to work with the dog, and the person/dog team is evaluated annually. To their credit, the prison instructors had first learned to be dog trainers themselves; now they would teach this skill set to inmates with support from UDSF. They also had modified the physical environment so that inmates selected to participate in the program were housed in cell block together and had access to an outdoor space for the dogs. The part of my proposal that they liked the most was the curriculum and instruction. Using the resources of leading professional organizations and local experts, I would design four, noncredit courses that would be offered through the community studies division of the university. Successful training of a dog, completion of the coursework, and the recommendation of the instructors would result in a certificate of dog training. The staff also needed opportunities to have the dogs experience a wide variety of situations that they would not encounter in a prison setting, so I used my connections with schools and in the community to support this. This project illustrates both transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches. Some different modalities within the project—the transdisciplinary applications—were: written proposals to the prison and continuing education at the university, PowerPoint/photo essays to educate adults and children about service dogs and the project; and course syllabi, handouts, online resources, tests, and portfolio guidelines for the four courses.

When professors hear about the program, they say, “Oh, that’s criminology”. Actually, it isn’t. The prison staff have degrees in criminology and in-depth knowledge of the local facility; UDSF has service dog training expertise. My contribution is developing the curriculum and teaching humane education concepts. This project called upon me to be a “boundary spanner” as I: contacted national and state organizations to get the latest information, worked with community leaders to review course content (e.g., animal advocacy groups, veterinarians) to ensure that course content was accurate; conducted a review of the literature on dog training programs in correctional facilities; collaborated on grant proposals; taught specific lessons to the inmates, and made presentations to groups (e.g., at the public library, in college classes, to kennel clubs and professional dog training groups, to service organizations). The first group of dogs was so successful that the program has expanded to two additional correctional facilities; they regard these programs as important reentry tools for inmates. When we read the inmates’ dog training journals and the letters they wrote to the people who now own the dogs that they trained, their sincerity touched our hearts. After the placement of the dogs was made, it inspired all of us to do more and try harder. One dog is changing the life of a military veteran with physical and psychological wounds. Still another is helping a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder; the list goes on. As more people benefit and data are gathered, new possibilities emerge for presentations, publications, and grants. With my capable partners in this venture, what was once just a dream is an uplifting reality for staff, inmates, clients, and community.

Many times, our dream projects remain a secret—at least for a time. Even though they seem far out of reach, a passion for the project continues to burn. Over the years, I have learned to “blue sky it” and spend some time imagining what might be possible when some of the conditions fall into place. As with any invitation, you have to accept that your ideas may need to be modified considerably to fit the context, that some people will be obstructionist, or that your proposal may be flatly denied.

Activity 11.3: Your Dream Project

One of the advantages of working in higher education is considerable autonomy in selecting projects; in most other occupations, people are assigned to work on what others deem important. What project can you envision that would simultaneously stimulate your thinking and fire your enthusiasm?

Table 11.4 suggests strategies for generating more than one scholarly outcome from a similar body of work.

Table 11.4

Managing multiple projects

Begin with class notes. An English professor began by conducting a review of the literature on writers’ groups that was shared during a doctoral seminar he was responsible for teaching. Then he planned a writers’ retreat for local colleagues, began a writers’ group, published a practical article about the experience, and published a qualitative research article based on interviews with the participants

Branch out from community service. That time-consuming service project can become a practical article if it is written in the structure best suited for descriptions of projects, namely: needs assessment, design/planning, implementation, and outcomes/evaluation. Writing the article this way also forms the foundation for a grant proposal

Write two manuscripts simultaneously. Try writing an article for the layperson at the same time that you are writing a manuscript for scholars. Each time a portion of the work sounds like something professionals would already know, move it to the article for nonspecialists

Move from small project to larger projects. For instance, you could write the abstract and proposal for a conference presentation, expand the idea into a paper informally published as conference proceedings, advance to publish a review of the literature or original research as an article or book chapter, and ultimately pursue a book contract—all on the same basic topic

Write while developing a program. Prior research shows that time spent writing grants is positively associated with conducting research (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2007). So, use a grant to support a project as the basis for writing a practical article. See “The Program-Page Connection: A Practical Model for Professional Writing” (Smith & McLaurin, 1999) posted at http://​eric.​ed.​gov/​?​id=​EJ592633

Use teamwork to tackle a formidable task. A faculty member/program director from Vocational Education, a professor of history/philosophy, and a statistician took on the huge task of analyzing exit survey data the first author had collected over a 5-year period. The strengths of each collaborator yielded a very different manuscript from the one the first author would have produced independently

Switch between research and practice. If you have been publishing more theory and research, collaborate with some highly respected practitioners to generate a practical article. If you have been writing mainly practical articles, pursue a line of research with the support of a more experienced researcher

Repurpose a failed manuscript. If a grant was not funded, could it be modified for another grants competition? Might the literature review section be expanded into an article? Could elements of a manuscript become a class activity? How about a conference proposal?

Apply for awards. If your work has been well-received, explore the different awards and forms of recognition at your institution, in your professional organizations, and conferred by other groups. For example, many professional groups give awards for outstanding dissertations, for service to the group, or to promising new researchers. Review all of the criteria and apply well in advance because these awards typically require letters of support from others

Activity 11.4: Identifying Spin-Offs

Using the strategies in Table 11.4, what possibilities can you envision for maximizing your output of scholarly work? Make a three-column list with the headings of teaching, research, and service. Then use arrows to identify connections across the columns.

Grants as Writing Opportunities

When you think about it, highly productive faculty members are making proposals to undertake new projects all of the time. They propose new courses, programs, projects, books, and so forth. They request release time from teaching, travel support, sabbatical leaves, and training opportunities. They send in their applications and CVs to be considered for honors and awards. Although it is common to refer to writing grants, what people actually mean by that is writing the a formal request/application, in the form of a proposal, to get financial support for a project or research. What proposal writers actually are seeking is a contract—a work order from the grantor that makes the expectations explicit (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2013).

A doctoral student in science confided that she once attended a grant writing workshop and the presenter included an anonymous excerpt from “the worst grant proposal we ever received”. As she began reading the material projected on the screen, the student was stunned to realize it was a proposal that she had submitted! Why had the proposal failed so miserably? It was because she wrote an impassioned plea for an audience consisting of like-minded colleagues when actually, the reviewers were nonspecialists seeking assurances that the money would be yield impressive results. It was not the case that she was a terrible writer, incapable of generating a high-quality grant proposal, or had a useless project in mind. However, she did not have a rudimentary understanding of grant writing, was operating on the wrong set of assumptions, and had failed to prepare herself adequately.

Several things about this event are noteworthy. First, the student went on to defend her dissertation successfully, publish her work, and get grant funding. Second, she was already taking positive action to remedy the problems of her first attempt at grant writing and improve her skills. Third, she shared her mortifying experience with her classmates in a doctoral course in the hopes that it might prevent others from making a similar mistake. Her sincere desire to improve, ability to rebound, and generosity in helping others controlled the damage that initial failure could have done.

Online Tool

Refer to University of North Carolina’s Writing Center website for guidance on writing grant proposals at http://​writingcenter.​unc.​edu/​handouts/​grant-proposals-or-give-me-the-money/​

Grant writing is an evidence-based, persuasive writing task:

A proposal’s overt function is to persuade a committee of scholars that the project shines with the three kinds of merit all disciplines value, namely, conceptual innovation, methodological rigor, and rich, substantive content….Other things being equal, the proposal that is awarded funding is the one that gets its merits across more forcefully. (Przeworski and Salomon, 1995, p. 1)

Nationally, only about 10 % of the grant projects that are proposed are funded (Bourne & Chalupa, 2006)—a rate somewhat higher than the acceptance rate of many prestigious journals. How can you improve chances for success? The best way to gain support for such proposals is to study the guidelines, start the process very early, get feedback from knowledgeable others, revise the proposal accordingly, and submit all materials exactly as required. As with writing journal articles, audience awareness is crucial. Many times, your audience for a grant proposal consists of people who do not share your area of expertise. If competing for an “in-house” small grant at your institution, for example, the reviewers are likely to be a university-wide committee with varied areas of specializations. If competing for a grant in the local or larger community, the evaluators probably will be business people from the area. For state, federal and nonprofit grants, the evaluators are apt to be a distinguished, diverse group with little knowledge about your specific project or even your discipline (see CDC guidelines). Grant proposals fail when they take a “give me the money” approach and fail to show how others will benefit. They also fail when they take a “me too” approach and propose something that is routine, ordinary, and unremarkable. Table 11.5 contains a self-questioning framework that takes these audiences into account (Lunghofer, 2015).

Table 11.5

11 questions winning grant writers can answer

Before you start writing your next grant proposal, make sure you can answer these questions:

1. What problem or issue will your proposed project solve or address?

2. Why is it important to address this issue?

3. What will be different as a result?

4. How will you measure or document your results?

5. How does what you are proposing fit into your organization’s strategic plan?

6. Why is it important in the context of that plan?

7. What is your overall funding strategy?

8. How do grants in general and this grant in particular fit into that funding strategy?

9. How will the work accomplished under the auspices of the grant be sustained when the grant period ends?

10. Why should funders care about this issue?

11. How do the issue and your approach to addressing it match the funders’ priorities or areas of focus?

Source: Lisa Lunghofer, Ph.D. www.​makinggoodwork.​org Good Causes • Great Results

Activity 11.5: First Steps Toward Grant Writing

Using Lunghofer’s questions that a grant writer needs to answer in Table 11.5 as a framework, write a brief answer to every question. Be sure that you are client-centered in your approach and that your answers are fashioned to your primary audience—the reviewers from the funding agency.

Grant funding can be tricky because it is affected by (1) the funding agency, (2) the discipline and (3) the institution. To illustrate a particular funder’s expectations, the director of a multi-million dollar foundation grant once told me that, when the short list of finalists came to make their presentations to the Board, only a few of them thought to include teachers, staff, parents, and students. From the committee’s perspective, it was a serious oversight to send “only the suits” from the central office when the grant initiative was focused on all of the stakeholders. So, when in doubt, they tended to rule in favor of those teams that demonstrated this inclusiveness. Knowledge of the priorities of the funding group is critical. The two broad categories of grants—those that support original research and those that fund service projects—require very different types of proposals.

From a disciplinary perspective, expectations for writing grants often differ considerably. Just think about how different the style of these grant proposals would be: an artist seeking support to produce creative work, an English professor conducting research on second language writing, a psychologist implementing a suicide prevention program for teenagers, and a medical research team conducting drug trials.

The expectations of the grant writer’s institution are pertinent as well. For faculty at major research institutions, success in attracting grant funding often is a key factor in tenure and promotion. In a way, major grant funding functions as verification that a faculty member’s research or innovative project rose to the top among those proposed by other academics. All three influences—the funder, the discipline, and the institution—must be taken into consideration before you begin. It is a good idea to read through a general treatment of grant writing skills for the layperson could have prevented some of these beginner mistakes (Karsh & Fox, 2014).

Online Tool

Take a short course in grant writing through The Foundation Center, available in four different languages, that will guide you through the proposal writing process http://​foundationcenter​.​org/​getstarted/​tutorials/​shortcourse/​info.​html

Activity 11.6: Thinking Through a Grant Project

Barbara Davis (2005) http://​www.​mcf.​org/​system/​article_​resources/​0000/​0325/​writingagrantpro​posal.​pdf) suggests that grant writers use the following questions to guide them in explaining the details of the project. Try writing a response to each one: Who is the target audience, and how will you involve them in the activity? How many people do you intend to serve? What are you going to do? What project planning has already taken place? Who is going to do the work and what are their credentials? When will the project take place? Where will the project take place? Use your answers to begin drafting a grant proposal (Table 11.6).

Table 11.6

Advice on securing grants

1. Identify resources. Your institution probably will sponsor at least one grant-writing workshop each year and may have a grants office to assist you. Major universities post grant writing tips, PowerPoints from presentations, and other resources for faculty. Don’t forget to search the funding organizations. At the least, they will have detailed guidelines posted

2. Study exemplary proposals. Study examples of well-written grant proposals such as “The Healthy Marriages Program” to support successful re-entry of prisoners into family life (McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999) or a cross-age tutoring program for children from Children, Youth & Families at Risk (CYFR) (see the example that begins on page 10 of http://​www.​innonet.​org/​resources/​files/​CommProject_​Eval_​Guide.​pdf. Ask the grants office at your institution to see examples of funded proposals. Perhaps the best source for examples of successful projects with a comprehensive evaluation plan is a journal called New Directions in Evaluation

3. Look before you write. Increasingly, funding agencies require a letter of intent or a very brief proposal and review those first. This saves them many wasted hours because they invite a small number of proposals from the best ones identified during the preliminary review. As you might imagine, this procedure makes that short document very important. Try to identify some excellent examples by working with your grants office, asking colleagues, and attending conferences/trainings

4. Volunteer to evaluate proposals. Most universities have some small “seed money” grants and need committee members to evaluate them. Serving in this capacity can help you to internalize the expectations of proposal review committees. Look for opportunities to review proposals within your professional associations as well

5. Investigate modest funding streams. Many times, grant writers attempt to compete with the most experienced grants writers for multi-million dollar awards rather than honing their craft first with small grants programs. Be aware that, because the funding agency wants to be assured of results, their scoring rubric may give points for affiliation with a major research university and a history of successful grants. If you have neither, you may want to join someone who does. There may be few applicants for small grants and scholarships; in fact, these sources of support sometimes go unclaimed in any given year. Many businesses, institutions, professional organizations, honor societies, and institutions of higher education operate small grants programs

6. Seek additional training. Large higher education institutions often have a person in charge of grants who will make presentations to a group or consult with individual faculty members on their proposals. Webinars and YouTube videos also provide free training from experts. Find out who the successful grant writers at your institution are and ask for their advice

7. Be client-centered. Although there are grants to support individual faculty research, it is more commonly the case that a grant is a project designed to help others. This makes it very important to write proposals that focus on benefits for the end-users

8. Demonstrate collaboration. When your proposal demonstrates that you have convinced others to work with you, it communicates two important points. First, others have given the project their “seal of approval” and second, you know how to mobilize human and material resources effectively to achieve your goals

9. Observe deadlines and plan for time sinks. Most institutions require a sign off from your dean. You won’t want to invest months in preparing a proposal only to get bogged down because an administrator is traveling when you need a signature

10. Understand your institution’s policies regarding grants. For example, you may be seeking release time to serve as the project coordinator and find out that your university has restrictions on this or that this budget line was cut when the proposal was funded

11. Work with the funding group. The reviewers are not the enemy. Be mindful of reviewers’ time and make your proposal clear, concise, and complete. Follow the guidelines. Find out who the grant administrator is and do your homework. What projects are they particularly proud of? It might be useful to make brief contact with the administrator of the grant program; ask for advice from knowledgeable colleagues on this

12. Write as you go. Instead of waiting until the project report deadline arrives to begin writing, start writing a related journal article or book chapter while the grant is underway. This not only makes for a better report—perhaps one worthy of additional financial support in the coming year—but also increases the likelihood that at least one publication will emanate from the project

13. Keep searching for support. If you were awarded one grant, it improves your chances of getting another one. Each award received is a vote of confidence in the project that can be leveraged into additional funding. If you were denied a grant, search for alternative sources of support and repurpose the proposal for the new funding source. After you have implemented a project successfully, think about ways to expand the initiative to other contexts

Writing Tasks Associated with Grants

Our purpose here is not to duplicate some of the books on writing grant proposals that have survived to multiple editions (e.g., Gitlin & Lyons, 2014; Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2013). Our goal is to look at grants from a writing perspective. The writing tasks can be categorized as three phases:

Pre-proposal: This is all of the work that goes into applying for the grant. Some typical writing tasks at this phase include the title, an abstract, preparing a letter of intent, filling out an application form, and abbreviated methods of envisioning the project (i.e., creating tables and flow charts of the process or a timeline).

Proposal stage: This is when the grant proposal is fleshed out. The online tools that follow will guide you through that process.

Post award stage: After the contract is issued, multiple types of data will need to be gathered and compiled to chart progress toward achieving goals, make adjustments to the original plan as needed, and document that results were achieved.

Grant completion stage: Recipients of grants will need to write an evaluation report. If there is an opportunity to reapply for another year, a new proposal may need to be prepared. Dissemination of the project through presentations and publications often is the most persuasive evidence of effectiveness.

Online Tool

Review University of Michigan professor Levine’s (2015) suggestions on writing each part of the grant proposal and examples of each one (title, background, problem statement, goals and objectives, project detail [clientele, methods, staff/administration], available resources, needed resources [personnel, facilities, equipment/supplies/communication, budget], evaluation plan, and appendix). http://​www.​learnerassociate​s.​net/​proposal/​

When it comes to working with grants, it is important to be realistic about what you can accomplish and the demands associated with successfully completing the work. A colleague who collaborated with several other universities to secure a federal grant was fond of saying: “The good news is, we got the grant; the bad news is, we got the grant.” As his statement suggests, applicants for grant funds need to be aware that the work has barely begun until after the contract is awarded. Grant projects represent huge investments of time and energy.

Building in an Assessment Plan

As a doctoral student, I enrolled in a required course on evaluation models and, even though the instructor was well-known in the field, his teaching methods made the class difficult for me to tolerate. He would arrive at class each day with a stack of books marked with post-it notes and proceed to read aloud passages from each book. For the remainder of the class, we were put into groups to work on a program evaluation. Nearly all of the projects were outside my field, so I assumed there was little to be learned. I sold back my book to the bookstore for a few dollars rather than keep it as I had my other texts. Shortly after I was hired as a faculty member, the dean encouraged me to attend a three-day federal grant writing workshop in Washington, DC with three other faculty members. Much to my surprise, most of what was shared had been addressed in that course I wished I could drop. Actually, material from that course probably has been more widely applicable in my professional life than the material from any other course in my program. I even ended up purchasing the latest edition of the textbook (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2011) and teaching a similar course to doctoral students myself.

An evaluation plan assures funding agencies that the money would be well spent. One of the most important—yet frequently shortchanged—aspects of a grant proposal is the evaluation plan. A clear assessment strategy that specifies outcomes consistent with the funding agency’s goals and clearly linked to the project’s purpose and objectives is the surest way to convey this information. Increasingly, funding agencies are looking for what are referred to as “theory of change” approaches (Taplin & Clark, 2012), evaluation models (Posavac, 2011; Stufflebeam & Shrinkfield, 2007), or “logic models” (Crawley, 2001; Graig, 2016; Knowlton & Phillips, 2012)

Online Tools

To understand logic models, begin with a simple example—the process of buying a home from Innovation Network http://​www.​innonet.​org/​client_​docs/​File/​logic_​model_​workbook.​pdf Next, watch the narrated PowerPoint Tutorial from Usable Knowledge, LLC http://​www.​usablellc.​net/​resources/​logic-model-tutorial and study How to Write the Evaluation Section of Grant Proposal http://​www.​usablellc.​net/​White_​Papers/​Evaluation%20​for%20​Grant%20​Writers.​pdf

Those who are awarded a grant surely will need to write an evaluation report and submit it. This can be a particularly high-stakes writing task for multi-year projects. Be sure to gather all of the evaluation data along the way rather than waiting until the deadline for the report. That is the surest way to have what you need in order to prepare a compelling argument that the money was well invested, that the project was worthwhile, and that it merits continued support. The American Evaluation Association (2004) has established guidelines for writing evaluation reports (Yarbrough, Shula, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2010). Use the guidelines in Table 11.7 to guide you in preparing a report.

Table 11.7

Questions to guide writing an evaluation report

Criterion

1

Stakeholder identification

Are the audiences clearly defined to include their perspectives? Does the report thoroughly explain how the evaluation information will address their needs? Are the needs of various audiences discussed/juxtaposed?

2

Report clarity

Does the report clearly and accurately describe the program, including its context, stakeholders, purposes, and curriculum? Are descriptions thorough, elegant, comprehensive, and fully supported by the data?

3

Values identification

Are the rationale and standards used to guide the evaluation, interpret the findings, and make value judgments that are insightful, fully justified, and comprehensive?

4

Evaluation impact

Does the evaluation use compelling evidence to offer clear and appropriate direction for programmatic improvement that would enhance the mission/goals of the program?

5

Feasibility

Is there ample evidence that the evaluation was conducted in a practical and efficient way that was response to the context/culture?

6

Resource analysis

Are estimates of time and money detailed and defensible? Does the report include a thoughtful analysis of the available resources?

7

Management plan

Does the management plan specify dates for various activities and identify potential pitfalls so that stakeholders can track progress and avert problems with keeping the evaluation on schedule?

8

Ethical issues

Do the methods, data, and narrative indicate that the evaluator exhibited legal, ethical, and due regard for protecting the welfare of those involved in the evaluation?

9

Description of methods and sources of information

Are the descriptions of methods and sources thorough, elegant, comprehensive, and fully supported by the data?

10

Valid and reliable information

Are the information gathering methods chosen, developed, and implemented to assure that both the evidence and its interpretation are valid and reliable?

11

Justified conclusions and recommendations

Does the evaluator draw critical, insightful conclusions and make recommendations that are explicitly justified with connections to the evidence?

12

Other, e.g., timely delivery

Was the report submitted in advance for corrective feedback and is the final copy delivered on the due date?

This scoring rubric is based on the American Evaluation Association’s (2004) Guiding Principles for Evaluators

Too often, the work that is done in conjunction with grants is known only to the participants. Wider dissemination is one convincing way to persuade the funders that the project was particularly meritorious. Plan to make a presentation at a major conference and/or to publish an article, book chapter, or book about the grant activity. Generating presentations and publications from grants makes the most of your efforts (Sternberg, 2014).

Ethical Aspects of Multiple Projects

Whenever we conduct workshops on writing for publication, one common question has to do with “working smarter”—in other words, how can scholars maximize the time invested in scholarly activities? Without a doubt, generating multiple scholarly products from a body of work has appeal. One word of caution has to do with self-plagiarism. Self-plagiarism also occurs when authors take essentially the same piece of writing and present it as something new. After work has been accepted for publication, authors are routinely required to sign a copyright transfer agreement. You cannot use any of the same wording or you will plagiarize yourself (Stichler & Nielsen, 2014). This is sometimes surprising to faculty members who see it as “their” work, to use as they wish. But, most of the time, the copyright is, just as the agreement form indicates, a transfer of copyright to another entity, so you would need to get written permission to use the entire piece for another purpose or to quote from it extensively.

Online Tool

The fillable pdf of the Wiley Blackwell Copyright Transfer Form https://​www.​pdffiller.​com/​en/​project/​31141754.​htm?​form_​id=​16585 is typical of the terms authors agree to when publishing their work.

Baggs (2008) and others have described the pitfalls of trying to publish too many articles from one data set—what they refer to as “salami science” because the body of work is shaved very thin. The issue is serious, as evidenced by this excerpt from guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2016):

The author must alert the editor if the manuscript includes subjects about which the authors have published a previous report or have submitted a related report to another publication. Any such report must be referred to and referenced in the new paper. Copies of such material should be included with the submitted manuscript to help the editor decide how to handle the matter. If redundant or duplicate publication is attempted or occurs without such notification, authors should expect editorial action to be taken. (Section III.D.2)

This does not mean that one cannot legitimately divide a dissertation or other large research project into meaningful segments for publication. It does mean that doing so requires thoughtful planning and careful communication with the editor. Multiple publications on the same topic may make it difficult to avoid self-plagiarism (Broome, 2004). For example, if the dissertation literature review is published as a review article, it is challenging to write new background sections for related articles. One approach is to target literature for data based articles that specifically supports that narrower topic, making it easier to synthesize the literature in such a way that it does not duplicate the earlier publication.

Conclusion

One day a letter arrived in the mail from the Rockefeller Foundation. The letter looked, as the British would say, very posh with high rag-content paper and embossed gold lettering. At first, I assumed it was a call for donations and was so busy at the time that I nearly discarded it without opening it but then decided to look inside. The letter read, “Dear Dr. Jalongo: We have read your book Teachers’ Stories: From Personal Narrative to Professional Insight with great interest and resonated to your work.” The letter went on to state that The Rockefeller Foundation had funded a 13 million dollar initiative to support the development of everyone in eight urban schools—students, parents and other community members, teachers, administrators, and staff members; it was called the Learning Communities Network. As part of that project, they were going to produce a publication called Narratives and I was invited to serve on the Editorial Board. The financial compensation was a modest honorarium each year but the opportunity was of inestimable value. The way we worked was that manuscripts would come in—many written by first-time authors—and members of the Editorial Board would discuss them during a conference call. One of our favorites had been written by a janitor who was required to earn his General Education Diploma in order to retain employment at the school district. He described how he felt resentful of this at first but, after beginning the classes, his resolve to earn the GED was built by working within a supportive learning community. Sadly, shortly after he earned his diploma, his father was hospitalized and diagnosed with a terminal illness. He took the diploma with him to show his father, who beamed with pride at his son’s accomplishment before he passed away a few days later. This project was a continual source of inspiration and education for me. Several of the schools were in areas where Spanish was spoken, so the publication had the unique feature of being published in English on one side of the page and Spanish on the reverse side and all the reader had to do was flip it over. Children produced the art for the cover. The other Board members were people whose work I had admired. Several of us presented at a national conference together. Many times rewards have less to do with financial compensation and more with learning opportunities.

The last, great outgrowth of a professional career is professional wisdom. Choosing your projects wisely gives you the greatest opportunity to attain that goal. Sternberg (2004) proposed a theory of wisdom in which wise decisions are made only when:

The common good is considered

Multiple interests (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, extrapersonal) are balanced

Consequences are considered over time (i.e., short-term, long-term)

Environmental contexts are taken into account (e.g., adapting/shaping existing contexts or selecting new contexts) and all of the preceding items (1–4) are:

Influenced by a system of values.

Wisdom is what makes our professional lives more productive and satisfying across the lifespan.

References

American Evaluation Association. (2004). AEA guiding principles for evaluators. http://​www.​eval.​org/​p/​cm/​ld/​fid=​51

Baggs, J. G. (2008). Issues and rules for authors concerning authorship versus acknowledgements, dual publication, self-plagiarism, and salami publishing. Research in Nursing & Health, 31(4), 295–297.CrossRef

Beck, J. (2011). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Bourne, P. E., & Chalupa, L. M. (2006). Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(2), e12. doi:10.​1371/​journal.​pcbi.​0020012.CrossRef

Boyer, E. L., Moser, D., Ream, T. C., & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (expanded 2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda. New York: SpringerBriefs in Entrepreneurship and Innovation.CrossRef

Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.CrossRef

Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36(5), 694–707.CrossRef

Broome, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52, 273–274.CrossRef

Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Crawley, P. F. (2001). The logic model for program planning and evaluation. A brief explanation of logic models. University of Idaho Extension. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://​www.​cals.​uidaho.​edu/​edcomm/​pdf/​CIS/​CIS1097.​pdf

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper/Perennial.

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Perennial.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Gitlin, L. N., & Lyons, K. J. (2014). Successful grant writing: Strategies for health and human service professionals (4th ed.). New York: Springer.

Graig, E. (2016). Logic model tutorial. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://​www.​usablellc.​net/​logic-model-tutorial

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​icmje.​org/​recommendations/​browse/​roles-and-responsibilities​/​defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.​html

Jalongo, M. R. (1985). Faculty productivity in higher education. The Educational Forum, 49(2), 171–182. doi:10.​1080/​0013172850933583​2.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013a). Getting on the conference program and writing a practical article: Templates for success. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 13–23.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2013b). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Karsh, E., & Fox, A. S. (2014). The only grant-writing book you’ll ever need. New York: Basic Books.

Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Levin, M. (2015). Ethnicity and aboriginality: Case studies in ethnonationalism. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Levinson, E. M., Vogt, M., Barker, W. F., Jalongo, M. R., & Van Zandt, P. (2016, in press). Effects of reading with adult tutor/therapy dog teams on elementary students’ reading achievement and attitude. Society & Animals.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2013). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lucas, C. J., & Murry, J. W. (2011). New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.CrossRef

Lunghofer, L. (2015). 11 questions winning grant writers know how to answer. Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://​www.​makinggoodwork.​org/​11-questions-winning-grant-writers-know-how-to-answer/​

Lyall, C., & Meagher, L. R. (2012). A Masterclass in interdisciplinarity: Research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures, 44(6), 608–617.CrossRef

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 561–585.CrossRef

McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65–72. Available: http://​www.​pmn.​net/​wp-content/​uploads/​logic-models-a-tool-for-telling-your-programs-performance-story.​pdf

Naish, L. (2013). Grants are not research outputs. The Australian Universities’ Review, 55(1), 72–73. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://​search.​informit.​com.​au/​documentSummary;dn=​143420535789241;res=​IELHSS

Nygaard, L. P. (2015). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in Higher Education. doi:10.​1080/​03075079.​2015.​1058351.

Posavac, E. J. (2011). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Przeworski, A., & Salomon, F. (1995). Some candid suggestions for applicants to Social Science Research Council competitions. Retrieved October 3, 2015, from http://​www.​ssrc.​org/​workspace/​uploads/​docs/​Art-of-Writing-Proposals-DSD-English.​pdf

Runco, M. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Academic.

Seldin, P. (1984). Changing practices in faculty evaluation: A critical assessment and recommendations for improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seligman, M. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of health and well-being. New York: Simon & Schuster/Atria Books.

Shernoff, D. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement. New York: Springer.CrossRef

Smith, J. A., & McLaurin, S. (1999). The program-page connection: A practical model for professional writing. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 48(3), 10–18. http://​eric.​ed.​gov/​?​id=​EJ592633

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Wisdom and giftedness. In M. Ferrari & L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2014). Writing successful grant proposals from the top down and bottom up. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stichler, J. F., & Nielsen, P. (2014). Disseminating knowledge and writing for publication. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 7(2), 144–150.CrossRef

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shrinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taplin, D. H. & Clark, H. (2012). Theory of change basics: A primer on theory of change. New York: Actknowledge. Available: http://​www.​theoryofchange.​org/​wp-content/​uploads/​toco_​library/​pdf/​ToCBasics.​pdf

Yarbrough, D. B., Shula, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_12

12. From Outsider to Insider in Scholarly Publishing

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

Misconceptions about the roles of reviewer and editor are commonplace. The work of reviewers and editors frequently is referred to as a “black box”—an allusion to a complex, mechanical device that evidently performs an important function yet remains mysterious and defies explanation. The purpose of Chap. 12 is to establish the indicators of quality in manuscripts. In addition, it supplies readers with a glimpse of the inner workings of manuscript evaluation so that they can use these insights to improve acceptance of their written work. Chapter 12 explains the gatekeeper function of the peer review process and how to become a peer reviewer for various types of manuscripts. In addition, it examines the ethical issues surrounding the treatment of other scholars’ work. The chapter concludes with advice on seeking out different editing roles, such as guest editor of an issue of a journal, editor for a journal, editor of a book, or editor for a series.

Early in my higher education teaching career, I had a call from the Dean’s secretary to arrange a meeting. He had received information about a grant project at Ohio State University for recently hired faculty members who were women and minorities. Applicants were required to fill out a form and submit two manuscripts; one that had been published and one that was a work-in-progress. The professors selected would have all expenses paid to attend a full week of training on writing for professional publication during the fall. In January, they were obligated to return for a 3-day follow up with two polished pieces of writing in hand—one journal article and one grant proposal. Nearly 40 years later, three things about that experience stand out in my mind. The first was a one-page document distributed to the group; it revealed all of the changes that an editor had made to an author’s opening paragraph for a journal article. The second memorable experience was a panel discussion with four journal editors; I wrote down—and still recall—some of their comments, such as Lester Mann’s fundamental criteria for a publishable manuscript: “Is it new? Is it true? Is it important?” The third enduring aspect of participation was finding a collaborator (Bromley, 2009); she was a published author and reviewed my work with a kindly, yet critical eye. This experience still speaks to the supports that academic authors need to make the transition from outsider to insider in the world of scholarly publishing: constructive criticism of written work, expert advice, and helpful examples.

Yet even with such supports in place, there are intermediaries who will determine the fate of each manuscript submitted; namely, peer reviewers and editors. These experts are neither friends nor foes. Rather, they are charged with the responsibility of appraising the quality of works submitted for publication and determining if the work is a good fit with the outlet.

This chapter begins with the defining characteristics of quality in publications. Next, it addresses what is widely regarded as the cornerstone of academic publishing: peer review. Then it describes the process of rendering decisions about manuscripts and the author’s role in responding to those decisions. Next, it advises authors on how to interact more successfully with editors and how to become reviewers and editors themselves. The chapter concludes with ethical issues in academic publishing.

Indicators of Quality in Publications

Peer reviewers and editors perform what is generally referred to as a “gatekeeping” role. This means that they apply standards of quality to manuscripts and render decisions about what meets the criteria for inclusion in a journal or book. Just as a real estate agent advocates for the seller, peer reviewers and editors advocate for the reader and the publication. Their primary concerns are to the field, the publication itself, and its readership. So, even though editors rely on the contributions of authors to generate a high-quality publication, their first obligation is to maintain the quality of the outlet. Complete the activity in Activity 12.1 as a way to begin the discussion of quality control.

Activity 12.1: Quality Criteria

This task will help you to take a step back from the emotionally-charged situation of having a manuscript rejected. Imagine that you are invited to serve as a judge in a contest. The purpose of the competition is to evaluate office chairs designed by various manufacturers. Think about the criteria that you would use to award first, second, and third prize to a large assortment of chairs. Make a list of your criteria.

Did your list include such features as the quality of the materials? Durability? Comfort and ergonomics? Adherence to contest rules? Assembly/joinery? Beauty? Each of these has a corollary in manuscripts. For instance, the quality of materials is akin to the content of a manuscript, durability is the timelessness of the message, comfort/ergonomics is the match with the audience, adherence to rules is following the guidelines for contributors, assembly/joinery refers to how the manuscript is organized, and beauty is comparable to the aesthetic features of the writing such as flow, precision with words, and ability to engage the reader.

If you actually were judging the relative merits of chairs, the sponsors of the event would no doubt provide some criteria and the process might differ from one situation to another. The same holds true where judgments of manuscripts are concerned—the quality of the publisher affects the rigor of the review. Figure 12.1 is an overview of the quality indicators of scholarly journals. The criteria for scholarly books are much the same.

Fig. 12.1

Indicators of quality in scholarly journals (Note: Based on Wellington & Torgerson, 2005)

Basically, there are two types of journals that may be considered as possible outlets for articles: peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed (Hames, 2007). A peer-reviewed journal has independent reviewers who critique the work and the editor renders the final decision. For non-peer-reviewed outlets, the editor alone decides or editorial staff members meet and make the decision together.

Online Tool

Read “How to Choose a Journal: Scientific and Practical Considerations” for sage advice on selecting a suitable outlet for your work (Babor, Moirsano, Stenius, Winstanley, & O’Reilly) at http://​www.​parint.​org/​isajewebsite/​bookimages/​isaje_​2nd_​edition_​chapter2.​pdf.

Many times, when faculty members submit evidence that they have published a journal article, they will be asked questions about the outlets so that a university-wide committee can gauge the status of the journal. Some common questions are:

1.

Was the manuscript peer reviewed? In terms of relative prestige, the lowest standard would be no peer review, a moderate level would be peer review that is not anonymous, and the highest level would be anonymous (also referred to as “blind” review). Anonymous peer review is an effort to make the review process more objective and judge the work on its merits rather than the author’s name recognition or the status of the institution where he or she is employed. Thus, if a senior professor at a prestigious institution submits a manuscript that does little to advance thinking in the field and a doctoral candidate at a less well-known university submits a manuscript that represents a stride forward, it would be possible for the latter to get published. This is not to say that bias cannot occur, only that anonymous peer review is intended to prevent favoritism and cronyism. To protect confidentiality, authors will be directed to leave any identifying information out of the manuscript when it is submitted. This means that the author’s name should not appear as a header on each page. If the research happens to have been conducted at their own institution, this too would be concealed—for example, referring to the institution as a “Midwestern state university with approximately 12,000 students”. Anonymity also extends to a reference to the author’s previously published work cited in the manuscript. So, in the reference list, instead of providing all of the details, it would read instead, for example: (Author, 2017).

2.

What is the acceptance rate of the journal? Scholarly journals rely on unsolicited manuscripts. Unsolicited means that no one asked the author to write the article. The authors are not on staff, nor are they scholars who were invited to submit their work. The most competitive journals in a field often have very low acceptance rates of less than 10 %. Less prestigious publications tend to have higher acceptance rates of 20–30 %. Usually, this information is published in a directory of publishing opportunities in a given field (typically found in the reference section of a university library). Occasionally, authors will compile some of these statistics by surveying the editors of a list of journals in a field and writing a journal article about publication outlets in a particular field (e.g., Amodei, Myers, Onchwari, Jalongo, & Gargiulo, 2013). Acceptance rates may be posted on the publisher’s website as well. If all else fails, e-mail the editor for this information.

3.

What is the journal’s impact factor? It can be difficult for a university-wide tenure, evaluation, and promotion committee to assess the relative merits of the work produced by scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds. Many times, the problem is like the proverbial “comparing apples to oranges” when one professor’s musical composition is ranked alongside another professor’s quantitative research article in engineering. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) has attempted to quantify the quality of journals through a metric referred to as the journal’s impact factor. First of all, journal editors and publishers had to apply to be admitted to the group and verify that they used a rigorous and anonymous peer review system. Then, ISI produced statistics on the average number of times a journal’s articles were cited by authors publishing in the other journals that belonged to the group during a 2-year period (Blyth et al., 2010). The ISI includes approximately 11,000 different publications. Another way of estimating citation counts uses Google Scholar (Hodge & Lacasse, 2011). Citation counting systems are not without controversy (Cronin & Sugimoto, 2014). For instance, it has been argued that the most enduring, high-quality manuscripts that become seminal works in the field would go unrecognized, given the 2-year time window. Table 12.1 is a summary of reasons why citation counts alone can be misleading.

Table 12.1

Limitations of citation counts

Articles are sometimes cited because they are controversial or even because they are being criticized

Only citations in other journals are counted, so citations of work in books would go unrecognized

Other researchers may fail to grasp the importance of a work or part of a work that turns out to be highly influential later on

There is a bias towards citing articles that are more readily accessible through major search engines

Works from one’s own country or research group are more likely to be cited, so there is a bias in favor of journals published in English and the United States

Some fields of study generate more citations than others, irrespective of how important they are

Citation of the work may be a reflection of its policy or practical implications rather than its value as scholarship; in other words, a work may be cited frequently because it is consistent with prevailing opinions

Adapted from West & Stenius (2009)

The Joint Committee of Quantitative Assessment of Research (Panaretos & Malesios, 2008) went so far as to say “Using the impact factor alone to judge a journal is like using weight alone to judge a person’s health” (p. 2). Nevertheless, a high impact factor does tend to impress.

In order to stay in existence, what is published needs to fill a niche, have an audience, and—even for nonprofit organizations—be fiscally supportable. As Wang (2007) notes, “the competition among periodicals and the ever emerging new ideas compel every journal toward constant innovations” (p. 160). Any submission that does not fulfill these goals is apt to be rejected.

Quality Control Measures During Manuscript Submission

The great majority of respected publications use an online manuscript management system. This means that, when authors submit their work, a software program guides them through the process. When submitting an article to a scholarly journal, one must adhere to the guidelines set forth from the journal in regards to citations, page limits, and file inclusions (Heyman & Cronin, 2005). Be sure to consult the guidelines, or progressing through the system will be arduous or even come to an abrupt halt. For example, if keywords are required for indexing purposes, you’ll need to stop and supply them. If a 200 word abstract is required and yours is 247 words, the manuscript management software will prevent you from continuing until that is corrected. When a publisher uses an anonymous peer review process, it is very important to put your identifying information on the cover sheet only. Be certain to handle tables, figures, charts, graphs, or photographs as directed; often, they are submitted as separate files rather than embedded in the manuscript.

Authors will find that some of the questions have to do with ethical issues and legal considerations. For example, authors are asked to verify that the work is original, that it is not under consideration by another publisher, to disclose any possible conflict of interest caused by external funding, and to warrant that they have obtained permission to use copyrighted material or model releases for photographs. These days, many manuscripts are converted to a portable document format (pdf) using Adobe—this often occurs when the manuscript is first submitted via electronic means. This creates a uniform, professional look to the work with all of the necessary elements in place, such as the abstract, key words, and so forth. Ordinarily, the author has to review the preliminary pdf and approve it before the review process can commence. Be certain to keep your user name, password, and the number assigned to your manuscript so that you can access it readily when the nearly inevitable revisions are requested. One exceptionally helpful way of glimpsing the inner workings of the publisher is to volunteer to be a peer reviewer of others’ manuscripts.

Serving as a Peer Reviewer

The concept of peer review is over 400 years old; it originated as a way to document scientific discoveries by having an independent third party record the inventor’s name and the date. The practice of having other professionals review manuscripts independently prior to publishing them continues as a standard practice across the disciplines (Godlee & Jefferson, 2003; Solomon, 2007). They are referred to as peers because they are considered to be sufficiently knowledgeable to assess the quality of work and its contribution. As it applies to the evaluation of manuscripts, the goal of peer review is for the reviewers to evaluate the quality of the work and its suitability for the specific outlet/audience. After the peer review process is complete, it is up to the editor to “review the reviews” and render an editorial decision (Murray & Raths, 1996).

Identifying Reviewers

Who are these people called peer reviewers? Usually, they are university faculty members with specialized expertise and interest in the topic of the manuscript. For research manuscripts, they may be selected more as experts on the methods (e.g., factor analysis, survey research) than on the subject matter per se.

The editor typically identifies possible reviewers using the journal’s database of published authors. To illustrate, if an author submits an observational study on teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) to university students in Taiwan, the editor might select one reviewer who is knowledgeable about EFL, another with expertise on observational research, and still another familiar with the context and culture. Sometimes, a manuscript comes in and a search of the journal data base yields no one with the requisite expertise who is available to review. When this occurs, the editor typically will search key words from the manuscript in recent publications outside the specific journal to locate scholars with expertise in the field who are willing to conduct the review.

Reviewers are excluded from reviewing manuscripts if they have:

manuscripts assigned to them currently or completed a review very recently

an apparent connection to the authors (e.g., former co-authors, departmental colleagues, dissertation chairperson)

a conflict of interest with the authors or a vested interest in the success or failure of the publication

provided cursory, unhelpful reviews in the past (e.g., “I enjoyed reading this article very much. I recommend that it be published.”)

been hypercritical of others’ work and provided little useful feedback

Activity 12.2 How to Get Started Reviewing

If you aspire to becoming a member of an editorial board, there are several strategies to consider. They include: (1) attend the open meetings of professional organizations where the publications program is discussed, (2) submit your vita and a letter to the editor volunteering to serve as a reviewer, (3) talk to book sales representatives about reviewing (commercial publishers sometimes pay a small honorarium), (4) give your business card to book and journal editors at conferences and contact them afterwards, and (5) scan the conference program for sessions on writing for publication to network with publishers/editors.

The Reviewer’s Role

The integrity of the review process and the overall quality of a scholarly publication relies to a considerable extent on the expertise, ethics, and insights of professional peers in the field. As reviewers read a manuscript, they are expected to evaluate aspects of written work that are summarized in Table 12.2.

Table 12.2

The reviewer’s role

So what? Consider the overall potential contribution of the work—Does the manuscript advance thinking in the field? Is there an element of originality? What is the quality of thinking behind the manuscript?

For whom? Would the subject matter of the manuscript hold appeal for the readership of the publication? Is it written in a way that is accessible to that audience?

Not so. Identify errors of fact or assertions that can be challenged—what is the author’s evidence? Are there contradictions, misconceptions, or flaws in the reasoning? If so, point them out to spare the author(s) embarrassment

Say what? Point out areas in the manuscript that are confusing—Ask the author to say it more clearly and, if you have an idea about how to accomplish this, say so

What else? Suggest additional, relevant sources of information—Are there any key sources that the author may have overlooked and that you might recommend?

More or less? Are there concepts that require further elaboration, a concrete example, or more support from the research? Conversely, are there places where the manuscript bogs down and needs to be cut or condensed?

Well said. Does the writing flow? Is it understandable, readable, engaging, well organized and carefully crafted? Does it exemplify high-quality scholarly discourse?

Check again. Although the work will be copyedited by professionals, note if there are mechanical errors and referencing style mistakes. Generally speaking, what category of errors has been committed (e.g., errors in the reference list, formatting of tables, use of headings)?

Online Tool

Check to see if your institution has a site license with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) http://​www.​citiprogram.​org. If so, complete the Peer Review module on ethics in reviewing other scholars’ work.

Misconceptions About Anonymous Peer Review

In the absence of direct experience with publishing, authors frequently have expectations that are at odds with the process. In a focus group study of doctoral students, candidates, and program graduates in three different countries, their ideas about writing for publication became more accurate and realistic as they progressed through their programs and worked with their faculty mentors (Jalongo, Ebbeck, & Boyer, 2014). Initially, however, the following misconceptions were commonplace.

Misconception 1: Reviewers should arrive at consensus. Many a doctoral candidate has grumbled that that their committee members did not give the same advice on their dissertation chapters. First of all, they chose to comment on different things—what one person said nothing at all about was the basis for a lengthy comment from someone else. At times, their recommendations even seemed to be contradictory and had to be resolved to the satisfaction of all. Negotiating these changes requires the student to first find out how wedded each person is to those recommendations. Expect that experiences such as these are a rehearsal for what is to come when manuscripts are submitted to publishers. For example, it often happens that, with three reviewers, one will recommend acceptance, one will recommend major revisions, and a third will reject it. Based on more than 20 years of experience editing a scholarly journal, mixed reviews often are a response to less-than-clear explanations on the part of the author(s). Stated plainly, a confusing manuscript generates confusing advice. Under these circumstances, it is up to the editor to decide what to do. If the journal has many articles awaiting publication and/or other manuscripts on the general topic, the work probably will be rejected. It will take too much of the editor’s and reviewers’ time. If the journal has space available and/or the topic is important and underrepresented in the publication, the editor may deem it worth the effort to revise and resubmit.

Misconception 2: Praise is the purpose of review. As newcomers to the world of text book publishing, two co-authors eagerly awaited the response of the four reviewers to their book proposal and two sample chapters. One reviewer was enthusiastic and recommended few changes, two felt that it had promise but needed revision, and the fourth did not support publication of the work. When the authors discussed the reviews, they considered the very positive review to be the “good” one yet, during a conference call with their editor, she said, “Reviewer 1 was not at all helpful in improving the work; we won’t use her again.” Bear in mind that the purpose of review is to strengthen the work. Expect that revisions will be required.

Novices frequently base their expectations for manuscript review on their experiences as students writing papers for classes. As successful doctoral students, they are accustomed to getting an “A” grade on their papers, so they anticipate comparable feedback on a manuscript submitted for publication. During on our combined nearly sixty decades of reviewing and editing, this has happened just a few times. Revisions are almost always required prior to acceptance, and in many cases, a final decision cannot be reached until the revised version has been reassessed. Therefore, the way in which authors respond to the reports of reviewers and to the editor can have a major influence upon the outcome. If editors invite resubmission, it means they expect to receive the manuscript back again by the deadline specified. Still, the majority of scholars withdraw a manuscript when they get recommendations for revision.

Misconception 3: Reviewers are coaches. Although dissertation committee members give direction, reviewers of manuscripts submitted for publication are, technically speaking, under no obligation to direct the writer in how to improve a manuscript when it has been rejected. Some may do this, in the spirit of colleagueship, but rejections typically are handled with a form letter. What reviewers are expected to do is: critique the work, assess its suitability for the outlet, and make a recommendation about publication. If the manuscript has potential, reviewers often will do such things as making suggestions about the organization of the work, identifying some particularly relevant research that has been overlooked, ask for clarification, or recommend additions and deletions to the manuscript. Usually reviewers are they are referring to a scoring sheet that includes criteria such as:

Suitability for the audience

Significance of research

Quality of research

Quality of presentation

Implications for practice

The purpose of peer review definitely is not for others to “fix up” your manuscript for you. Reviewers will quickly lose patience and get irritated if an author submits a work that displays little familiarity with the outlet, is not well written, fails to conform to the guidelines, and contains numerous errors and it will be rejected. Seriously flawed manuscripts will be returned with a letter that wishes you success in locating a more suitable outlet for your work.

Rendering Decisions About Manuscripts

There are many different stages at which peer review can occur in an academic career. It probably has occurred in some college courses when the professor required classmate peers to assess one another’s papers. It definitely will occur during the dissertation writing process when different committee members make various recommendations for improvement. It also will occur in a more formal way when manuscripts of various types—conference proposals, journal articles, grants, book chapters, and books—are submitted for review. Table 12.3 is an overview of the anonymous peer review process used by many journal editors.

Table 12.3

Steps in anonymous peer review

1. Editors develop a reviewer database

2. Authors submit manuscripts to the journal

3. Editor(s) make initial assessment to determine if paper is suitable for the journal and if peer review is warranted

4. Editor(s) select reviewers with specialized expertise related to the manuscript and invite them to review

5. Editor(s) monitor the timeliness of peer review and send reminders or invite new reviewers if necessary

6. Reviewers submit their evaluations of the manuscript to the editor

7. The editor reads the reviews, compiles the comments into a letter, makes a decision and communicates that decision to the author(s)

8. Authors revise the submissions and return to editor by the deadline specified

9. Editor decides if a second round of reviews is necessary; if so, back to step 4

10. After a manuscript is accepted, copy editing occurs and the proofs are sent to the author(s)

11. Corrected proofs are returned to the editorial office by the deadline specified

12. Accepted manuscripts may be posted online while awaiting publication in hard copy

Source: Adapted from Stolerman (2009)

Responding to Peer Review

During a professional development session for new faculty members on writing for publication, two professors became acquainted and agreed to support one another’s writing efforts by reading and critiquing one another’s manuscripts. As one of them arrived at the appointed time in the other’s office, he said, “I realized, as I was walking over, that my hands were actually shaking. I can’t believe I’m this nervous about sharing what I’ve written with you. For some reason, it makes me feel so vulnerable, as if it were me being judged rather than the words I’ve put on paper.” This candid comment captures many of the feelings associated with subjecting work to peer review. Negative reviews can wound the ego, hurt feelings, and make those desperate to get published even more so. What are some more productive ways to respond to less-than-glowing reports on a manuscript over which you have labored long and hard?

As a start, understand the range of editorial decisions rendered on manuscripts and appropriate responses to them in Table 12.4.

Table 12.4

The range of editorial decisions

Decision

Explanation

Examples

Reject without review

This means that the work is a poor match for the outlet or clearly does not meet quality standards. The editor has screened it and will not waste the volunteer reviewers’ time by asking them to evaluate it

A student submits an entire master’s thesis as a journal article

The journal’s audience consists of researchers but the article is written for laypersons

The manuscript contains so many errors or is so poorly written that it cannot be salvaged

Reject and recommend another outlet

The manuscript looks promising, but it does not meet current publication needs of the outlet. Still, the editor is impressed by the manuscript and takes the time to suggest an alternative place of publication

The editor cannot use it because the topic was (or will be) treated extensively already

An article that is better suited for a journal in psycholinguistics is sent to a publication for language arts teachers

Reject after review

The manuscript has been reviewed and the reviewers did not recommend publication

The manuscript does not make a significant contribution in the estimation of the reviewers

There are some major conceptual flaws in the work

Revise before review

The manuscript shows some signs of promise but cannot be sent out to reviewers without first being rewritten or formatted differently

The manuscript is nearly double the recommended page length

The manuscript is not in the required format (e.g., APA 6th edition) or is incomplete (e.g., no abstract and key words)

Major revisions

The manuscript has promise but the reviewers have recommended substantial revision; the work may be sent out for review again. The author will need to submit a detailed, point-by-point explanation of how each revision was addressed

Reviewers question the procedures or analysis

Reviewers find the organization difficult to follow

Reviewers suggest the addition of a major piece, such as a conceptual framework

Minor revisions

The manuscript is nearly publishable; publication is contingent on the author making minor revisions that will require a modest time investment

The manuscript is of high quality; however, there are some referencing style errors that need to be corrected

The manuscript title or abstract needs to be revised

Some portion of the manuscript still needs refinement (e.g., the introduction, implications, discussion, or conclusion)

Accept

The manuscript is nearly ready to publish in its current form; the very minor revisions necessary can be handled during the production process

The manuscript has been carefully prepared and earned enthusiastic reviews

Revising a Manuscript

What if someone told you that there was a way to increase your chances of publication success by 60–70 %? Actually, there is. Henson (2007) found that, when authors followed through with a revise and resubmit editorial decision, 60–70 % of the revised manuscripts were published. So, the first step is to realize that:

An invitation to resubmit is not a half-hearted and cowardly way of saying the work is unpublishable, but rather an implicit suggestion that the editor remains interested in the paper and that it is likely to be accepted if the author is responsive to the questions and recommendations of the reviewers. In such cases, it is nearly always worth resubmitting unless there is some clear and unavoidable requirement with which you cannot possibly comply. (Stolerman, 2009, p. 131)

Another important aspect of revising manuscripts has to do with attitude. Two professors who had written a scholarly book found a home for it with Jossey-Bass. After the book was the reviews were in, they scheduled a telephone call to discuss the anonymous peer reviewers’ comments before their conference call with the editor. The conversation went along the lines of, “Reviewer One suggested that we add a section to clarify Chap.​ 5; that should be easy enough to do.” and “Reviewer Two made some good points about the organization; maybe we should switch the order of the chapters as recommended.” When the conversation turned to the third and final review, there was a pause in the conversation and one of the authors said, “Reviewer three? I think that this person knows more about our topic than we do.” to which the co-author added, “and it was so beautifully written that I even started wondering if it would be possible for the editor to invite Reviewer 3 to write a Foreword for us.” Notice that, in this situation, the authors accepted recommendations for improvement in the same spirit of colleagueship that they were given. They did not insist that the reviewers were wrong, whine about the time it would take to revise, or abandon the project.

Still, the challenges of the revision process are numerous (Moos & Hawkins, 2009). Having the support of a writing mentor or trusted colleague can be very helpful in navigating those changes. As one doctoral candidate explained:

I submitted a book chapter with another colleague and when it came back [from the reviewers], there was a lot of criticism on different aspects of it. And it was nice because I was with the co-author at the time and [we] sat together and went through each remark and decided what remark we would take and revise and what remarks we felt were not in the best interest of the piece…You have to be humble. And take constructive criticism and really use that criticism of others. And I think that over time—at first it’s very hard to do—but over time it really makes you a better writer taking points of views of others, accepting constructive criticisms very gracefully moving on from there. (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 73)

When manuscripts undergo a major transformation, they might be e sent out for review again, adding another several months to rendering an editorial decision. Table 12.5 is an example of an author’s response to recommendations for major revisions.

Table 12.5

Example of author response to major revisions

Reviewers’ comments

Author response

Overall, you did an excellent job of explaining the rationale for your study, the need for research with this specific population, and the implications of the research

Thank you

This manuscript has potential but it would require significant revision to be publishable. The study holds great interest for the readership of the journal; therefore, we are requesting that you make the recommended revisions and resubmit your manuscript. Overall, the tone of the piece overall sounds like an educational psychology journal publication. Remember that your audience for this publication includes practitioners as well as researchers. Please revise accordingly

Expanded, reduced jargon, defined key terminology, and revised accordingly

The literature review seemed to be rather narrow; there is much more out there on this topic

The review was expanded

We require all authors to explain how their research was reviewed by an external group to ensure the ethical treatment of human subjects

Included in methods and procedures, p. 11

Page 4, line 33- provide more background information about the program at this point. You should explain it for those who are not familiar with this body of literature and cite some sources where they can build background knowledge. Consider also that the readership of the journal is international; at times you seem to be addressing a U.S. audience only

Revised and added some citations on the subject matter from other countries

Page 5, line 24- you mention a subscale of the measure without explaining it

Page 5

Completed; this information now appears at the top of page 6

 Line 4- What criteria made the participants eligible to attend the program?

 Line 21- Provide the federal statistic that makes participants eligible for services

Page 5

This was revised and explained

When you discuss the assignment to groups, you should be more explicit as to how participants were selected for the intervention group

Why did you choose to report the median rather than the mean statistic? Were there outliers in your data that made this necessary?

You make no mention in the text of Tables 1 or 2. Each table should be referenced in the body of the paper. You reiterate too much of what already appears in Table 2 in the body of the paper. It would be preferable to mention the major finding and then state: “Refer to Table 2”. APA Style requires you to “call out” each table, figure, chart, or graph in text

Done

Page 7

This material was rearranged into the sequence as suggested

On the bottom of the page you mention two assessment tools; however, neither of these measures had been mentioned previously. The first discussion of them is on the next page. You should write their titles out in full before presenting the acronyms, as well as explain what they used for (briefly). Later, on page 10, you discuss the measurement tools. This is more appropriately placed before the procedure section

The written schedule of interventions mentioned under treatment fidelity should be provided. Perhaps this could be added in an appendix

The article now has a brief appendix

Page 15 and 16

Thank you for noting this discrepancy; it has been corrected

You say that the outcome assessment was only used within the intervention group; however, on page 16 you note that it was used to collect data from the control group

The method section should be reorganized to improve clarity. The measures and procedures are not completely clear. I had to flip back and forth between the pages to get a clear understanding of what measures were used and how the study was carried out

This section has been sequenced more carefully; see pp 16–17

Now looking at Table 1, there is such a large discrepancy in the makeup of the control and experimental groups, how did you handle this statistically so the groups could be compared?

This is now explained

According to APA style, “person first” language is required. The label should not define the person. So, it would be “participants from low-income backgrounds” rather than “low-income participants”

Revised

As Table 12.5 illustrates, authors definitely should not resubmit the manuscript with a quick note that reads “I made all of the changes”. You need to respond to each and every comment from reviewers and demonstrate that you complied with their requests. If there is a revision that you cannot accept, you need to say so—and supply a compelling reason for that decision. Many times, authors will disregard recommendations for improvement based on the fact that acting upon them will be too much work. It is better to request more time to revise than to neglect to revise. Actually, you can save a major slowdown by assiduously attending to the suggestions from all of the reviewer because the editor might decide to forego a second round of peer reviews. In most cases, round two of reviews adds another 4 months to the process. You also have built credibility with the editor by doing what was requested as well as saving everyone time and effort. In my experience, it is invariably a bad sign when the recommendation is for major revisions and an author submits a revised manuscript within the hour. It is best to follow the advice of German philosopher Goethe: “Do not hurry, do not wait”. When it comes to major revisions, authors would do well to neither procrastinate nor immediately dash off a response. Rather, they should develop a clear, thorough, and systematic plan that addresses the reviewers’ comments and share it with the editor.

Interacting with Editors

When corresponding with editors, authors sometimes neglect to be professional and to proofread. Mistakes in an e-mail to the editor do not inspire confidence in any manuscript this particular author might submit. The tone of the correspondence should be professional and not overly familiar. When you write to an editor, use his or her name—just as you would in any business correspondence. When it comes to manuscript submission, authors need to study the journal’s guidelines or the book publisher’s requirements just as carefully as a responsible student would review the syllabus for a graduate-level course. Far too much of an editor’s time is spent responding to authors who do not bother to learn the first thing about the publication and its requirements. Neglecting to do this borders on insult to editors who are committed to the publications that they represent.

One helpful tool for authors is the letter of inquiry. It is a short, business-like e-mail that:

Provides a descriptive title for a completed manuscript

Very briefly explains its purpose (this can be pulled out of the pronouncement paragraph)

Reflects familiarity with the intended outlet and its audience

Verifies that the manuscript is not currently under review with any other publisher

Affirms that the work is original

The advantage of submitting such a letter is that it helps authors to gauge the editor’s interest in the work prior to entering into the lengthy process of peer review. However, be sure to check the guidelines for submission because not all editors welcome letters of inquiry.

In publishing endeavors, trust is built when people demonstrate their commitment to improving the quality of the work. Signs of a hurried response, resistance to investing effort to improve the work, and indignant displays of ego tend to erode the editor’s confidence in an author. Some actual examples of this are:

Editor: “One suggestion from the reviewers was that you revisit the title. As it currently stands, it reads more like a book or an encyclopedia title. It gives no hint that it was a study and leaves the reader expecting a more practical article.”

E-mail from author: “We didn’t change the title because we can’t think of a better one. Can you suggest a new title for us?”

The editor cannot be expected to do authors’ homework for them. or to deviate from the policies that govern the review of manuscripts. They also cannot afford to invest additional time in work that was submitted well before it was ready or to deviate from policies that govern the review of manuscripts:

E-mail from author: “After reading the reviews, I know that I can revise the manuscript and improve it. Would you be willing to give me another chance?”

Editor: “Unless it is an actual error, decisions on manuscripts are final. If, in the estimation of the reviewers and editors, the work does not meet our publication needs and is rejected, then there is no recourse for the author other than to pursue a different publication outlet”.

Disregarding the reviews and engaging in arguments with the editor is not a way to reverse a decision. The best approach is to build your credibility by accepting criticism, striving to improve your work, meeting deadlines, and interacting with the editor as you would a respected colleague. The editor has to balance responsibility to: (1) the sponsor/publisher/ organization, (2) the profession, (3) the readership, (4) the peer reviewers, and (5) the authors.

While it is to be expected that authors care about their work, believe in what they have written, and are the major stakeholders when a manuscript is reviewed, that is no reason for huffy displays of ego and defensiveness. Bear in mind that the editor has the final say, even after the reviews come in, so it isn’t a simply tabulating the reviewers’ votes or calculating a score on an evaluation scale completed by reviewers. Some authors seem to think that they can somehow circumvent the revision process and then become indignant when their work is not accepted for publication. For example, an author indicated that he was “outraged” when a contract was not offered to him. But no amount of ire was going to bully the editor into disregarding three very negative reviews of the manuscript by respected scholars in the field.

When you consider that a typical journal editor gets manuscripts submitted on a daily basis, every day of the year and at any hour of the day, it helps to explain why editors are so selective. This is not to suggest, however, that the editor is always right. The changes that they suggest or make may change the meaning of the work in ways that are unacceptable to the author. Furthermore, an editor can be unreceptive to a new idea at one point, only to see things differently later on. The best that editors can do is to be professional, respectful, and place faith in the team of peer reviewers they have assembled.

Evaluating Other Scholars’ Work

While meeting with a group of doctoral students, a professor suggested that, if they were serious about wanting to publish, they would do well to serve as reviewers of manuscripts submitted to the journals in their areas of specialization. One student wondered aloud, “But, isn’t that sort of ‘the blind leading the blind’? Wouldn’t we need to be widely published ourselves before we started critiquing others?” While this might be the case if reviewing research with complex statistical analysis, there are many publications written primarily for practitioners that would welcome the insights of practicing professionals on the manuscripts submitted. In fact, the perspectives of a professional who is actively working in the field would complement the perspectives of another reviewer who is a widely published scholar. If you agree to review, you also will be given a scoring sheet or a set of questions to help you assess the work, so you will have guidance in how to review. There are many things to be learned from reviewing others’ scholarly work (Table 12.6).

Table 12.6

Benefits of reviewing

The work of reviewing others’ manuscripts can help you to:

Keep current in your field

Demonstrate acceptance of professional responsibility

Document service for tenure/promotion

Expand professional network and identify possible collaborators

Identify resources for teaching, writing, and research

Become an insider in the world of academic publishing

Apply critical thinking to critique of scholarly work

Improve your own writing

Stimulate your thinking about trends, issues, and controversies in the field

(Jalongo, 2002; Gonce, 2013; Randolph, 2009)

Activity 12.3 Self-Assessment of Suitability as a Reviewer

As discussed earlier, it is not necessary to be widely published in order to take on the responsibilities of a reviewer. Use the questions below to self-assess.

Do you get work done and meet deadlines?

Are you knowledgeable in the field? Do you strive to remain current?

Are you willing to give of your time and energy, even in the absence of financial incentives?

Are you able to judge work objectively?

Are you committed to the goals and audience of the outlet for which you hope to serve as a reviewer?

Can you identify with authors and provide concrete, helpful suggestions? Will you challenge their thinking and help them to write an even better manuscript?

Nearly all peer reviewers are volunteers. Although a commercial publisher might pay a small honorarium or permit the reviewer to select a free book from their catalog, peer review is largely a form of uncompensated service to the profession (Table 12.7).

Table 12.7

Guidelines for reviewers

1. Make sure you understand the assignment. Nearly all publications have a set of reviewing questions, guidelines, scoring sheet, or rubric. Follow them as you compose your review

2. Review the manuscript in front of you. Too often, reviewers talk about how they would have written the article, chapter or book. The review is not about you, it is about the author’s work

3. Provide a balanced review. Critique the work in its entirety rather than belabor one point. Do not make the mistake of writing three pages about one sentence in a book manuscript and one page about the remainder of the book, for example

4. Check your work for accuracy. Many times, reviews are written in haste at the last minute and reviewers don’t take the time to re-read. In one memorable example, a reviewer went on and on about the need for a glossary when the book manuscript included one. Sometimes, reviewers will take authors to task about careless errors when their reviews—if it had not been proofed by the editor—would have contained several careless mistakes

5. Provide specific feedback. Be specific about recommendations for improvement but do not “rewrite”. Even if you think the manuscript is practically perfect, you need to support your assessment with evidence. One reviewer, for example, pulled a quotation out of a manuscript and wrote: “I wish I had written those powerful words”

6. Be tolerant of well-documented dissent. It isn’t necessary for you to agree with the authors. At times, reviewers may allow their own philosophy or biases to result in a negative review. For example, a new assistant professor volunteered to review and was given a book manuscript to assess. She did not recommend supporting the book’s publication but, many years later, when prevailing opinions in the field had shifted more in line with the approach of the book, she concluded that the author had been ahead of his time. Fortunately, the author had found an alternative place of publication but she regretted her decision

7. Function as a content expert. Editors are most interested in an assessment of the content, approach, and marketability of a work from your perspective as an expert in the field. Some reviewers mistakenly approach a manuscript like an undergraduate student paper, correcting every spelling, grammatical, and typographical error. None of us is a perfect user of language, so the supposed corrections could be wrong. Most reputable publishers have professionals who do this and, until your work has been subjected to thorough copyediting, you may remain unaware of flaws in your own writing

8. Spare the author embarrassment. Raise the question, even if you aren’t sure about the answer. For example, one author had written that 1 year of a person’s life is equivalent to 7 years of in a dog’s life. The reviewer seemed to recall that this simple formula had been called into question, so she wrote, “Please check; this has been debated in recent years.” In another instance, an author wrote that “Tagalong” was the language spoken in the Philippines and that Spanish is spoken in Portugal—both are incorrect; it is Tagalog and Portuguese

9. Recommend relevant key sources. Presumably, if you are reviewing a manuscript it is because it is within your area of expertise and you may expect to see your work cited there; however, the purpose of the review is not to promote your own work. You might mention other, relevant work but it certainly is not a condition for publication that the author cite it

10. Respond in a timely fashion. It is customary to ask for a review within 1 or 2 months’ time. If you fail to do this, it postpones the decision. If you never complete the review, the editor will need to replace you and this adds another 1 or 2 months to the review process. Decline promptly if you have no intention of reviewing and simply do not have the time. If you have a conflict of interest or if the manuscript is a poor match for your expertise, just say so

11. Be tactful. If a manuscript is poorly wrought, go ahead and reject it but do not punish the author. For instance, one reviewer wrote: “This reads like an undergraduate paper”. The editor felt that this comment was insulting and took it out of the review comments before sharing them with the author. Strive to be collegial and helpful rather than treating review as a way to deliver harsh criticism with impunity

Fraudulent Publication

After a group of doctoral students was assembled for their final, required class together and a student said, “I have a question. I noticed the words ‘in press’ in a reference list. What does that mean, exactly?” “I wondered about that too,” another student commented, “if I get a letter that my article has been accepted, can I put it on my CV as ‘in press’?” The professor replies “A publication is not in press unless it actually is in the production phase. Even if an article has been accepted for publication, it is, strictly speaking, not in press. For example, one of my colleagues had an article accepted for the state level publication of a professional organization and, shortly afterwards, the association decided to cease publishing the journal because it was not cost effective. So, due to circumstances beyond that author’s control, it never was in press or in print. Of course, there are grey areas as well. If a text book publisher advises the authors that the book is going into production, it is difficult to know exactly when that will occur. The safest route is to describe exactly where a manuscript is in the process. Sometimes, in desperation, faculty will list manuscripts that were merely submitted for review as a way to show that they are trying to get published. But this sort of information has no more of a place on the CV than a list of courses you would like to teach someday. After a manuscript has been reviewed, revised, accepted and edited, some publishers will post a typeset copy online. The manuscript appears just as it will when it is published in a particular issue—other than the page numbers. That way, authors have documentation that the article truly is in press and awaiting publication.”

The ethical issues surrounding published manuscripts are complex and have been further compounded by major changes to the communication environment, such as online publications and the internet (American Association of University Professors, 2015). Consider, for example, the following situations.

Situation 1

After making a conference presentation, a professor receives a very flattering e-mail from a book publisher he has not heard of previously. The editor invites him to submit a manuscript. The letter assures him that the book will not be reviewed and promptly published directly from the file he submits without any edits. When he checks the submission policies, he discovers that he has to pay a fee to get the book published.

There is a saying in the business field that, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” The situation just described may result in a book, but it will not count towards tenure and promotion. The absence of a peer review process is an indication that it is a hoax. If a publisher reassures you that your work will not be reviewed or edited, you might as well take your manuscript to the local copy store and have it bound because it is useless from an academic standpoint. This “pay to get published” scheme is commonly referred to as a “vanity press” because the goal is to have a physical copy of a book with your name on it as author and put it on display.

Situation 2

A writing team has their article accepted for a respectable journal in their field. As part of the acceptance process, they are asked if they want to order color reprints or provide open access (OA). Both are very expensive, so they decline and choose to have the work published in black and white in the print journal and available to academic libraries with subscription services to the journal.

Many times, when authors submit a manuscript, they will be asked if they want to provide “open access”. What open access does is to post the work online and make it available to anyone who has a computer, free of charge. Readers do not need access to a university library, a subscription to the journal, or to pay for a download. The author is, in effect, paying for others to read, download, print out, and distribute the work. While this appears to democratize access to research, the fees charged often are exorbitant—sometimes over $1,000 U.S. dollars.

In theory, open access (OA) gives the work the widest possible distribution; however, some questionable publishers have given it a bad name. Generally speaking, reputable scholarly publishers will not require you to pay to have work published. Purchasing color reprints on glossy paper probably is not worth it when you can download black and white copies through a university search engine for free.

Online Tool

For details on Open Access, consult the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, 2003 at http://​www.​earlham.​edu/​~peters/​fos/​bethesda.​htm.

Activity 12.4 Predatory Publishers

At some point, you will receive a very flattering letter inviting you to submit a manuscript to a journal. Before you start writing, click on the “author policies” and “submission guidelines” for the journal. If they have something called an “Author Publication Fee” or “page charges”, beware! These can range from a few hundred to over S1000 U.S. dollars. A good source for checking up on publishers is Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers at http://​scholarlyoa.​com/​publishers/​.

The truth is that what might first appear to be a shortcut turns out to be a detour and dead end. Rather than succumb, make your manuscript as close to perfect as you can get it and work with respected, professional publishers who have a presence in your field.

Becoming an Editor

A faculty member and her doctoral advisee were co-presenting at a conference. To save money, she and the student were sharing a room, so the professor said, “Here’s a learning opportunity for you. I am working to guest co-edit a special issue of this organization’s journal, so I have my evaluations and my co-editor’s evaluations. I’ll keep the identity of the authors confidential. I’m wondering if you might provide a third professional opinion. Your role is to respond as someone who reads the publication regularly, not to edit. Read them as if they appeared in the journal and give your overall impression.” The student agreed and the professor numbered each article and spread them out over the desk. By the second day of the conference, the student had read all of them and jotted down some comments. When it was time to discuss them, there was one article that she felt was “Just—to compare it to movie ratings—only two stars when all others were four and five stars”. When asked why this was the case, the student said, “It’s just dry, dry as dust.” The doctoral student was interested to learn that her assessment of the articles and that of the two co-editors were entirely consistent. So, even at this early stage in her career, she was capable of responding as an editor.

In a way, everybody edits. Authors write and revise manuscripts. Speakers stop in the middle of a sentence to search for a better word. Students go back and refine their lecture notes to make their study time more efficient. All are editing and undertaking the role of the editor: to communicate effectively. In scholarly publishing circles, editors edit journal manuscripts, book manuscripts, reports, and other types of communication. They make sure that the written text of print or online publications are of high quality. They use the reviewers’ assessments to select works for publication, assist in the publication design and manage other responsibilities related to the publication.

In the popular media, book editors often are portrayed in posh New York offices while newspaper editors are seen barking orders at their reporters. Neither expectation applies to editors of scholarly publications. Financial rewards for editing are few, so much so that Plotnick (1982) once commented that disdain for high wages is a very useful attribute of editors. Many times, editors of scholarly publications are “field editors”—meaning that they are employed full time at a university and edit as a service to the professional group. It is likely that they have no clerical support and their office is small space designated for that purpose in their homes. Chances are that they are fellow scholars in the discipline, so boss management and putting writers “on assignment” is unacceptable. Given that many of the scholarly journals and books are published by professional organizations and/or nonprofit groups, financial remuneration often is little to none. Some editors may receive a small honorarium, modest royalties for books, or perhaps no money at all. However, in some instances, their university employers will reduce their teaching loads in exchange for the status of having a respected journal affiliated with the institution.

While the financial incentives are low, the expectations are high. Editors of academic publications need to go beyond their knowledge of grammar, spelling and composition. Ideally, they should be capable of:

Creating a vision for the publication that takes all of the major stakeholders into account

Recognizing high-quality, original work that advances thinking in the field

Keeping pace with technological advances in publishing

Treating the publisher, authors, reviewers and production staff with respect and fairness

Anticipating which manuscripts will be well-received by the intended audience

Identifying modifications to manuscripts that improve their quality

Envisioning the finished product while attending to myriad details

Using resources in a cost-effective fashion (e.g., budget, journal space)

Meeting deadlines despite obstacles

Responding appropriately to problems, complaints, and ethical quandaries

Contributing to the discipline through their work

How can you tell if you have potential as an editor? Editors are expected to be fair, competent, and eager to contribute to the discipline. The majority of editors select this role because they are fascinated with language. They find pleasure in identifying the apt phrase to communicate an idea and complex information in a clear way. They are obsessed with detail, accuracy, and correcting errors in publications. They notice unscientific claims, erroneous statistics, and badly written sentences. Editors may differ in their academic education and experiences, but all are proficient in communicating effectively in using the most appropriate structure, format and content for the target audience and purpose. They simultaneously focus their thinking on the writers, the readers and the sponsors of the publication. Particularly if the publisher is a business, rather than a nonprofit professional organization, the editor needs business sense, familiarity with the field, and marketing savvy.

Although there is greater visibility and prestige associated with the role of editor, editors also encounter pressure and stress. Most editorial duties are accomplished outside of the normal work day. They work long hours, on weekends and during breaks or holidays to meet deadlines. As one small illustration of the time commitment, a survey of U.S. and international editors of scholarly journals in the nursing field found that editors spend an average of 3.5 h working on a “revise and resubmit” manuscript to get it ready for publication (Freda & Kearney, 2005). Considering that this is, by far, the most frequently rendered editorial decision on manuscripts gives a glimpse of the time demands.

As a first step in becoming an editor, scholars first amass extensive experience as peer reviewers. Aspiring editors need to review many manuscripts for the journal to be able to understand its guidelines. They can also volunteer to serve on the journal’s advisory or editorial board. The editor-in-chief usually selects members of the advisory board and will sometimes invite outstanding advisory board members to become an associate editor. Aspiring editors can use the associate editor experience as a form of on-the-job training. In some instances, an advisory or editorial board member will serve as a guest editor for one or more issues of the journal. Look into the policies and practices within your organizations to identify guest editing opportunities; usually, it requires a formal proposal and list of potential authors committed to submitting articles for the special issue. When the journal places a call for a new editor-in-chief, scholars who can demonstrate a track record of successful experiences as advisory board or guest editors are more likely to submit a successful proposal and earn support from the organization to become the next editor-in-chief. In the case of journals that are published by businesses rather than nonprofit organizations, the current editor may be asked to recommend his or her successor and, again, a history of service to the publication is a major factor in these decisions.

Some publishers, such as Springer Nature, publish books that complement the focus of their most successful scholarly journals. Many publishers produce series of books on various topics; aspiring book editors need to study the publisher’s list and discuss their future plans with the sponsoring editor who is an employee of the publishing company or professional organization. Some publishers also are interested in handbooks or encyclopedias to which leaders in the field each contribute a chapter or entry. To some extent, proposing an edited book relies on having an expansive network of scholars in the discipline who are respected, competent, and dependable authors/contributors. The first step is to write a proposal that is sent out for review. The proposal is then sent to the series editor to make an initial decision about whether or not to pursue the project. Next, the authors develop their chapters or entries for the volume and the completed manuscript is sent out for review. Book editors need to manage all of these contacts, follow up with authors, and see to it that the recommended revisions are made. After that, the book goes into typeset proofs for final corrections. After this round of edits, the book goes into production. At each stage along the way, the editor is involved.

Conclusion

The first time that I received three independent and anonymous peer reviews on a book manuscript, I had sufficient foresight to go out to my car and read them rather than remain in my university office. The experience was so memorable that, to this day, I can point out the exact parking space where that event took place. Although most of the comments were far from complimentary, the editor’s letter indicated that she was willing to give me another chance rather than terminate the project. After your work has been criticized, it is difficult to remember that peer review is the cornerstone of scholarship. Without a doubt, negative comments sting. The challenge is to use those barbs to spur you into action that will improve the work. Persistence in getting work published does not consist of just flinging the same manuscript into the review process repeatedly with the faint hope that eventually, it will be accepted.

Higher education is, in many ways, grounded in the peer review process. When college students plan a class presentation together or read and respond to one another’s work, they are learning how to take others’ perspectives into account and use their input to improve the work. When a graduate student submits a thesis or dissertation to the committee and responds to recommendations for improvement, it is a form of dress rehearsal for the peer review process used by respected scholarly journals and publishers. Widely published academic authors have learned to handle peer review with poise and aplomb rather than treat it as a personal attack and ego threat. They are sufficiently mature to realize that it isn’t a simple matter of others being “on their side” or “liking” what they have written; rather, peer review and editing is an appraisal of the thinking on paper and the effectiveness of the presentation of ideas. Instead of being wounded by reviews, think of them as troubleshooting. Avoid dwelling on the disappointments of peer review and capitalize on its contributions to improving your scholarly work. At its best, peer review ferrets out the flaws, enhances the accessibility of the work, and makes you look smarter.

References

American Association of University Professors. (2015). Statement on professional ethics. Retrieved December 30, 2015, from www.​aaup.​org/​report/​statement-professional-ethics

Amodei, M. L., Myers, J., Onchwari, J., Jalongo, M. R., & Gargiulo, R. (2013). Survey of publication outlets in early childhood education: Descriptive data, review processes, and advice to authors. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(2), 115–123.CrossRef

Blyth, E., Shardlow, S. M., Masson, H., Lyons, K., Shaw, I., & White, S. (2010). Measuring the quality of peer-reviewed publications in social work: Impact factors—Liberation or liability? Social Work Education, 29(2), 120–136.CrossRef

Bromley, K. A. (2009). Writing for educators: Personal essays and practical advice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.

Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2005). An international survey of nurse editors’ roles and practices. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(1), 87–94.CrossRef

Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (Eds.). (2003). Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed.). London: BMJ.

Gonce, M. P. (2013b). The importance of being published. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(4), 187–188.CrossRef

Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRef

Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 781–786.CrossRef

Heyman, B., & Cronin, P. (2005). Writing for publication: Adapting academic work into articles. British Journal of Nursing, 14(7), 400–403.CrossRef

Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Ranking disciplinary journals with the Google Scholar h-index: A new tool for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47(3), 579–596.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., Ebbeck, M., & Boyer, W. (2014). Writing for publication as “tacit” knowledge: A focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 241–250.CrossRef

Moos, D. D., & Hawkins, P. (2009). Barriers and strategies to the revision process from an editor’s perspective. Nursing Forum, 44(2), 79–92.CrossRef

Murray, F. B., & Raths, J. (1996). Factors in the peer review of reviews. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 417.CrossRef

Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. C. (2008). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics, 81(3), 635–670.CrossRef

Plotnick, A. (1982). The elements of editing: A modern guide for editors and journalists. New York: Macmillan.

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 14(13). Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​pareonline.​net/​pdf/​v14n13.​pdf

Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the Information Age. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10(1). Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://​quod.​lib.​umich.​edu/​j/​jep/​3336451.​0010.​107?​rgn=​main;view=​fulltext

Stolerman, I. (2009). Preparing manuscripts and responding to reviewers’ reports: Inside the editorial black box. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Saava, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (2nd ed.) (pp. 124–137). London: International Society of Addiction Journal Editors. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​parint.​org/​isajewebsite/​bookimages/​isaje_​2nd_​edition_​chapter9.​pdf

Wang, F. (2007). On the innovative spirit of academic journal editors. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 38(3), 156–161.CrossRef

Wellington, J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2005). Writing for publication: What counts as a ‘high status, eminent academic journal’? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(1), 35–48.CrossRef

West, R., & Stenius, K. (2009). Use and abuse of citations. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Savva, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed. Retrieved March 23, 2015, from http://​www.​parint.​org/​isajewebsite/​bookimages/​isaje_​2nd_​edition_​chapter7.​pdf

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Mary Renck Jalongo and Olivia N. SarachoWriting for PublicationSpringer Texts in Education10.1007/978-3-319-31650-5_13

13. From Novice to Expert

Mary Renck Jalongo1  and Olivia N. Saracho²

(1)

Journal and Book Series Editor Springer, Indiana, PA, USA

(2)

Teaching & Learning, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Abstract

The final chapter of the book will assist readers in assessing their progress and setting future goals for scholarly publication. It advises writers to take stock of the human and material resources that will assist them in meeting their publishing goals, such as: seeking out professional development opportunities, identifying suitable mentors, locating online resources, and participating in writing support groups. This chapter addresses the promise—and the pitfalls—of collaborative writing. Readers are provided with research-based advice that supports them in making good decisions about works that are co-authored, arriving at shared understandings of each author’s responsibilities, deciding how credit will be allocated, renegotiating agreements when situations change, and abandoning unproductive collaborations without losing investments of time and work. Finally, teacher/scholar/authors in Academia are encouraged to rethink the “publish or perish” mantra and replace it with a more growth-supporting concept; namely, publish and flourish.

A doctoral student in a class on writing for publication asked the professor, “Does your writing still get rejected?” “Sure it does!” she responds brightly, “but not very often.” Two weeks later she opens her e-mail to the worst reviews of her life on a book chapter. How could this happen? She had published a successful college textbook on the same topic and had written a chapter for the same series with success in the past. The author’s initial response was to conclude that the reviewers had been harsh for some inexplicable reason; however, while rereading the comments, it became apparent that the she had failed to meet the criteria implicit in each of the questions for reviewers. Mainly, the bad reviews occurred because the author had deluded herself into thinking that she could produce a fine chapter in record time. Now, as children say out on the playground, it would be a “do over” and take much more time than anticipated or allocated. As novelist Annie Dillard (1989) explains, growth as a writer is a balancing act. The writer must:

control his own energies so he can work. He must be sufficiently excited to rouse himself to the task at hand, and not so excited he cannot sit down to do it. He must have faith sufficient to impel and renew the work, yet not so much faith that he fancies he is writing well when he is not. (p. 46)

It is that last bit—thinking that you are writing well when you are not—that gets in the way of many an author. As with other responses to sources of stress, reactions to criticism frequently are “fight or flight.” In the “fight” reaction, authors cling to the contention that they need not change a word, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. They argue, in effect, that they are without peers because they are such intellectual giants and brilliant writers. Conversely, when authors choose the flight mode, they are so wounded by the criticism that they withdraw the manuscript, even if they have been encouraged to revise and resubmit. Yet neither fight nor flight is productive when it comes to scholarly writing. If you continue to write as you’ve always written and resist recommendations for improvement, you have cut off a major avenue for professional growth as an author.

Meeting the Challenges of Writing

Authors should take heart from the sheer number of possible outlets for their work. Jinha (2010) estimates that there are nearly 50 million academic articles in print. Currently, there are approximately 5.5 million scholars, 2000 publishers and 17,500 research/higher education institutions. Indeed, the publisher of this book, Springer, is one of the largest publishers of professional books in the world with 55 publishing houses in 20 countries throughout the world that produce 2900 journals annually and have a catalog of 190,000 books. Surely, with that many possibilities, a diligent scholar can locate a suitable outlet for a manuscript that has been carefully conceptualized, well written, and subjected to critical review prior to submission.

Academic authorship is a form of social discourse and text/identity work as a scholar/author (Kamler, 2008; Kamler & Thomson, 2006). In this approach, neither fight nor flight is the coping mechanism. Instead, authors work to acquire the requisite confidence and skills to enter into the professional dialogue. Kenneth Burke’s (1941) frequently quoted “entering the conversation” metaphor captures the identity work associated with writing for publication:

Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending on the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress. (pp. 110–111)

As authors attempt to merge with the ongoing professional conversation the focus now shifts from receptive language (i.e., listening and reading) to expressive language (i.e., speaking and writing). As Burke’s metaphor so effectively captures, entering into professional dialogue demands quite a bit in terms of confidence, choice of moves, and persistence. Participants must determine when they can speak, what to say, to whom they can say it, and under what conditions they can expect to be heard.

Kamler (2008) found that for doctoral students, in particular, publishing was a source of anxiety, writing in the academic style of their discipline was a struggle, and adopting an authoritative voice amongst their peers required considerable effort. Many students also reported feelings of personal inadequacy and vulnerability to peer criticism. In some instances, however, authors who have amassed successful experiences with writing may begin with confidence, only to have their faith shaken by the new forms of writing demanded of them when writing for publication. Foundational to these changes is self-talk, defined as the inner conversations we have about writing for publication. Figure 13.1 highlights stages in self-talk about challenging tasks that we face.

Fig. 13.1

Stages in self-talk about writing (Sources: Jalongo, 2002; Manning, 1991)

Activity 13.1: Assess Your Self-Talk About Scholarly Writing

Skim over these five perspectives on writing for publication in Fig. 13.1. Select the level that is the best match for your self-talk about writing. If you are in a class or professional development session, tabulate the results for those at your table and then compile them for the entire group.

Table 13.1 uses a psychologist’s analysis of how people meet challenges (Gilbert, 2002, p. 134) and relates it to doctoral candidate Michelle Amodei’s self-talk from her writing journal.

Table 13.1

Stages in meeting the writing challenge

Steps in meeting a challenge

Doctoral candidate Michelle Amodei

Unaware of incompetence

You don’t know that you don’t know. You are unaware of your deficiencies in understanding or skill

“Writing a journal article will be a cinch…I am a good writer and enjoy writing”

“The experience will help me to work toward my professional goals – I want to be published”

“This class will be lots of fun and not too much pressure”

Recognition of limitations

You begin to realize that some new skills that you do not have are required. Now a change is required. Will you dig in your heels and refuse to change, retreat backwards, or summon up the motivation to make a commitment to change?

“There may be more to writing for publication than I thought.”

“I am still pretty sure I’ll do OK – how hard can it be to write a little journal article?”

“I’ve presented at conferences before, so I should be OK with this assignment”

“How do I find a focus?”

“I have lots of ideas, but suddenly they seem all jumbled up in my head”

Painstaking change

Acquiring the new habits is difficult and awkward. Knowledge, skill, and confidence are shaken. Each step requires deliberate effort, like learning to walk for the first time, and you wonder if you’ll ever be able to this

“How do I do this?”

“What do I want to say and to whom am I saying it?”

“What if I have nothing to really contribute to the literature?”

“I can’t find a focus!”

“Perhaps I am starting to understand how to do this”

“I just need to write this thing…”

“Must…keep…trying…”

Automaticity

A new behavioral repertoire is established and, given the great effort to learn it, you want to put it into practice—like the child who has learned to walk with confidence and ease. Eventually, your knowledge, skill, and confidence come together in such a way that it “appears effortless to the casual observer” (Gilbert, 2002, pp. 2–3)

“Hey, I think I’m getting the hang of this.”

“It still needs A LOT of work, but that’s OK!”

“This process is nothing like what I expected, but I like it even better than writing class papers”

“I will keep on writing!”

Levels of Concern Among Authors

Without question, expectations for scholarly writing skills affect scholars at different points across the continuum of professional experience, commencing with newly enrolled graduate students and often persisting until after a professor has retired and achieved emeritus status. Because writing for publication is new to everyone at first, dominant concerns about scholarly writing and publishing frequently follow the same trajectory that has been widely researched as “levels of use of an innovation” or the concerns-based adoption model (CBAM) (Loucks-Horsley, 1996). Novices generally are preoccupied with “self concerns”; as they apply to scholarly writing such concerns can be summarized by the question “Am I a ‘good’ writer in comparison to others at this career stage? Do I have what it takes to become a published author in my field?” After experiencing some initial glimmers of success, scholars begin to transition into “task concerns”; namely, “How can I become more efficient? What, exactly, do I need to do to accomplish this particular writing task?” Finally, after confidence, skills, and a respectable curriculum vita has been built, scholars shift to “impact concerns” with questions such as: “Has my work earned the respect of peers? What will be my contribution to the field?” The underlying assumption is that, in order to succeed as academic authors, graduate students and faculty need to make important transformations in their writing behavior or, to use the current vernacular, they need to “reinvent themselves” periodically to sustain scholarly productivity.

Activity 13.2: The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) as It Applies to Writing

Make a three-column table labeled with the headings Self, Task, and Impact. In the first column, respond to these questions with a list: What concerns do you have about your ability to fulfill the academic author’s role? Are there any experiences—positive or negative—associated with past writing efforts that have shaped your self-concept as a writer? For the second column, make a list to answer these questions: What concerns do you have about the task of writing for publication, submitting your work, and responding to reviews? In what areas will you need to improve? For the third column, make a list to answer these questions: What concerns do you have about the way that your published work is received by others? What contribution to your field would be satisfying to you? At the culmination of your professional career, what do you hope your reputation will be? Now go back through the table and list the material and human resources that could support you at each stage.

Writing expert Georgia Heard (1995) believes that all writers have doubts and fears about their abilities to write. She advises, “Don’t try to avoid the rocks. The obstacles I face – lack of time, too many projects at once – as well as the obstacles all writers face – rejection, criticism, doubts, and insecurities … are impossible to avoid and can be valuable teachers. I gather strength from them. They are an inevitable part of a writer’s life” (pp. 38–39).

Becoming an Academic Author

At what point does a scholar have the right to call herself or himself an author? A professor in his third year had presented at local, state, and one national conference and, with extensive support from his more experienced colleagues, he published one short article in the regional journal for his field. He considered himself to be a scholar because he read widely in his discipline, was an effective instructor of undergraduate courses, and had an impressive record of service at the university and in the larger community. However, when his portfolio was evaluated by his departmental colleagues and the university-wide committee, they disagreed with his self-assessment and noted deficiencies in “scholarly productivity”. Stunned and deflated, the professor talked with a departmental colleague who had been hired the same year. He too had a record of solid teaching and service and, in addition, had made numerous conference presentations, had published two articles in respected professional journals, was awarded an in-house grant for an innovative project, and secured a small external grant to support the project for another year. However, he did not consider himself to be a scholar/author yet; in his mind, there was a “critical mass” of at least four or five major publications necessary before he could regard himself as an author. Yet when departmental and university-wide peers assessed his work, he was commended for his scholarly productivity thus far. As this situation depicts, definitions of scholarly productivity vary, even among faculty members at the same institution and in the same department. So, how much scholarship is enough to remain in good standing at a university?

The answer is that it depends, to a considerable extent, on the institution. However, if professors set as a goal an average of approximately two to three major scholarly writing achievements per year, they will have, at the seventh year (when evaluation for tenure typically takes place) a very respectable showing of scholarly productivity. Many institutions require an external review of faculty credentials when professors are seeking tenure or promotion. External reviewers often are required submit their own credentials in order to establish that they are experts in the field. To prevent favoritism, external reviewers usually need to verify that they do not know the candidate personally, only her or his work. Journal editors often are asked to do this. They have vast experience in comparing the relative merits of manuscripts submitted to their journals and frequently have assessed the portfolios of professors at different ranks in accordance with different institutions’ policies and procedures. Years of this type of service provides a more informed and expansive view of how academics fulfill institutional expectations. Some of the traits that will serve you well as an academic author include:

Willingness to modify writing habits to accomplish various scholarly writing tasks (e.g., journal articles, conference proposals, books, grants, in-house reports)

A conceptual “landscape” of a topic that results from delving deep into the literature

Innovative ideas that advance thinking beyond what is commonly understood

Diligence in refining a manuscript before sharing it with others

Courage to subject work to peer review, both before the work is submitted for publication and after

Confidence to develop an authoritative, yet accessible writer’s voice

Resilience to rebound from disappointment and persistence to try again Ego strength to respond appropriately to reviewers’ and editors’ criticism

Humility to acknowledge that not all of their ideas and manuscripts are equally good (adapted from Jalongo, 2002).

In interviews with doctoral students in education and leadership, many of them assumed that time was the only impediment to publications and that they would suddenly have more time after they moved into higher education positions (Jalongo, Ebbeck, & Boyer, 2014). What they did not seem to anticipate—despite the cautionary words of their instructors to the contrary-was that, just like their first year of being a teacher or a school administrator, they were about to “start all over again”. Perhaps based more on portrayals of higher education faculty in the media than contemporary realities, they envisioned themselves lounging around in well-appointed offices of ivy-covered buildings, ruminating over great ideas. As one student wishfully anticipated, “once the reins come off, once we are in positions, and we can really devote more of our time to scholarship and writing and exploration and inquiry, that will be really a kind of liberating feeling” (Jalongo et al., 2013). Practitioners from many fields may assume that being a professor surely is easier than the job they currently hold, that professors operate as entirely free agents,” and that stressors will be few. No surprise, then, that new higher education faculty report a form of culture shock, with expectations for scholarly writing, research, and publication the major source of angst (Boice, 2000). Of the three major expectations for higher education faculty – teaching, service, and research—doctoral candidates and new faculty members tend to be least familiar with and confident about writing and publishing research, unless or until someone helps them to find their way. During interviews conducted with leaders in the field of education, a well-established author who was interviewed described the identity work required in this way: “…you need to know yourself as a writer…Write to your strengths and admit your weaknesses and think of fear [as a way] to help you ask questions…The timeliness, the ability to know yourself, and the ability to know your audience are the elements that make a successful writer” (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 72).

Activity 13.3: Chronicling Your Growth as a Writer

As you progress through a professional development activity focused on writing, make some notes about your insights. Create a before and after page of the first title and the final one, of a paragraph or section that was revised until it flows, of particularly helpful feedback from others, and a collection of quotations from expert writers that speak to you. If you are in a class or writing workshop, develop a very brief (5-min time limit) presentation with these elements included.

Scholarly Writing as a Project

Traditionally, writing for publication has been approached as tacit knowledge (Polayni, 1966) because it is not learned through direct instruction, emphasizes a procedure, is goal directed, and has value for people in a particular social context (Sternberg, 2004). Most new scholars attain initial success through a combination of informal mentoring experiences combined with their own initiative, diligence, and persistence. As an alternative to these assumptions, we advocate for greater democratization and inclusion of scholars in writing for publication. In other words, if higher education faculty members are expected to publish, then all doctoral students—not just those who are sufficiently fortunate to attract powerful mentors— should have access to this learning. Teaching the skills of writing for publication should be part of the established curriculum rather than left to chance (Lovitts, 2008). Even though faculty recognize the value of writing for publication and students place a high value on acquiring skill in professional writing (Nolan & Rocco, 2009), the fact remains that many doctoral programs do not offer a course on writing for publication. In the absence of knowledge about how to write and publish scholarly work, many future professors lack the kind and amount of support that they need to survive and thrive in Academia.

Publishing During Doctoral Candidature

The single, best predictor of who will go on to become a published scholar is publication while still in graduate school (Robinson & Dracup, 2008). As Lovitts (2005) explains,

In many ways, graduate school is an apprenticeship and socialization experience. Students need to be socialized to doing active research as much as they need to learn objective skills. In order to integrate skills learned in different classes and to grow psychologically, students should have experiences that promote a shift from an adviser’s direction to collaboration, from dependence to independence. (p. 18)

A doctoral program in general and a dissertation in particular is designed to prepare students to conduct original research, inaugurate lifelong intellectual inquiry, and set in motion an upward trajectory of scholarly productivity. However, very few dissertations are transformed into published manuscripts because the authors give up after initial rejection (Heyman & Cronin, 2005). To illustrate, in a study of 593 social work dissertations from 1998 to 2008, only about 29 % of the doctoral program graduates’ work could be located in peer-reviewed articles or books (Maynard, Vaughn, Sarteschi, & Berglund, 2014). Publication in the medical field can be particularly problematic because the writing demanded of health care professionals prior to entering university life often is limited to brief notes (Murray, 2013).

Many students are shocked to discover that only a small fraction of the dissertations written lead to the publication of journal articles or books (Foster, 2009; Hepner & Hepner, 2003; Luey, 2007). There are many reasons why the traditional thesis or dissertation may not be a source of publishable material, including:

A thesis or dissertation is your first attempt at research and, while it was of sufficiently high quality to earn the degree, it may not compare well with the manuscripts produced by more experienced scholars.

Graduate students frequently do not have the resources necessary to support a more comprehensive study. Higher education faculty may have graduate assistants, a grant, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions to support research.

In the interest of earning their degree and graduating, students may not develop their work sufficiently. Published research often consists of multiple studies rather than a single study; for example, a pilot, a study, and then a follow up.

At times, a thesis or dissertation—while useful as an exercise in planning and conducting research – is too local/parochial to be of interest to a wider audience.

Graduate students are often “too close” to their thesis or dissertation to conceptualize it as concise journal article and condense it to its very essence in the format and style required by the publisher.

Even with encouragement and offers of guidance from faculty advisors, graduate students may procrastinate in writing an article, the data become too dated, and the work is no longer publishable.

Misguided graduate students may think that a cut and paste is all that is required to produce an article or book when substantial rewriting actually is required.

Writers of dissertations may lose their enthusiasm for pursuing a line of research beyond the dissertation and move on to a different topic.

Online Tool

Review Pollard’s (2005) recommendations in “From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript” published in the Internet Journal of Mental Health, 2(2) at www.​ispub.​com/​ostia/​index.​php?​xmlfilepath=​journals/​ijmh/​front.​xml

Increasing Opportunities to Publish from the Dissertation

In some countries and universities, doctoral candidates are required to write a monograph—a single, long paper – of publishable quality rather than the traditional, five chapter dissertation. In some doctoral programs students are required students to publish three manuscripts in peer reviewed outlets as a condition for graduation. A more common approach is the three paper option in which students choose between writing a traditional dissertation or publishing three articles. Usually, the student needs to write an introduction that demonstrates how the work is part of his or her research agenda. The risk, of course, is that one or more of the papers will be rejected so it sometimes requires students to work on both types of dissertations simultaneously, just in case the publication option does not work out. The best advice is for doctoral students and advisors is to determine the available options early on and plan accordingly.

Online Tool

View Indiana University’s School of Public Health criteria for a three paper dissertation at http://​www.​pbhealth.​iupui.​edu/​files/​7714/​0252/​0592/​Guidelines_​for_​Dissertation_​of_​Three_​Pap ers.​pdf

Table 13.2 suggests ways to make writing for publication part of the doctoral study.

Table 13.2

Strategies for publishing during doctoral study

Choose a chairperson with a track record of successfully guiding graduate students in publishing their work rather than someone who casually suggests that degree candidates follow through with publication

Begin discussing publication possibilities as the thesis or dissertation is being developed. Even if there is no “three paper” option, some committees are receptive to writing the document in a more publishable way. For example, if the review of the literature chapter is well synthesized into themes, written as a best evidence review, or approached as a meta-analysis, it will have greater publication potential later on

Contact alumni who were successful in getting publications from a thesis or dissertation. Ask them about what they published (e.g., a review of the literature article, a research article, a book) and how they accomplished it. Take their advice to heart

Expect that the work will need to be rewritten for a particular outlet and audience. Some resources to guide graduate students through this process are (Harman, Montagnes, McMenemy & Bucci, 2003; Luey, 2007)

After the thesis or dissertation has been completed, follow up with committee members about the publication potential for the work. What is their advice? Which parts do they consider to be particularly strong? What outlets might be appropriate?

Arrive at a writing arrangement/agreement before you begin to work with a co-author. Do not wait until the manuscript is ready to submit to initiate a discussion about credit for authorship. If roles change in unanticipated ways, renegotiate the agreement. The American Psychological Association's Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (www.​apa.​org/​ethics/​code/​) explicitly states, “Except under exceptional circumstances, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student’s doctoral dissertation” (Sect. 8.​12)

After identifying a possible outlet, check the author guidelines. Often, a document of over 200 pages now will need to be distilled into about 20, double-spaced, 12-point print pages. Search for exemplary studies that are similar in method, rather than content, so that you can use them as a model for your manuscript

Doctoral alumni can be surprisingly naïve about the process of publishing their work. To illustrate, a thick envelope was delivered to the editor of a journal via international express. Inside was a copy of an entire dissertation that was approximately 300 pages in length. A handwritten note on the front read: “Dear editor, Could you please read my dissertation and tell me how to publish an article from it? Thank you very much for your time.” It definitely is not part of a journal editor’s job description to read student dissertations and teach them how to write an article. This situation exemplifies the most common errors committed by graduate students seeking to publish from a thesis or dissertation, namely:

Submitting a lengthy document

Including too many tables, figures, charts, and graphs

Neglecting to rewrite for a diverse audience of researchers

Expecting editors and reviewers to function like advisors rather than evaluators

If you have some doubts about the suitability of the manuscript for a particular outlet, check to see if the editor will accept letters of inquiry or query letters. If so, send a business-like, concise e-mail that provides a title for the proposed article and abstract to the editor. Verify that the work has not been previously published and confirm that, while you understand it would have to be peer reviewed, you are seeking the editor’s opinion about the publication potential for the piece.

Setting a Research Agenda

Shortly after a new dean with a background in counseling was hired, he announced that he would be meeting individually with each faculty member to learn about their professional development plans. As he became immersed in his role, however, that plan never materialized. The dean’s time was consumed by meetings, personnel issues, curriculum initiatives, and other administrative duties. Ultimately, professors were left to their own devices in forging professional development plans. This situation is a common one in Academia. Rather than being “told what to do”, the prevailing assumption is, as one administrator so bluntly stated to a group of faculty, “You’re the ones with Ph.D.s in the field and you are smart people. I expect you to figure it out.” A research agenda (also referred to as a Statement of Research Goals or Research Interests) is a way to make a plan and monitor your own professional growth; it identifies the scholarly work that you intend to accomplish in a specified period of time. Rather than writing grandiose, end-of-career, dream achievements your research agenda sets achievable goals. Early in a career, the research agenda helps to identify a research focus and select which possibilities, resources, and opportunities to follow.

Activity 13.4: Setting Your Research Agenda

A common question at interviews for higher education positions is “What is your research agenda?” While it is probable that you have more than one area of interest, there should not be so many different areas that your research agenda seems random or unfocused. Be aware also that there are some political dimensions to this answer. For instance, if you identify a rather narrow interest and it just happens to be the research area of another faculty member, this may be viewed as encroachment on their territory. Take the time to learn more about the research of the members of the department and how your plans would fit in.

1.

What are your areas of interest and how does your work thus far reflect that theme?

2.

What are your preferred methods of study (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, case studies, interviews, surveys)?

3.

Why does this work matter? How will it contribute to your field?

4.

Where do you see this work headed and how will you accomplish it in this new context?

Online Tool

Read the practical advice of two University of Washington graduate students in Communication, Justin Reedy and Madhavi Murty, on setting a research agenda at Inside Higher Ed https://​www.​insidehighered.​com/​advice/​mentor/​reedy

At various times professors will be called upon to revisit these goals and produce a Research Statement or Summary that represents scholarly accomplishments in a concise form.

There are many variants of this document written for different audiences and purposes. A carefully crafted version of the research agenda often is required for annual review, reappointment, tenure, and promotion; for grant or awards applications; and for web pages or publicity (Argow and Beane, 2009).

Some benefits of a research agenda are:

Maintaining a focus for scholarly work

Monitoring progress toward short- and long-term goals

Discovering ways to be more efficient and productive

Identify emerging interests and areas for self-directed or formal study

Discovering interesting connections among projects

Conducting regular self-evaluation of growth as a scholar

Online Tool

Visit the website of the National Institute for Faculty Equity at Carleton University http://​serc.​carleton.​edu/​facultyequity/​become_​tenured.​html to review a wealth of information about promotion, tenure, and the research agenda.

In 1990, I was honored to be nominated for the Distinguished University Professor award at my institution that had, at the time about 900 faculty members. As part of the process, I had to prepare a research statement. The difficulty here was that cataloging my accomplishments seemed like shameless self-promotion. My strategy was to speak with those who had earned the award in the past and respectfully ask for their advice. The single, best advice I received occurred when a previous recipient suggested, “show the progression” and graciously offered to share a copy of his document. Your research agenda is a way of documenting that progression toward your scholarly goals (Table 13.3).

Table 13.3

Recommendations on preparing a research agenda or statement

Diversify your goals from the start. Don’t allow everything to hinge on the success of a single project (e.g., a book or one major grant)

Set multi-leveled goals. For example, the majority could be ones that you are almost certain to attain (e.g., two conference proposals), a couple that are moderately difficult (e.g., a collaborative article with a prolific author and an in-house small grant to support research), and some that represent a stretch (e.g., a presentation of research at a peer-reviewed conference and an article in a peer-reviewed journal)

Tailor the statement to the purpose and audience. It will be a very different statement if it is written for your Department, an international professional organization in your field, a university-wide committee, or a grant to be reviewed by community members. Each of these audiences has different background knowledge of your project and the terminology in your field. Be careful to define your terms and avoid excessive jargon

Devote intensive effort to crafting the statement. Just because it is short, that does not mean it is easy to write, so do not wait until the last minute. Set it aside and come back to it many, many times. Proofread carefully because even one error will detract from others’ opinions of you

Seek input on the statement. Ask trusted and accomplished colleagues to be completely honest and critique the statement before submitting it to a larger audience. Heed their advice

Online Tool

At each juncture in a higher education career (e.g., tenure, instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, professor), it is typical to ask faculty to review their work. Look at the Michigan State University sample letters for faculty at each stage; they are an outgrowth of the research agenda and statement. http://​www.​hr.​msu.​edu/​performance/​facacadstaff/​sampleLetters.​htm

One widely recommended way of advancing a research agenda is to institute practices that make it more collaborative, such as writing with a mentor (see Chap.​ 1, pp. 3–26), writing with a colleague within or outside your academic department, forming a diverse writing team with scholars from other institutions or countries, or participating in a writers’ support group.

Collaborative Writing

When we connect with someone else’s writing, we hear them out and give them our full attention. When we interact with other writers and writing as individuals, we use language as a tool for social interaction (Kimble, Hildreth, & Bourdon, 2006). Yet the way that authors define collaboration can vary considerably. Some authors sit side-by-side and compose text simultaneously, others pass works-in-progress back and forth electronically—for example, using Googledocs or a wiki (Wright, Burnham, & Hooper, 2012), and still others wait until the work is nearly finished and review each other’s manuscripts using the “track changes” feature of Word. For some authors, collaboration is a preferred work style, almost irrespective of the project (Cantwell & Scevak, 2010). Many graduate students and less experienced faculty members find that collaborating with senior faculty members can be a way to inaugurate their scholarly writing and publication. Even for vastly experienced academic authors, collaboration often constitutes a contribution to the next generation of scholars and a sense that the field will be in capable hands in the future. Collaboration also has intuitive appeal because it can make an otherwise daunting writing project more manageable. Despite these potential advantages of coauthorship, many scholarly authors make errors in establishing and managing these important professional relationships (Moxley & Taylor, 1997). Making good decisions is every bit as essential in interrelationships between authors as it is in other interpersonal relationships. In many ways, writing together is a marriage of the minds, professional goals, and work habits of collaborators.

As a first step, consider the contributions people in the process could ideally make as well as the potential for disaster (Table 13.4).

Table 13.4

Collaborative professional writing: perquisites and caveats

Perquisites

Caveats

Reciprocal trust/respect, colleagueship/friendship with a kindred spirit that may not be available elsewhere

Disagreements may surface about credit for authorship, contracts, or when the work is “ready” for submission

Complementary areas of expertise that enrich and enlarge perspectives

Distinctive styles (e.g., a linear thinker and a creative thinker) make it difficult to write in a consistent voice

Accomplishment of more ambitious projects through division of labor

Co-authors may slow—or even ruin—a project when they do not fulfill their commitments for various reasons

Rapid peer review of work and ongoing feedback as the manuscript is developed

A vision for the work endorsed by one collaborator may be the very thing that is most criticized by reviewers

Mutual encouragement can build motivation to persist, despite difficulties

One collaborator’s decision to postpone or abandon the project can result in disputes over intellectual property or loss of work

More rapid completion of the project and publication in a timely fashion

The timetable for completion may differ; for instance, if one author is on sabbatical leave while another is working full time

Authors can depend upon one another to sustain momentum and build confidence in attaining project goals

The relative importance of the project to authors may differ considerably; for example, one author may desperately “need” a publication while another does not

Affiliation with a prolific author can elevate the status of the novice

A co-author may exploit the work of the novice and fail to give appropriate credit

A satisfying and enduring writing relationship can be negotiated and confirmed contractually

Conflicts over appropriate credit for authorship and contractual terms may surface as writing relationships change

Activity 13.5: Forging a Writing Relationship

Writing relationships should not be entered into lightly. You are, in effect living with another author when you agree to collaborate, so choose co-authors as carefully as a roommate. Using Table 13.4 as a guide, evaluate some individuals you are considering as collaborators.

Collaboration with other authors—as with other relationships, ranging from domestic to business partners—is a joy when it works and a torment when it does not. Once, after investing many, many hours on a manuscript co-authored with a doctoral student, a commercial publisher selected it for a book that was published as a collection of readings. Shortly afterwards, the professor received an accusatory letter from the student, demanding to know the “financial arrangements” and why she had not been consulted first. The truth was that the professor was just as surprised as she was. Neither author had been consulted because the copyright was transferred to a professional organization when the article was first published in the journal. The “payment” for the article was exactly zero. The professor was deeply offended by the letter and regretted having invested so much time and energy in helping this student to get published. So, even though the article produced through collaborative work was successful, the collaboration was not.

Online Tool

Check to see if your institution has a site license with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) http://​www.​citiprogram.​org. If so, complete the Authorship module that discusses ethical issues in intellectual property.

Allocating Credit for Authorship

A university faculty member talked at length about the expectation that, after chairing a dissertation and devoting considerable time to helping the student fashion a publishable research article, the program graduate seemed reluctant to list the advisor as second author. Although the advisor felt this expectation had been communicated prior to embarking on the task and again at the conclusion, the situation had not been resolved:

it would not really matter that much whether I had one more article for publication or not…what mattered was that I thought that, just for professional growth, I should remind her of what we have discussed. But then, personally, it makes me very uncomfortable to ask…I struggled quite a bit and then I had to consult my colleagues [and one said] “You know, sometimes students… they just don’t know. You just have to remind them,” so I did…I sent her an email and …I haven’t heard back from her – this is very recent – I told her either way, your choice, you have to ask yourself are you comfortable? And if you disagree with me, I won’t hold any negative opinions toward you, but I realize that we have different opinions toward this authorship or collaboration…I would be uncomfortable just to let it go and instead I shared my thoughts with her. (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 79)

Two things are noteworthy here. First, the dissertation advisor consulted with colleagues about it to get multiple opinions about the ethical course of action. Second, even though the situation was disturbing and awkward, the advisor felt an obligation to educate the advisee about ways to determine credit for authorship. The simple fact is that inexperienced, desperate, and/or unscrupulous authors often underestimate or overestimate the contributions of others to a manuscript.

When judging contributions to published work, there is a definite hierarchy. Conceptualization comes first, followed by amount of writing produced, and finally, other work completed to support the project (e.g., locating articles, entering data). So, if you are a graduate assistant and your professor designs a study and writes the article while you search for related articles and type the interview transcripts into NVivo, your contribution would be appropriately handled as an acknowledgement. The reason for this is that your work has been close to clerical while the professor’s work relied on high level thinking and highly specialized expertise. You may have logged many hours on the project but you did not conceptualize the research or actually write the manuscript; you provided support services, you were compensated for the work, and you can lay no claim to ownership/authorship. So, just as a professional typist may prepare a dissertation and have no expectation of being an author, a graduate assistant who merely enters data for a project that was designed, conducted, and written by someone else is not an author either. There have been numerous lawsuits over the years concerning conflicting expectations for authorship from students and faculty, and although some students surely have been exploited by faculty, as long as they were paid to do the work that supported a project, they tend to lose the case seeking recognition as an author.

This same hierarchy applies when faculty are working together. To illustrate, two departmental colleagues met briefly to discuss the possibility of co-authoring a manuscript. There was no plan, just a conversation about a shared area of interest. In early December, one of the faculty members returned home and spoke with her former dissertation advisor. He edited a national newsletter and he invited her to submit a manuscript on the topic for a particular audience; however, it would need to be submitted very quickly to be included in a thematic issue. This meant that much of the work would have to be accomplished during the spring break. Her potential co-author was traveling throughout the break and indicated that she did not have time to do any work on it; however, after the manuscript was successfully published, she was irate. Even though her colleague had conceptualized the article and had written every word herself, she persisted in the belief that she should have been a co-author merely because they had talked about writing together.

Where credit for authorship is concerned, writing is more important than talking. Everyone listed as an author should have made a significant contribution to designing the work and/or to actually generating portions of the manuscript. A person should not be listed as an author as a “courtesy” or “favor”; for example, if a dean’s only involvement with a grant is to sign off on the proposal, he or she is not an author. People who merely facilitated the project should be recognized through an acknowledgement rather than co-authorship. A guiding principle in all of this is the definition of authorship that was discussed earlier; remember that there were two key elements: being the originator of the work and being responsible for the content of the manuscript. Stated plainly, anyone listed as an author should be very familiar with the work and capable of fielding questions about it. It does not matter if these people are personal friends or supervisors. Someone who is barely familiar with the work cannot be expected to do this. Giving credit where it is not due is just as egregious as neglecting to give credit when it is due.

Even experienced faculty members are sometimes surprised to learn that manuscript style guides, such as the American Psychological Association Manual, include a discussion of how to determine credit for authors. For example, I recently worked with a former doctoral student on a book about autism spectrum disorders and my support of the project was to write one chapter of the nine and generally coach her on how to write a book. When it was time to determine credit, my suggestion was that my name be put on that one chapter and that she would be the book author. The title page would read Tricia Shelton with Mary Jalongo rather than and so that it would be clear I am not the expert here. One of the best indicators of ethical behavior is the faculty member’s reputation across and outside of the university. Check up on people. When you have a choice of co-authors, prefer those individuals who will work at relatively thankless, uncompensated tasks rather than limiting his or her contributions to high visibility projects with a price tag attached. Do not allow affability to sway you into thinking that a collaborator will behave in a principled fashion where scholarly achievements are concerned. As one former chairperson used to say, “Tenure and promotion pressures can change people” and, I might add, not necessarily for the better.

So, how do three people who worked on a research project decide whose name goes first?

It depends (Hayter et al. 2013). You need to discuss credit for authorship candidly and decide if someone did more of the conceptualization and writing. If so, that person would be listed first. Furthermore, if one person started out as the leader and, for a variety of reasons, did not follow through, then a renegotiation is in order. What if authors write together and all agree that each contributed equally to the manuscript? Arranging the names alphabetically sometimes implies that the first author did more of the work. Under these circumstances, a notation such as: “The authors’ names are listed alphabetically; however, each contributed equally to the work.” Another solution—but one that will work only if a writing team is very productive – is to take turns being listed as first author.

All of this may sound a bit strange at first, but think about what happens if faculty are being evaluated for tenure or promotion university-wide, you are on the committee, and someone says “I happen to know that person really did not deserve to be listed as an author on that book.” Many universities, in fact, have a weighting system for assessing faculty work or will require that the person being evaluated supply letters from co-authors attesting to the contributions made. For example, a faculty member seeking promotion was required by the university-wide committee to get verification from co-authors about how much he had contributed to a book chapter published in a colleague’s book. He was angry when the lead author for the chapter estimated his contribution to be 25 % because he had few publications and wanted his contribution to be 50%. His co-author remained calm, sat down, and went through the chapter, page by page. Out of the 20 pages, only about three were his work and, even then, it had to be heavily edited to be useful at all. The remainder had been written by the other two authors so, if anything, a 25 % contribution was a generous estimate. Reputable scholars are scrupulously fair about these matters and tend to err on the side of being generous rather than grabbing all of the credit for themselves.

Dealing with Irresponsible Co-authors

While it frequently is assumed that writing with someone else is a time-saving strategy that is not necessarily the case. For example, a widely published scholar can more efficiently write a book proposal independently than coach a novice in how to do this, yet they often will do this out of a commitment to mentoring the next group of scholars. While writing with one or more other scholars does not necessarily make the task easier, it should yield a better finished product than what one author could generate alone. This cannot happen if a co-author fails to deliver. As one published author explained, “I’ve had trouble with collaborators. Actually, I had someone break a contract on a book…And it totally changed my workload in relation to that project, so it was… my worst experience with publication” (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 75). In another case, a writing team had to renegotiate their roles when one person failed to produce anything:

So, one of the things I’ve done in the past was I have searched my soul on ‘Were we clear in terms of our different responsibilities, did everybody agree on them, who was writing what, when, whatever?’ So that was the first thing that I had to do there. The second thing was to talk to other people on the writing team. I told them I was really concerned about the fourth person on our team: what were we going to do about it? she wasn’t writing anything, and we were moving toward a deadline. So the three of us came up with a couple of things…that did not work…we wanted to give her the opportunity to lead but, in the end, the three of us agreed to talk to her, and move her to the last author because she did not pull her weight. (Jalongo, 2013b, p. 75)

Supports for Scholarly Authors

Adult learning theory suggests that most of us pursue important goals in spurts; in other words, through projects (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007). Think of writing for publication as a self-improvement project and pursue it with the same self-direction and intensity you would devote to a personal project, such as becoming physically fit. To accomplish such goals, you’ll need, at the minimum:

Supportive interactions with more experienced authors

Access to print/nonprint resources

Training opportunities (Geller & Eodice, 2013).

Many times, there are special workshops, panel discussions, seminars, and pre- or post-conference sessions on writing for publication that are part of professional conferences. Study the program carefully to match these opportunities to your particular needs.

Writing Groups

Numerous studies have investigated the effect of writing groups on scholarly productivity (Grant, 2006; Lee & Boud, 2003). Evidently, there are some unifying characteristics of successful writers’ groups (Ness, Duffy, McCallum, & Price, 2014). Perhaps the most critical is that participants must be held accountable for producing written work; otherwise, the group can be dominated by complaining and making excuses.

Activity 13.6: Writing Support from Individuals and Groups

Review the announcements about faculty accomplishments to identify individuals who are widely acknowledged to be prolific publishers—as well as helpful colleagues. Scan the calendar to identify events that can support your goals sponsored by various groups. For example, the library may offer some training on search strategies; the graduate school, help with APA formatting; or a research office, assistance with data analysis software. Check into webinars and other online resources endorsed by your institution as well. If you are a faculty member, find out if there is a support group for academic authors and if not, propose one that would involve local experts.

Improving as a Writer

Taken as a group, the best academic authors I have met are gracious, humble, responsive to recommendations for improvement and particularly hard working. Some attributes to aim for as you strive to improve as a writer are highlighted in Table 13.5.

Table 13.5

Gift and talents to develop as a writer

Attention to detail. Writers are perfectionists, but not at first. At the outset, they accept they tolerate flaws in logic and poorly written prose. However, rather than despairing, they systematically attack those problems through a series of substantive revisions. They strive for excellence

Creativity. Gifted writers are constantly attracted to novelty and original ways of expressing ideas. They avoid tired phrases and clichés. They invent quotable phrases rather than relying too heavily on quotations from others. Their manuscripts usually begin and end in their own words. When an illustrative example is called for, they draw upon their own experiences

Perceptivity. Due to their immersion in the literature, gifted academic authors are capable of anticipating future directions and emergent issues. They also have learned how to read as a writer. This means that they study, not just the content but also the format of others’ writing as a route to improving their own. They can visualize, for example, the organizational structure of the piece just as an x-ray reveals the skeleton underneath the human body. They notice particularly powerful examples and skillful ways of making complex ideas accessible and attempt to emulate this in their own work

Intensity. Effective writers will persist at a writing task well beyond what others can endure. They are willing to invest tremendous effort and time into a piece of writing and seldom are satisfied with writing that most would consider “good enough.” Even the smallest writing task, such as writing a letter of recommendation, is approached as an opportunity to write well

For more advice on developing as an academic author, see Goodson (2013)

Activity 13.7: Words of Wisdom

There are some universals about writing well that transcend disciplinary boundaries. Quotations from highly respected authors—whether they are novelists or scholars – often are a source of inspiration to aspiring authors. Using books of quotations about writing or select quotes about writing online at sites such as Bartlett’s Quotations http://​www.​bartleby.​com/​100/​ or brainyquote.com to locate a quotation that speaks to you at this juncture in your professional development.

Conclusion

As a session on writing for publication for faculty came to a close, I made the group an offer: “If you are willing to take the risk of sending your manuscript to me then I promise to read it and give you advice on how to improve it.” At first, this might seem rather foolhardy—surely I would be deluged with manuscripts. But that is not what happened. A handful of manuscripts trickled in and years of editorial experience made it comparatively easy to suggest the changes that needed to be made. One participant who submitted a manuscript was a professor of health and physical education. He had invested considerable effort in gathering original source documents and conducting interviews to write an article about a local sports team with an interesting history. I admired his tenacity because, although he was nearing retirement, he was determined to get the piece published and his manuscript had been rejected—twice—by a regional publication. Not long afterwards, the proud author sent me an envelope. The note inside said that he was wrapping up his career on a high note and already had another idea for an article; this time, he was going to aim for journal with anonymous peer review. A copy of the publication with his article flagged was inside. It included this line: Acknowledgement: The author wishes to thank Mary Renck Jalongo, a Professional Development Institute leader for Phi Delta Kappa, for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript. Shortly afterwards, another letter arrived in the mail, this time from the editor. He said that, after he saw the Acknowledgement, he wanted to convey his appreciation for and admiration of my ability to advise writers on how to make their work publishable. I still remember that, rather than using the customary signoff of “Sincerely yours” he chose instead “Respectfully”. This incident captures the professional development dimension of writing for publication. When we dare to write and edit, support one another’s efforts, set new goals and meet them, it equips us to enrich and enlarge our contributions to the field. The motives of admirable writers are pure. Self-aggrandizement is not their purpose; making a contribution is.

Developing into a successful academic author demands intelligence, defined as: “Purposive adaptation to, shaping of, and selection of real-world environments relevant to one’s life” (Sternberg, 1985, p. 271). Based on Sternberg’s theory,

Writers need analytical (componential) intelligence to analyze situations and select a suitable problem-solving strategy, to monitor cognitive processing, and to identify effective strategies for storing, retrieving, and expanding knowledge.

Writers need creative (experiential) intelligence to arrive at insights, synthesize information, and identify original ideas; they automatize routine skills so that they have more mental resources to respond to novel situations.

Writers need practical (contextual) intelligence to relate their internal worlds to the external world. To achieve goals, they adapt to the environment, modify the environment, or change to a different environment.

To maximize success, authors first need to trust themselves as learners and to believe that, with collegial support, resilience in the face of less-than-enthusiastic feedback, and dedication to craft, they have the capacity to meet or exceed peers’ expectations for manuscripts. Furthermore, no matter how accomplished or admired writers become, they must humbly accept that not all of their ideas are equally good nor all of their writing, publishable. Perhaps most important, the academic author needs to embrace the idea that becoming a writer is never a finished project; there are always new skills to acquire, new tasks to tackle, and different audiences or outlets to reach. The last, great outgrowth of a successful career in scholarly writing is wisdom that can be of service to other scholars. The most capable of academic authors have an obligation to replicate what others have done for them, such as sparing them at least some of the missteps and frustrations associated with contributing to a field through professional writing and publication.

Rather than uncritically accepting the “publish or perish” mantra that has dominated higher education for decades, today’s scholars, researchers, and practitioners would be better served by a fresh approach: publish and flourish. In positive psychology, the word flourish refers to optimizing human potential; thriving in a vigorous and healthful way; rebounding from difficulties or disappointments; and promoting goodness, generativity and growth (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). While there is little question that Academia carries with it a number of pressures and stressors it is also true that, like hot house gardening, it provides a rarified environment capable of accelerating growth. First, there are bright, competent people with different areas of expertise assembled in one location who can offer support in various ways at different times. Second, there are structures in place to recognize scholarly work and reward achievements. Third, there are tough but fair critics and reviewers who can “pre-review” a work and identify its flaws well before a manuscript is subjected to the formal review system. Capitalizing on such resources, however, requires authors to act out of a sincere desire to improve and refine their work. Angst and arrogance are the academic author’s nemesis. The former undermines resolve and the latter inhibits learning from mistakes.

From the outset of this book we have made no claim that we know secrets sufficiently powerful to convert writing into an effortless and wildly profitable venture. What we can promise is that, if you invest a professional lifetime in fulfilling the role of the teacher/scholar/researcher, it will exert a positive effect on your academic life, your network of colleagues in the field, and sense of satisfaction at career’s end. In our view, such things as earning the esteem of peers, working with a trusted writing partner, being helpful to practitioners, or mentoring the next generation of scholars are of inestimable value. Excellence in scholarly writing is a major mechanism for accomplishing these important goals.

References

Argow, B., & Beane, R. (2009). Developing your research statement. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from http://​serc.​carleton.​edu/​NAGTWorkshops/​careerprep/​jobsearch/​research_​statement.​html

Boice, R. (2000). Advice for new faculty members. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Burke, K. (1941). Four master tropes. The Kenyon Review, 3(4), 421–438.

Cantwell, R. H., & Scevak, J. J. (Eds.). (2010). An academic life (pp. 16–24). Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.

Dillard, A. (1989). The writing life. New York: HarperCollins.

Foster, R. L. (2009). Publishing your dissertation [Editorial]. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14(1), 1–2.CrossRef

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.CrossRef

Geller, A. E., & Eodice, M. (Eds.). (2013). Working with faculty writers. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Gilbert, I. (2002). Essential motivation in the classroom. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRef

Goodson, P. (2013). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grant, B. M. (2006). Writing in the company of other women: Exceeding the boundaries. Studies in Higher Education, 31(4), 483–495.CrossRef

Harman, E., Montagnes, I., McMenemy, S., & Bucci, C. (Eds.). (2003). The thesis and the book: A guide for first-time academic authors. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Hayter, M., Noyes, J., Perry, L., Pickler, R., Roe, B., & Watson, R. (2013). Who writes, whose rights, and who’s right? Issues in authorship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(12), 2599–2601.CrossRef

Heard, G. (1995). Writing toward home: Tales and lessons to find your way. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hepner, P. P., & Hepner, M. J. (2003). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation, and research: A guide for students in the helping professions. Baltimore: Brookes/Cole.

Heyman, B., & Cronin, P. (2005). Writing for publication: Adapting academic work into articles. British Journal of Nursing, 14(7), 400–403.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(1), 65–79. doi:10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y.CrossRef

Jalongo, M. R., & Heider, K. (2014). Re-examining the literature review: Purposes, approaches, and issues. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in early childhood education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jalongo, M. R., Ebbeck, M., & Boyer, W. (2013). Writing for publication as “tacit” knowledge: A focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42, 241–250.CrossRef

Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23(3), 258–263.CrossRef

Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 283–294.CrossRef

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. New York: Routledge.

Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. M., & Bourdon, I. (2006). Communities of practice: Creating learning environments for educators (Vol. I). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187–200.CrossRef

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1(1), n1.

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91(6), 18–23.CrossRef

Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 296–325.CrossRef

Luey, B. (2007). Revising your dissertation: Advice from leading editors. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Manning, B. H. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction (csi) for classroom processes. Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

Maynard, B. R., Vaughn, M. G., Sarteschi, C. M., & Berglund, A. H. (2014). Social work dissertation research: Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer? British Journal of Social Work, 44(4), 1045–1062.CrossRef

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Self-directed learning. Learning in Adulthood, 105–129.

Moxley, J. M., & Tayler, T. (Eds.). (1996). Writing and publishing for academic authors (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Murray, R. (2013). Writing for academic journals. Boston: Pearson.

Ness, V., Duffy, K., McCallum, J., & Price, L. (2014). Getting published: Reflections of a collaborative writing group. Nurse Education Today, 34(1), 1–5.CrossRef

Nolan, R., & Rocco, T. (2009). Teaching graduate students in the social sciences writing for publication. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(2), 267–273.

Polayni, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Pollard, R. Q. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 2(2). Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.​ispub.​com/​ostia/​index.​php?​xmlfilepath=​journals/​ijmh/​ front.​xml

Robinson, S., & Dracup, K. (2008). Innovative options for the doctoral dissertation in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 56, 174–178.CrossRef

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Wisdom and giftedness. In M. Ferrari & L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wright, V. H., Burnham, J. J., & Hooper, L. M. (2012). Faculty collaboration: How a wiki enhanced communication, organization, accessibility, and management of writing a book. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), 43–46.

References

Albers, C. A., Floyd, R. G., Fuhrmann, M. J., & Martínez, R. S. (2011). Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (6), 669–689.

American Association of University Professors. (2015). Statement on professional ethics . Retrieved December 30, 2015, from www.​aaup.​org/​report/​statement-professional-ethics

American Association of University Professors. (2016). Sample intellectual property policy and contract language . Retrieved March 5, 2016, from http://​www.​aaup.​org/​issues/​copyright-distance-education-intellectual-property/​sample-ip-policy-language#what is

American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35 (6), 33–40.

American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38 (6), 481–486.

American Evaluation Association. (2004). AEA guiding principles for evaluators . http://​www.​eval.​org/​p/​cm/​ld/​fid=​51

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What do they need to be? American Psychologist, 63 (9), 839–851.

Amodei, M. L., Myers, J., Onchwari, J., Jalongo, M. R., & Gargiulo, R. (2013). Survey of publication outlets in early childhood education: Descriptive data, review processes, and advice to authors. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41 (2), 115–123.

Anderson, C. (2002). Write grants, get money . ERIC Document Service Reproduction No. ED 459 809.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Andrade, C. (2011). How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53 (2), 172–175.

Annesley, T. M. (2009). Preparation of manuscripts for publication: Improving your chances for success. Clinical Chemistry, 55 (7), 1259–1264.

Annesley, T. M. (2010a). Bars and pies make better desserts than figures. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (9), 1394–1400.

Annesley, T. M. (2010b). Bring your best to the table. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (10), 1528–1534.

Annesley, T. M. (2010c). If an IRDAM journal is what you choose, then sequential results are what you use. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (8), 1226–1228.

Annesley, T. M. (2010d). “It was a cold and rainy night”: Set the scene with a good introduction. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (5), 708–713.

Annesley, T. M. (2010e). Put your best figure forward: Line graphs and scattergrams. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (8), 1229–1233.

Annesley, T. M. (2010f). Show your cards: The results section and the poker game. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (7), 1066–1070.

Annesley, T. M. (2010g). The abstract and the elevator talk: A tale of two summaries. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (4), 521–524.

Annesley, T. M. (2010h). The discussion section: Your closing argument. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (11), 1671–1674.

Annesley, T. M. (2010i). The title says it all. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (3), 357–360.

Annesley, T. M. (2010j). Who, what, when, where, how, and why: The ingredients in the recipe for a successful methods section. Clinical Chemistry, 56 (6), 897–901.

Annesley, T. M. (2011). Giving credit: Citations and references. Clinical Chemistry, 57 (1), 14–17.

Annesley, T. M., Boyd, J., & Rifai, N. (2009). Publication ethics: Clinical chemistry editorial standards. Clinical Chemistry, 55 (1), 1–4.

Argow, B., & Beane, R. (2009). Developing your research statement . Retrieved November 6, 2011, from http://​serc.​carleton.​edu/​NAGTWorkshops/​careerprep/​jobsearch/​research_​statement.​html

Arnon, S., & Reichel, N. (2007). Who is the ideal teacher? Am I?—Similarity and difference in perception of students of education regarding the qualities of a good teacher and of their own qualities as teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13 (5), 441–464.

Arnon, S., & Reichel, N. (2009). Closed and open-ended question tools in a telephone survey about “The Good Teacher”: An example of a mixed method study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3 (2), 172–196.

Association of College and Research Libraries & American Library Association. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for higher education . Chicago, IL: Authors.

Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor-rated: The Ph.D. by published work. Quality Assurance in Education, 17 (4), 331–342.

Baggs, J. G. (2008). Issues and rules for authors concerning authorship versus acknowledgements, dual publication, self-plagiarism, and salami publishing. Research in Nursing & Health, 31 (4), 295–297.

Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international students (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bannink, A., & Van Dam, J. (2007). Bootstrapping reflection on classroom interactions: Discourse contexts of novice teachers’ thinking. Evaluation and Research in Education, 20 (2), 81–99.

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baruch, Y., Konrad, A., Aguinis, H., & Starbuck, W. (Eds.). (2008). Opening the black box of editorship . New York, NY: Pelgrave Macmillan.

Bazerman, C., & Prior, P. (Eds.). (2004). What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices . New York, NY: Routledge.

Beck, J. (2011). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Becker, H. S. (2007). Writing for social scientists (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Belcher, W. L. (2009). Writing your journal article in twelve weeks: A guide to academic publishing success . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Benge, C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Mallette, M. H., & Burgess, M. L. (2010). Doctoral students’ perceptions of barriers to reading empirical literature: A mixed analysis. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5 , 55–77.

Benson, P. J., & Silver, S. C. (2013). What editors want: An author’s guide to scientific journal publishing . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social influences on fertility: A comparative mixed-methods study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Mixed-Methods Research, 1 (1), 23–47. doi: 10.​1177/​2345678906292238​1-27 .

Bianchi, R., Schonfeld, I. S., & Laurent, E. (2014). Is burnout a depressive disorder? A reexamination with special focus on atypical depression. International Journal of Stress Management, 21 (4), 307–324.

Blyth, E., Shardlow, S. M., Masson, H., Lyons, K., Shaw, I., & White, S. (2010). Measuring the quality of peer-reviewed publications in social work: Impact factors—Liberation or liability? Social Work Education, 29 (2), 120–136.

Boice, R. (1990). Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing . Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Boice, R. (2000). Advice for new faculty members . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bondi, M., & Sanz, R. L. (Eds.). (2014). Abstracts in academic discourse: Variation and change . New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34 (6), 3–15.

Booth, W. C., Columb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2008). The craft of research (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bourne, P. E., & Chalupa, L. M. (2006). Ten simple rules for getting grants. PLoS Computational Biology, 2 (2), e12.

Boyd, J., & Annesley, T. M. (2014). To P or not to P: That is the question. Clinical Chemistry, 60 (7), 909–910. doi: 10.​1373/​clinchem.​2014.​226282 .

Boyd, J. C., Rifai, N., & Annesley, T. M. (2009). Preparation of manuscripts for publication: Improving your chances for success. Clinical Chemistry, 55 (7), 1259–1264.

Boyer, E. L., Moser, D., Ream, T. C., & Braxton, J. M. (2015). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (expanded 2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda . New York, NY: SpringerBriefs in Entrepreneurship and Innovation.

Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38 (1), 1–67.

Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36 (5), 694–707.

Brenan, G. (n.d). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​forbes.​com/​quotes/​author/​gerald-brenan/​#!

Brim, G. (1992). Ambition: How we manage success and failure throughout our lives . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bromley, K. A. (2009). Writing for educators: Personal essays and practical advice . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.

Bronstein, L. R., & Kovacs, P. J. (2013). Writing a mixed methods report in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23 (3), 354–360.

Brookfield, S. D. (2015). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Broome, M. E. (2004). Self-plagiarism: Oxymoron, fair use, or scientific misconduct? Nursing Outlook, 52 , 273–274.

Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). Nelson-Denny reading test: Manual for scoring and interpretation, forms G and H . Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Brown, L., & Jalongo, M. R. (1987). Parent-teacher conferences. PTA Today, 12 (1), 14–16.

Bruce, C. S. (1994). Research students’ early experiences of the dissertation literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 19 (2), 217–230.

Burgess, L., Benge, C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Mallette, M. H. (2012). Doctoral students’ reasons for reading empirical research articles: A mixed analysis. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12 (3), 5–33.

Burke, K. (1941). Four master tropes. The Kenyon Review, 3 (4), 421–438.

Burnard, P. (2004). Writing a qualitative research report. Accident and Emergency Nursing, 12 (3), 176–181.

Burrough-Boenisch, J. (2003). Shapers of published NNS research articles. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3), 223–243.

Butler, O. (n.d). Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://​dduane.​tumblr.​com/​post/​97491378861/​first-forget-inspiration-habit-is-more

Byrd, P., & Benson, B. (1994). Problem/solution: A reference for ESL writers . Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Callender-Price, N. (2014). On the road to writing continuing education. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 307–330). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse . New York, NY: A&C Black.

Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54 (4), 297–312.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963, 1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Cantwell, R. H., & Scevak, J. J. (Eds.). (2010). An academic life (pp. 16–24). Victoria, Australia: ACER Press.

Carter, M., & Carter, D. (2000). Training teachers: A harvest of theory and practice . St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Casanave, C. P., & Vandrick, S. (Eds.). (2003). Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education . Lansing, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Centers for Disease Control. http://​www.​cdc.​gov/​EVAL/​resources/​index.​htm

Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Check, J. (2001). Three myths that keep teachers from writing. In T. Fox, K. O’Shaughnessy, J. Check, & C. Tateishi (Eds.), Professional writing retreat handbook (pp. 23–26). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project.

Cho, C. S., Ramanan, R. A., & Feldman, M. D. (2011). Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: A qualitative analysis of the characteristics of outstanding mentors. The American Journal of Medicine, 124 (5), 453–458.

Christensen, L. (2000). Reading, writing, and rising up: Teaching about social justice and the power of the written word . Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.

Clark, G., & Phillips, A. (2014). Inside book publishing (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Clark, I. L. (2007). Writing the successful thesis and dissertation: Entering the conversation . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Clark, J. L., & Murray, K. E. (2012). Scholarly writing: Ideas, examples, and execution (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Clissett, P. (2008). Evaluating qualitative research. Journal of Orthopaedic Nursing, 12 (2), 99–105.

Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Sutton, I. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rational and purpose for conducting mixed methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4 (1), 67–100.

Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cormier, R. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​author/​quotes/​10442.​Robert_​Cormier

Coughian, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16 (11), 658–664.

Craswell, S., & Poore, M. (2011). Writing for academic success . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crawley, P. F. (2001). The logic model for program planning and evaluation. A brief explanation of logic models. University of Idaho Extension. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://​www.​cals.​uidaho.​edu/​edcomm/​pdf/​CIS/​CIS1097.​pdf

Creswell, J., & Plano, V. (2004). Roundtable on qualitative research (PowerPoint slides) . http://​www.​andrews.​edu/​leaderpart/​RoundTable/​2004/​workshops/​2b/​AU-Qual-071504-jwc-vpc.​pdf

Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013b). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Developing publishable mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 107–111.

Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2 (1), 7–12.

Croce, N. (2013). Enhancing your academic digital footprint . New York, NY: Rosen.

Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multi-dimensional indicators of scholarly impact . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17 (1), 38–43.

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience . New York, NY: Harper/Perennial.

Csikzentmihalyi, M. (2013). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention . New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Cunningham, S. J. (2004). How to write a paper. Journal of Orthodontics, 31 (1), 47–51.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2013). A scholar’s guide to getting published in English: Critical choices and practical strategies . Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Daniels, G. (2013). How to get your abstract accepted and how to present it. ISBT Science Series, 9 (1), 51–55. doi: 10.​1111/​voxs.​12069 .

Davie, G. S. (2012). How to write a research paper, proposal, or thesis . Retrieved from https://​masscommunicate.​files.​wordpress.​com/​2012/​10/​mct-how-to-research.​pdf

Davis, J. (2010). The first generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and strategies for improving persistence and success . Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.

Day, R., & Sakaduski, N. (2011). How to write and publish a scientific paper . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (4), 309–332.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: The discipline of practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Derntl, M. (2014). Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6 (2), 105–123.

Dillard, A. (1989). The writing life . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Dillard, A. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​deborahbrasket.​wordpress.​com/​2014/​08/​28/​more-on-the-writing-life-with-annie-dillard/​

Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2001). The experience of disseminating the results of doctoral research. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25 (1), 45–55.

Dixon, N. (2011). Writing for publication for the first time—Try the hunter style. International Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 1 (2), 38–45.

Docherty, M., & Smith, R. (1999). The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. British Medical Journal, 318 , 1224–1225.

Doctorow, E. L. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​author/​quotes/​12584.​E_​L_​Doctorow

Drisko, J. W. (2005). Writing up qualitative research. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86 (4), 589–593.

Duffy, B. (1998). Supporting creativity and imagination in the early years . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Einstein, A. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​quoteinvestigato​r.​com/​2010/​05/​26/​everything-counts-einstein/​

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Elbow, P. (2002). The cultures of literature and composition: What could each learn from the other? College English, 64 , 533–546.

El-Serag, H. B. (2006). Scientific manuscripts: The fun of writing and submitting. Gastro-intestinal Endoscopy, 64 (6 Suppl), 19–22.

Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: Living by words . New York, NY: Routledge.

Erkut, E. (2002). Measuring Canadian business school research output and impact. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 19 (2), 97–123.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2009). European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey. Data in focus report . The Roma . Budapest, Hungary : EU-MIDIS . Retrieved from http://​fra.​europa.​eu.​proxy-um.​researchport.​umd.​edu/​fraWebsite/​attachments/​EU-MIDIS_​ROMA_​EN.​pdf

European University Association. (2005). Doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society: Final report . Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

Fahy, K. (2008). Writing for publication: Argument and evidence. Women and Birth, 21 (3), 113–117.

Feak, C., & Swayles, J. M. (2009). Telling a research story: Writing a literature review . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Flecha, R. (2014). Using mixed methods from a communicative orientation: Researching with grassroots Roma. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8 (3), 245–254.

Fletcher, R. (2000). How writers work: Finding a process that works for you . New York, NY: Avon.

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 , 365–387.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the non-native English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34 , 127–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2001). Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions. TESOL Quarterly, 35 , 121–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2014). Academic discourse . New York, NY: Routledge.

Floyd, R. G., Cooley, K. M., Arnett, J. E., Fagan, T. K., Mercer, S. H., & Hingle, C. (2011). An overview and analysis of journal operations, journal publication patterns, and journal impact in school psychology and related fields. Journal of School Psychology, 49 (6), 617–647.

Forster, E. M. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​quotes/​26162-how-do-i-know-what-i-think-until-i-see

Foster, R. L. (2009). Publishing your dissertation [Editorial]. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 14 (1), 1–2.

Francis, J., Mills, K., Chapman, Y., & Birks, M. (2009). Doctoral dissertation by publication: Building scholarly capacity whilst advancing new knowledge in the discipline of nursing. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 4 , 97–106.

Freda, M. C., & Kearney, M. H. (2005). An international survey of nurse editors’ roles and practices. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37 (1), 87–94.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60 , 678–686.

Fulkerson, R. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing . Urbana, IL: National Council of English Teachers.

Fulwiler, T. (2002). The argument for writing across the curriculum. In G. DeLuca, L. Fox, M. Johnson, & M. Kogen (Eds.), Dialogue on writing: Rethinking ESL, basic writing, and first-year composition (pp. 345–358). New York, NY: Routledge.

Galer-Unti, R. A., & Tappe, M. K. (2009). Demystifying the abstract submission and conference presentation process. Health Educator, 41 (2), 64–67.

Garaffa, T., & Brians, C. L. (2011). Two views of a conference presentation: An undergraduate’s first research conference experience. Journal of Political Science Education, 7 (2), 240–242. doi: 10.​1080/​15512169.​2011.​564910 .

Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2014). Your college experience: Strategies for success (11th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Garmston, R. (2005). The presenter’s field book (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Geller, A. E., & Eodice, M. (Eds.). (2013). Working with faculty writers . Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Germano, W. P. (2016). Getting it published: A guide for scholars and anyone serious about serious books (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Gilbert, I. (2002). Essential motivation in the classroom . London: Routledge Falmer.

Girden, E. R. (2001). Evaluating research articles (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gitlin, L. N., & Lyons, K. J. (2014). Successful grant writing: Strategies for health and human service professionals (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Glatthorn, A. A. (2002). Publish or perish—The educator’s imperative: Strategies for writing effectively for your profession and school . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaze, L. E., & Herberman, E. J. (2013). Correctional populations in the United States, 2012, Bulletin, NCJ 243936 . Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Godlee, F., & Jefferson, T. (Eds.). (2003). Peer review in health sciences (2nd ed.). London: BMJ.

Goodson, P. (2013). Becoming an academic writer: 50 exercises for paced, productive, and powerful writing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gonce, M. P. (2013). The importance of being published. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29 (4), 187–188.

Gosden, H. (1992). Research writing and NNSs: From the editors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1 , 123–139.

Graff, G., & Bernstein, C. (2010). They say, I say: The moves that matter in academic writing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Graig, E. (2016). Logic model tutorial . Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://​www.​usablellc.​net/​logic-model-tutorial

Grant, B. M. (2006). Writing in the company of other women: Exceeding the boundaries. Studies in Higher Education, 31 (4), 483–495.

Gray, T., & Birch, J. (2001). Publish don’t perish: A program to help scholars flourish. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty Institutional and Organizational Development, 19 , 268–284.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Wiley.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 , 255–274.

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Hadani, H., & Jaeger, G. (2015). Inspiring a generation to create: Critical components of creativity in children . Sausalito, CA: Center for Childhood Creativity.

Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice . Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hammill, D. D., & McNutt, G. (1980). Language abilities and reading: A review of the literature on their relationship. The Elementary School Journal, 80 , 269–277.

Happell, B. (2008). From conference presentation to publication: A guide. Nurse Researcher, 15 (2), 40–48.

Happell, B. (2009). Presenting with precision: Preparing and delivering a polished conference presentation. Nurse Researcher, 16 (3), 45–46.

Hardicre, J., Coad, J., & Devitt, P. (2007). Ten steps to successful conference presentations. British Journal of Nursing, 16 (7), 402–404.

Harman, E., Montagnes, I., McMenemy, S., & Bucci, C. (Eds.). (2003). The thesis and the book: A guide for first-time academic authors . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Harris, A., Brown, D., & Abbott, I. (2006). Executive leadership: Another lever in the system? School Leadership and Management, 26 (4), 397–409.

Hart, C. (2009). Doing a literature review . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 507–542.

Hayden, H. E., & Chiu, M. M. (2015). Reflective teaching via a problem exploration–teaching adaptations–resolution cycle: A mixed methods study of preservice teachers’ reflective notes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9 (2), 133–153.

Haynes, A. (2010). Writing successful academic books . London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hayter, M., Noyes, J., Perry, L., Pickler, R., Roe, B., & Watson, R. (2013). Who writes, whose rights, and who’s right? Issues in authorship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69 (12), 2599–2601.

Heard, G. (1995). Writing toward home: Tales and lessons to find your way . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Heisenberg, W. K. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​thinkexist.​com/​quotation/​an_​expert_​is_​someone_​who_​knows_​some_​of_​the_​worst/​187713.​html

Hemingway, E. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​quotes/​142038-we-are-all-apprentices-in-a-craft-where-no-one

Hensley, L. (2013). To cheat or not to cheat: A review with implications for practice. Community College Enterprise, 19 (2), 22–34.

Henson, K. T. (2005). Writing for publication: Road to academic advancement . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Henson, K. T. (2007). Writing for publication: Steps to excellence. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 , 781–786.

Hepner, P. P., & Hepner, M. J. (2003). Writing and publishing your thesis, dissertation, and research: A guide for students in the helping professions . Baltimore: Brookes/Cole.

Hess, D. R. (2004). How to write an effective discussion. Respiratory Care, 49 (10), 1238–1241.

Heyman, B., & Cronin, P. (2005). Writing for publication: Adapting academic work into articles. British Journal of Nursing, 14 (7), 400–403.

Hilmer, C. E., & Hilmer, M. J. (2005). How do journal quality, co-authorship, and author order affect agricultural economists’ salaries? American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87 , 509–523.

Hittleman, D. R., & Simon, A. J. (2006). Interpreting educational research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hjortshoj, K. (2001). Understanding writing blocks . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Ranking disciplinary journals with the Google Scholar h-index: A new tool for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47 (3), 579–596.

Holbrook, A., Bourke, S., Fairbairn, H., & Lovat, T. (2007). Examiner comment on the literature review in Ph.D. theses. Studies in Higher Education, 32 (1), 337–356.

Holdstein, D. H., & Aquiline, D. (2014). Who says? The writer’s research . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Holland, K., & Watson, R. (2012). Writing for publication in nursing and healthcare: Getting it right . New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hoot, J. L., & Szente, J. (2013). Avoiding professional panic: Advice to new scholars seeking to publish in the field of early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41 (1), 5–11.

Horsley, T., Dingwall, O., & Sampson, M. (2011). Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. The Cochrane Library . Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​cochrane.​org/​MR000026/​METHOD_​examining-reference-lists-to-find-relevant-studies-for-systematic-reviews

Huff, A. S. (2009). Designing research for publication . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2004). Towards a distinctive body of knowledge for information systems experts: Coding ISD process knowledge in two IS journals. Information Systems Journal, 14 (4), 313–342.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2016). Defining the role of authors and contributors . Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​icmje.​org/​recommendations/​browse/​roles-and-responsibilities​/​defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.​html

iThenticate. (2016). Plagiarism detection software. http://​www.​ithenticate.​com/​

Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2007). Predicting individual research productivity: More than a question of time. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 37 (1), 1–25.

Isenberg, J. P., & Jalongo, M. R. (in press). Creative thinking and arts-based learning: Preschool through 4th grade . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Jacobs, E. (2003). Mixed methods and moving to opportunity. The Educational Exchange, IX (3), 14–15. Retrieved December 12, 2015, from http://​www.​hfrp.​org/​evaluation/​the-evaluation-exchange/​issue-archive/​

Jalongo, M. R. (1985). Faculty productivity in higher education. The Educational Forum, 49 (2), 171–182. doi: 10.​1080/​0013172850933583​2 .

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators . Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Jalongo, M. R. (2007). Beyond benchmarks and scores: Reasserting the role of motivation and interest in children’s academic achievement. An ACEI Position Paper. Childhood Education, 83 (6), 395–407.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013a). Getting on the conference program and writing a practical article: Templates for success. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41 (1), 13–23.

Jalongo, M. R. (2013b). Professional wisdom and writing for publication: Qualitative interviews with editors and authors in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41 (1), 65–79. doi: 10.​1007/​s10643-012-0569-y .

Jalongo, M. R., Ebbeck, M., & Boyer, W. (2013). Writing for publication as “tacit” knowledge: A focus group study of doctoral students in education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42 , 241–250.

Jalongo, M. R., & Heider, K. (2014). Re-examining the literature review: Purposes, approaches, and issues. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in early childhood education (pp. 753–782). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jalongo, M. R., & Hirsh, R. A. (2009). Understanding reading anxiety: New insights from neuroscience. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37 (6), 431–435. [Editorial].

Jalongo, M. R., & Hirsh, R. A. (2012). Reconceptualizing creative thought processes in young children: An integrative review of the research. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on creativity in early childhood . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jalongo, M. R., & Machado, C. (2015). Making effective conference presentations: A guide for graduate students and professors . New York, NY: SpringerBriefs.

Jalongo, M. R., Twiest, M. M., & Gerlach, G. J. (1999). The college learner: Reading, studying, and attaining academic success . Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Jalongo, M. R., Fennimore, B. S., & Stamp, L. N. (2004). The acquisition of literacy: Reframing definitions, paradigms, ideologies and practices. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on language policy and literacy instruction in early childhood education (pp. 57–78). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Jenkins, S. (1995). How to write a paper for a scientific journal. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 41 (4), 285–289.

Jensen, E. (2006). Enriching the brain: How to maximize every learner’s potential . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jinha, A. E. (2010). Article 50 million: An estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing, 23 (3), 258–263.

Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches . Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 112–133.

Johnson, W. B., & Mullen, C. A. (2007). Write to the top! How to become a prolific academic . London: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Joubert, G., & Cronje, H. S. (2003). From a research presentation to a publication. SAMJ, 94 (12), 965–966. Retrieved June 8, 2015, from http://​www.​samj.​org.​za/​index.​php/​samj/​article/​viewFile/​2825/​2026

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain and illness . New York, NY: Delacorte.

Kallemeyn, L., Schiazza, D., Ryan, A. M., Peters, J., & Johnson, C. (2013). Ambitious U.S. history teachers bringing professional development into the classroom: A mixed methods study. Research in the Schools, 20 (1), 39–56.

Kamler, B. (2008). Rethinking doctoral publication practices: Writing from and beyond the thesis. Studies in Higher Education, 33 (3), 283–294.

Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2006). Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision . New York, NY: Routledge.

Karsh, E., & Fox, A. S. (2014). The only grant-writing book you’ll ever need . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Keizer, G. (1996). No place but here: A teacher’s vocation in a rural community . Lincoln, NE: University Press of Nebraska.

Kerber, L. (2008). Conference rules: Everything you need to know about presenting a scholarly paper in public . Retrieved June 8, 2015, from http://​www.​historians.​org/​publications-and-directories/​perspectives-on-history/​may-2008/​conference-rules-everything-you-need-to-know-about-presenting-a-scholarly-paper-in-public

Kimble, C., Hildreth, P. M., & Bourdon, I. (2006). Communities of practice: Creating learning environments for educators (Vol. I). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Kirszner, L. G., & Mandell, S. R. (2010). Patterns for college writing: A rhetorical reader and guide . New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Kitchen, R., & Fuller, D. (2005). Academics’ guide to publishing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knaggs, C. M., Sondergeold, T. A., & Schardt, B. (2015). Overcoming barriers to college enrollment, persistence, and perceptions for urban high school students in a college preparatory program. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9 (1), 7–30.

Knowlton, L. W., & Phillips, C. C. (2012). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koopman, P. (1997). How to write an abstract . Retrieved October 2015, from http://​www.​ece.​cmu.​edu/​~koopman/​essays/​abstract.​html

Kwan, B. S. C. (2010). An investigation of instruction in research publishing offered in doctoral programs: The Hong Kong case. Higher Education, 59 , 55–68.

L’Amour, L. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​quotery.​com/​quotes/​start-writing-no-matter-what-the-water-does-not-flow/​

Lamott, A. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​quotes/​247096-try-looking-at-your-mind-as-a-wayward-puppy-that

LaRossa, M. (2012). Writing and reviewing manuscripts in the multidimensional world of qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74 (4), 643–659.

Lather, P. (1999). To be of use: The work of reviewing. Reviews of Educational Research, 69 (1), 2–7.

Lather, P. (2013). Methodology -21: What do we do in the afterward? Qualitative Studies in Education, 26 (6), 634–645.

Lawlor, J., & Gorham, G. (2004). The reference handbook . Dublin, Ireland: Dublin Institute of Technology.

LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2012). Analysis and interpretation of ethnographic data: A mixed methods approach (Ethnographer’s Toolkit) . Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Lee, A. (2011). Professional practice and doctoral education: Becoming a researcher. In L. Scanlon (Ed.), “Becoming” a professional: An interdisciplinary analysis of professional learning (Vol. 16, pp. 153–169). London, UK: Springer. doi: 10.​1007/​978-94-007-1378-9_​8 .

Lee, H. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​biography.​com/​people/​harper-lee-9377021?​page=​2

Lee, A., & Aitchison, C. (2011). Working with tensions: Writing for publication during your doctorate. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 62–74). New York, NY: Wiley.

Lee, A., & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (2), 187–200.

Lee, A., & Kamler, B. (2008). Bringing pedagogy to doctoral publishing. Teaching in Higher Education, 13 (5), 511–523. doi: 10.​1080/​1356251080233472​3 .

Leech, N. L. (2012). Writing mixed research reports. American Behavioral Scientist, 56 (6), 866–881.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling and Development, 88 (1), 61–69.

Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). Mixed research in counseling: Trends in the literature. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling, 44 , 169–180.

Leech, N. L., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Writing publishable mixed research articles: Guidelines for emerging scholars in the health sciences. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5 (1), 7–24.

Leonard, E. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​author/​quotes/​12940.​Elmore_​Leonard

Lester, F. K. (2005). On the theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical foundations for research in mathematics education. ZDM. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 37 (6), 457–467.

Levin, M. (2015). Ethnicity and aboriginality: Case studies in ethnonationalism . Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Levin, R. F., & Feldman, H. R. (2012). Teaching evidence-based practice in nursing . New York, NY: Springer.

Levinson, E. M., Vogt, M., Barker, W. F., Jalongo, M. R., & Van Zandt, P. (2016, in press). Effects of reading with adult tutor/therapy dog teams on elementary students’ reading achievement and attitude. Society & Animals.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English . London, UK: Routledge.

Lilly, J. (2002). Researching the ineffable—That which cannot be expressed in words. In G. Wallford (Ed.), Doing a doctorate in educational ethnography (Studies in educational ethnography, Vol. 7, pp. 187–210). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Lindsay, R., Breen, R., & Jenkins, A. (2002). Academic research and teaching quality: The views of undergraduate and postgraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 27 (3), 309–327.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2013). Proposals that work: A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lopez, L. M. (2012). Assessing the phonological skills of bilingual children from preschool through kindergarten: Developmental progression and cross-language transfer. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26 (4), 371–391.

Loucks-Horsley, S. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. NISE Brief, 1 (1), n1.

Lovitts, B. E. (2005). How to grade a dissertation. Academe, 91 (6), 18–23.

Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation . Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t, and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79 (3), 296–325.

Lu, C., & Montague, B. (2015). Move to learn, learn to move: Prioritizing physical activity in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43 (1), 1–9.

Lucas, C. J., & Murry, J. W. (2011). New faculty: A practical guide for academic beginners (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Luey, B. (2007). Revising your dissertation: Advice from leading editors . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Luey, B. (2009). Handbook for academic authors (5th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lunghofer, L. (2015). 11 questions winning grant writers know how to answer . Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://​www.​makinggoodwork.​org/​11-questions-winning-grant-writers-know-how-to-answer/​

Lyall, C., & Meagher, L. R. (2012). A Masterclass in interdisciplinarity: Research into practice in training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. Futures, 44 (6), 608–617.

MacDonald, S. P. (2009). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences . Normal, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2009). The literature review: Six steps to success . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mack, C. (2012). How to write a good scientific paper: Title, abstract, and keywords. The Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMES, and MOEMS, 11 (12), 020101.

Macrorie, K. (1984). Searching writing . Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton.

Maisonneuve, H., Enkell, P. H., Polderman, A. K. S., & Thapa, R. (Eds.). (2013). Science editor’s handbook. London: European Association of Science Editors.

Mallette, L. A. (2006). Publishing rates of graduated education Ph.D. and Ed.D. students: A longitudinal study. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​aabri.​com/​manuscripts/​08106.​pdf

Mallonee, S., Fowler, C., & Istre, G. R. (2006). Bridging the gap between research and practice: A continuing challenge. Injury Prevention, 12 (6), 357–359.

Maloy, S. (2001). Guidelines for writing a scientific paper . University of California, Irvine. Retrieved from http://​www.​marshfieldclinic​.​org/​proxy/​mcrf-admin-oswp-rm-guidelines_​for_​writing_​a_​scientific_​manuscript.​1.​pdf

Manning, B. H. (1991). Cognitive self-instruction (csi) for classroom processes . Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

Marrelli, T. M. (2014). Submissions and revisions. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 135–150). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

Martínez, R. S., Floyd, R. G., & Erichsen, L. (2011). Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology literature: Recommendations for increasing scholarly productivity. Journal of School Psychology, 49 , 691–720.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18 (6), 561–585.

Maynard, B. R., Vaughn, M. G., Sarteschi, C. M., & Berglund, A. H. (2014). Social work dissertation research: Contributing to scholarly discourse or the file drawer? British Journal of Social Work, 44 (4), 1045–1062.

Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research . Retrieved January 13, 2016, from http://​www.​qualitative-research.​net/​index.​php/​fqs/​article/​view/​291/​641

McCormick, C., & Mason, J. M. (1986). Use of little books at home: A minimal intervention strategy that fosters early reading. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 388 . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

McCrudden, M. T., Magliano, J. P., & Schraw, G. (2010). Exploring how relevance instructions affect personal reading intentions, reading goals and text processing: A mixed methods study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35 (4), 229–241.

McGill University Research Policy Committee of the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research. (1995). McGill University policy on research ethics: Collaborative research . Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​mcgill.​ca/​researchoffice/​policies/​sponsored/​policies/​ethics/​

McGrail, M. R., Rickard, C. M., & Jones, R. (2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development, 25 (1), 19–35.

McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22 (1), 65–72. Available: http://​www.​pmn.​net/​wp-content/​uploads/​logic-models-a-tool-for-telling-your-programs-performance-story.​pdf

McWilliam, R. A. (2000). Reporting qualitative studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 23 (2), 77–80.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. (2007). Self-directed learning. Learning in Adulthood , 105–129.

Mertens, D. (2010). Transformative mixed methods research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (6), 469–474.

Mertler, C. A., & Charles, C. M. (2005). Introduction to educational research . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Michener, J. (n.d). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from https://​www.​goodreads.​com/​author/​quotes/​7995.​James_​A_​Michener

Milardo, R. M. (2015). Crafting scholarship in the behavioral and social sciences: Writing, reviewing, and editing . New York, NY: Routledge.

Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. (2009). Student engagement in history class: Using first-person writing to make meaningful connections. The Journal of Educational Alternatives: Principles, Practices, and Leadership, 4 (1), 20–36.

Miller, J. E., & Bloustein, E. J. (2007). Developing conference presentations: A primer for new library professionals. Partnership, 6 (2), 1–6.

Montgomery, S. L. (2004). Does science need a global language? English and the future of research . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Moos, D. D., & Hawkins, P. (2009). Barriers and strategies to the revision process from an editor’s perspective. Nursing Forum, 44 (2), 79–92.

Morris, M. (1998). Publishing perils, and how to survive them: A guide for graduate students. Cultural Studies, 12 (4), 498–512.

Morse, J. M. (2010). Procedures and practice of mixed method design: Maintaining control, rigor, and complexity. In A. Tashakkori & E. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 339–352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morrison-Saunders, A., Moore, S. A., Hughes, M., & Newsome, D. (2010). Coming to terms with research practice: Riding the emotional rollercoaster of doctoral research studies. In M. Walker & P. Thomson (Eds.), The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion (pp. 206–218). New York, NY: Routledge.

Moxley, D. P., & Thrasher, S. P. (1996). The intervention design seminar: Structure, content, and process. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 13 (1–2), 73–92.

Moxley, J. M., & Taylor, T. (Eds.). (1997). Writing and publishing for academic authors (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Munro, C. L. (2014). Writing a peer review. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 151–166). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

Murray, B. (1998). The authorship dilemma: Who gets credit for what? APA Monitor, 29 (12). Website: http://​www.​apa.​org/​monitor/​dec98/​credit.​html

Murray, D. M. (1998). Unlearning writing. Learning Matters Available: http://​www.​heinemann.​comhbbc/​lmv2n6p1.​html

Murray, D. M. (2001). The craft of revision (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt College.

Murray, F., & Raths, J. (1994). Call for manuscripts. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 197–200.

Murray, F. B., & Raths, J. (1996). Factors in the peer review of reviews. Review of Educational Research, 66 (4), 417.

Murray, R. (2013). Writing for academic journals . Boston, MA: Pearson.

Muzzatti, S. L., & Samarco, C. V. (2005). Reflections from the wrong side of the tracks: Class, identity, and the working class experience in academe . New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Nackoney, C. K., Munn, S. L., & Fernandez, J. (2011). Learning to write: Wisdom from emerging scholars. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 26–43). New York, NY: Wiley.

Naish, L. (2013). Grants are not research outputs. The Australian Universities’ Review, 55 (1), 72–73. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://​search.​informit.​com.​au/​documentSummary;dn=​143420535789241;res=​IELHSS

Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating scholarly writing: The power of personal narrative . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Natriello, G. (1996). Lessons for young scholars seeking to publish. Teachers College Record, 97 (4), 509–517.

Ness, V., Duffy, K., McCallum, J., & Price, L. (2014). Getting published: Reflections of a collaborative writing group. Nurse Education Today, 34 (1), 1–5.

Nettina, S. M. (2014). Writing a book or book chapter. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 363–382). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International.

Nettles, M. T., & Millett, C. M. (2006). Three magic letters: Getting to Ph.D . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Neuman, W. L. (2009). Understanding research . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Newman, I., Ridenour, C. S., Newman, C., & De Marco, G. M. P. (2003). A typology of research purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 167–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ngai, E. W. T., & Wat, F. K. T. (2002). A literature review and classification of electronic commerce research. Information & Management, 39 , 415–429.

Nielsen, S. M., & Rocco, T. S. (2002). Joining the conversation: Graduate students’ perceptions of writing for publication . Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​citeseerx.​ist.​psu.​edu/​viewdoc/​download?​doi=​10.​1.​1.​426.​1270&​rep=​rep1&​type=​pdf

Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008a). Educational psychology journal editors’ comments on publishing. Educational Research Review, 20 (1), 29–39.

Nihalani, P. K., & Mayrath, M. C. (2008b). Publishing in educational psychology journals: Comments from editors. Educational Psychology Review, 20 , 29–39.

Nolan, R., & Rocco, T. (2009). Teaching graduate students in the social sciences writing for publication. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (2), 267–273.

Noller, P. (1982). Channel consistency and inconsistency in the communications of married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (4), 732–741.

Notar, C. E., & Cole, V. (2010). Literature review organizer. International Journal of Education, 2 (2), E2. Available: www.​macrothink.​org/​journal/​index.​php/​ije/​article/​view/​319

Nygaard, L. P. (2016, in press). Publishing and perishing: An academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity. Studies in Higher Education . doi: 10.​1080/​03075079.​2015.​1058351 .

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007a). Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 147–163.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007b). Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research: A mixed methods study. BMC Health Services Research , 7 (1), 85. doi: 10.​1186/​1472-6963-7-85 . Retrieved from http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1472-6963/​7/​85

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or dysfunctional? Team working in mixed-methods research. Qualitative Health Research, 18 (11), 1574–1585.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10 , 71–90.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bustamante, R. M., & Nelson, J. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4 (1), 56–78.

Onwuegbuxie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., & Jiao, Q. C. (2007, April). Mixed methods + literature reviews = mixed research syntheses: A framework for conducting and writing rigorous, comptehensive, and insightful literature reviews . Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., & Jiao, Q. G. (2010). A meta-framework for conducting mixed research syntheses for stress and coping researchers and beyond. In G. S. Gates, W. H. Gmelch, & M. Wolverton (Series Eds.), & K. M. T. Collins, A. J. Onwuegbuzie, & Q. G. Jiao (Vol. Eds.), Toward a broader understanding of stress and coping: Mixed methods approaches (pp. 169–211) . The Research on Stress and Coping in Education Series (Vol. 5). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Press.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Collins, K. M. T., O’Cathain, A., & Frels, R. K. (2011). An introduction to the special issue on mixed methods research in education. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 5 (2), 1–2.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Combs, J. P. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A primer. International Journal of Education, 3 (1), E13.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daniel, L. G. (2004). Reliability generalization: The importance of considering sample specificity, confidence intervals, and subgroup differences. Research in the Schools, 11 (1), 60–71.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: The role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9 (4), 770–792.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8 (5), 375–387.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11 (3), 474–498.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). A call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41 (1), 105–121.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2012). Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. The Qualitative Report, 17 (Art. 56), 1–28.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A. E., Collins, K. M. T., Filer, J. D., Wiedmaier, C. D., & Moore, C. W. (2007). Students’ perceptions of characteristics of effective college teachers: A validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-methods analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 44 (1), 113–160.

Ortinau, D. (2011). Writing and publishing important scientific articles: A reviewer’s perspective. Journal of Business Research, 64 (2), 150–156.

Osman-Gani, A. M., & Poell, R. F. (2011). International and cross-cultural issues in scholarly writing. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 262–273). New York, NY: Wiley.

Panaretos, J., & Malesios, C. C. (2008). Assessing scientific research performance and impact with single indices. Scientometrics, 81 (3), 635–670.

Parylo, O. (2012). Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods: An analysis of research design in articles on principal professional development (1998–2008). International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6 (3), 297–313.

Parylo, O., & Zepeda, S. J. (2014). Describing an ‘effective’ principal: Perceptions of the central office leaders. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 34 (5), 518–537.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peat, J., Elliott, E., Baur, L., & Keena, V. (2002). Scientific writing—Easy when you know how . London: British Medical Journal (BMJ) Books.

Pellino, G. R., Blackburn, R. T., & Boberg, A. L. (1984). The dimensions of academic scholarship: Faculty and administrator views. Research in Higher Education, 20 (1), 103–115.

Phillips, L. R. F. (1986). A clinician’s guide to the critique and utilization of nursing research . Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Pinheiro, D., Melkers, J., & Youtie, J. (2014). Learning to play the game: Student publishing as an indicator of future scholarly success. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81 , 56–66.

Plotnick, A. (1982). The elements of editing: A modern guide for editors and journalists . New York, NY: Macmillan.

Polayni, M. (1966). The tacit dimension . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2014). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams, & Wilkins.

Pollard, R. Q. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 2 (2). Retrieved October 29, 2008, from www.​ispub.​com/​ostia/​index.​php?​xmlfilepath=​journals/​ijmh/​ front.​xml

Posavac, E. J. (2011). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Przeworski, A., & Salomon, F. (1995). Some candid suggestions for applicants to Social Science Research Council competitions . Retrieved October 3, 2015, from http://​www.​ssrc.​org/​workspace/​uploads/​docs/​Art-of-Writing-Proposals-DSD-English.​pdf

Pyrczak, F. (2012). Evaluating research in academic journals . Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Randolph, J. J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review . Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation , 14 (13). Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​pareonline.​net/​pdf/​v14n13.​pdf

Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reichel, N., & Arnon, S. (2005). Three portraits of teachers in the view of students of teaching: The ideal teacher, the teacher of teachers and the image of the student him/herself as a teacher. Dapim, 40 , 23–58.

Reichert, W. M., Daniels-Race, T., & Dowell, E. H. (2002). Time-tested survival skills for a publish or perish environment. Journal of Engineering Education, 91 (1), 133–137. doi: 10.​1002/​j.​2168-9830.​2002.​tb00682.​x .

Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Springer.

Reuber, A. R. (2011). Strengthening your literature review. Family Business Review, 23 (2), 105–108.

Rhoades, G. (2001). Managing productivity in an academic institution: Rethinking the whom, which, what, and whose of productivity. Research in Higher Education, 42 (5), 619–632. doi: 10.​1023/​A:​1011006511651 .

Rhodes, R. (1995). How to write: Advice and reflections . New York, NY: William Morrow.

Richards, J. C., & Miller, S. K. (2005). Doing academic writing in education: Connecting the personal and the professional . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Richards, P. (2007). Risk. In H. Becker (Ed.), Writing for the social sciences (2nd ed., pp. 108–120). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Richling, S. M., Rapp, J. T., Funk, J. A., D’Agostini, J., Garrido, N., & Moreno, V. (2014). Low publication rate of 2005 conference presentations: Implications for practitioners serving individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35 (11), 2744–2751.

Rico, G. (1991). Writer: Personal patterns in chaos. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Writer’s craft, teachers’ art: Teaching what we know (pp. 3–20). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Rifkin, T. (2016). Community college faculty . Retrieved January 14, 2013, from http://​www.​aacc.​nche.​edu/​Resources/​aaccprograms/​pastprojects/​Pages/​publicccfaculty.​aspx

Roberts, N. (n.d.). http://​www.​goodreads.​com/​quotes/​14770-you-can-fix-anything-but-a-blank-page

Robinson, S., & Dracup, K. (2008). Innovative options for the doctoral dissertation in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 56 , 174–178.

Rocco, T. S. (2011). Reasons to write, writing opportunities, and other considerations. In T. S. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Wiley.

Rocco, T. S., & Hatcher, T. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing . New York, NY: Wiley.

Rogochewski, T. L. (2001). Developing conference presentations: A primer for new library professionals. Partnership, 6 (2), 1–6.

Roig, M. (2013). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing . Retrieved January 12, 2016, from https://​ori.​hhs.​gov/​images/​ddblock/​plagiarism.​pdf

Romano, T. (2000). Blending genre, altering style: Writing multi-genre papers . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Rowley, J. (2012). Six steps to successful academic conference presentations. Marketing Review, 12 (4), 437–450. doi: 10.​1362/​146934712X135461​96910891 .

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2014). Surviving your dissertation: A guide to content and process . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Runco, M. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic.

Russell, C. L. (2005). Interpreting research in nephrology nursing. Evaluating quantitative research reports. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 32 (1), 61–64.

Russell, C. L., & Ponferrada, L. (2012). How to develop and outstanding conference research abstract. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 39 (4), 307–342.

Russell, L., & Munter, M. M. (2014). Guide to presentations (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (No. 14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sandelowski, M. (2003). Tables or tableaux? Writing and reading mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 321–350). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Saracho, O. N. (1984). Perception of the teaching process in early childhood education through role analysis. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, International, 19 (1), 26–39.

Saracho, O. N. (1988a). An evaluation of an early childhood teacher education curriculum for preservice teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38 , 81–101.

Saracho, O. N. (1988b). A study of the roles of early childhood teachers. Early Child Development and Care, 38 , 43–56.

Saracho, O. N. (2004). Supporting literacy-related play: Roles for teachers of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31 (3), 203–208.

Saracho, O. N. (2008). A literacy program for fathers: A case study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35 (4), 351–356.

Saracho, O. N. (2013). Writing research articles for publication in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41 (1), 45–54.

Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & J. Caputo (Eds.), Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​haskins.​yale.​edu/​Reprints/​HL1071.​pdf

Schwab, J. (1973). The practical translation into curriculum. School Review, 81 , 501–522.

Seidman, I. (2012). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Seldin, P. (1984). Changing practices in faculty evaluation: A critical assessment and recommendations for improvement . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seligman, M. P. (2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of health and well-being . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster/Atria Books.

Selvanathan, S. K., Udani, R. D., Udani, S. D., & Haylett, K. R. (2006). The art of the abstract. Student: British Medical Journal, 14 , 70–71.

Sharp, D. (2002). Kipling’s guide to writing a scientific paper. Croatian Medical Journal, 43 (3), 262–267.

Shatz, J. (2004). Peer review: A critical inquiry . London: Rowan & Littlefield.

Shavinina, L. V., & Ferrari, M. (Eds.). (2004). Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of high ability . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shernoff, D. (2013). Optimal learning environments to promote student engagement . New York, NY: Springer.

Shiu, E. (2014). Creativity research: An inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research handbook . New York, NY: Routledge.

Shore, B. M. (2007). Mutual expectations regarding research supervision . High Ability and Inquiry Research Group, Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology. Montreal, Canada: McGill University.

Skelton, J. R., & Edwards, S. J. L. (2000). The function of the discussion section in academic medical writing. British Medical Journal, 320 (7244), 1269–1270.

Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 , 765–781.

Skinner, E. A., Kinderman, T., & Furrer, C. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 , 3493–3525.

Skolits, G. J., Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (2011). Publishing in peer-reviewed and nonrefereed journals: Processes, strategies, and tips. In T. S. Rocco, T. Hatcher, & J. W. Creswell (Eds.), Handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 13–25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, F. (1994). Writing and the writer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith, J. A., & McLaurin, S. (1999). The program-page connection: A practical model for professional writing. Journal of Continuing Higher Education , 48 (3), 10–18. http://​eric.​ed.​gov/​?​id=​EJ592633

Smith, M. L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24 (2), 173–183.

Snyder, P. (2000). Guidelines for reporting results of group quantitative investigations. Journal of Early Intervention, 23 (3), 145–150.

Sohn, K. (2006). Whistlin’ and crowin’ women of Appalachia . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Solomon, D. J. (2007). The role of peer review for scholarly journals in the Information Age. The Journal of Electronic Publishing, 10 (1). Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://​quod.​lib.​umich.​edu/​j/​jep/​3336451.​0010.​107?​rgn=​main;view=​fulltext

Sommers, D., & Franklin, J. C. (2012). Overview of projections to 2020. Monthly Labor Review, 135 , 3.

Sprague, J., Stuart, D., & Bodary, D. (2015). The speaker’s handbook (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Srinivasan, M. R., Poorni, S., Sujatham, G., & Kumar, S. N. (2014). Research experiences, attitudes, and barriers to publishing among the dental postgraduate teachers: A cross-sectional study. Indian Journal of Dental Research, 25 (4), 454–458.

Stafford, W. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2016, from http://​www.​roozecentral.​com/​strategy-william-stafford-lower-your-standards/​

Starr-Glass, D. B. (2015). Wild pansies, Trojan horses, and others: International teaching and learning as bricolage. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4 (2). Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​digitalcommons.​georgiasouthern.​edu/​ij-sotl/​vol4/​iss2/​24

Steefel, L. (2014). From presentation or school assignment to published article. In C. Saver (Ed.), Anatomy of writing for publication for nurses (pp. 293–306). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence . New York, NY: Viking.

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Wisdom and giftedness. In M. Ferrari & L. V. Shavinina (Eds.), Beyond knowledge: Extracognitive aspects of developing high ability (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2014). Writing successful grant proposals from the top down and bottom up . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stichler, J. F., & Nielsen, P. (2014). Disseminating knowledge and writing for publication. Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD), 7 (2), 144–150.

Stolerman, I. (2009). Preparing manuscripts and responding to reviewers’ reports: Inside the editorial black box. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Saava, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (2nd ed.) (pp. 124–137). London: International Society of Addiction Journal Editors. Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​www.​parint.​org/​isajewebsite/​bookimages/​isaje_​2nd_​edition_​chapter9.​pdf

Strickland, J. (1997). From disk to hard copy: Writing with computers . Portsmouth, NH: Heinmann.

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1999). The elements of style (4th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shrinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Swales, J., & Feak, C. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Sword, H. (2012). Stylish academic writing . Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Taplin, D. H. & Clark, H. (2012). Theory of change basics: A primer on theory of change . New York, NY: Actknowledge. Available: http://​www.​theoryofchange.​org/​wp-content/​uploads/​toco_​library/​pdf/​ToCBasics.​pdf

Tappe, M. K., & Galer-Unti, R. A. (2009). Health educators’ role in promoting health literacy. Technology, 35 (6), 813–827.

Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (3), 207–211.

Taskakkori, A. M., & Teddlie, C. B. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thaiss, C. J., & Zawacki, T. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life . Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook.

Thesen, L., & Cooper, L. (Eds.). (2014). Risk in academic writing: Postgraduate students, their teachers and the making of knowledge . Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.

Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6 (2), e16782.

Thomas, K., & Chan, J. (2015). Handbook of research on creativity . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Thyer, B. A. (1994). Successful publishing in scholarly journals . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Todorovic, L. (2003). Original (scientific) paper: The IMRAD layout. Archive of Oncology, 11 (3), 203–205.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Toracco, R. (2011). Writing an integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples . http://​docseminar2.​wikispaces.​com/​file/​view/​Literature+revie​w+paper_​Torraco.​pdf

Townsend, B. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2009). The extent and nature of scholarly activities among community college faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 9 (33), 669–681.

Tunon, J., & Brydges, B. (2006). A study on using rubrics and citation analysis to measure the quality of doctoral dissertation reference lists from traditional and nontraditional institutions. Journal of Library Administration, 45 (3/4), 459–481.

Turnitin. (2015). Turnitin for higher education . Retrieved January 12, 2016, from http://​turnitin.​com/​en_​us/​turnitin-for-higher-education

Udani, R. D., Selvanathan, S. K., Udani, S. D., & Haylett, K. R. (2007). Writing up your research. Student: British Medical Journal, 15 , 406–408.

University of Alberta Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research Council. (1996). Intellectual property policies: Guidelines for authorship . Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://​www.​uofaweb.​ualberta.​ca/​vpres_​policies/​nav02.​cfm?​nav02=​11203&​nav01=​111

University of Cambridge. (2002). Good research practice: Dissemination and publication of results . Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://​www.​rsd.​cam.​ac.​uk/​about/​policies/​practice/​

University of Wisconsin. (2003). Enhancing program performance with logic models, University of Wisconsin-Extension . Retrieved January 2, 2015, from http://​www.​uwex.​edu/​ces/​pdande/​evaluation/​pdf/​lmcourseall.​pdf

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

VanTil, W. (1986). Writing for professional publication . Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Verderber, R., Sellnow, D., & Verderber, K. (2014). The challenge of effective speaking in a digital age . Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2001). This logic model is used by Kellogg to decide which projects to fund . http://​www.​wkkf.​org/​resource-directory/​resource/​2006/​02/​wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide

Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2011). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wang, F. (2007). On the innovative spirit of academic journal editors. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 38 (3), 156–161.

Wang, V. C. X. (2015). Handbook of research on scholarly publishing and research methods . New York, NY: Springer.

Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students: Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Watts, J. (2012). To publish or not to publish before submission? Considerations for doctoral students and supervisors. Creative Education, 3 , 1101–1107. doi: 10.​4236/​ce.​2012.​326265 .

Webb, C. (2007). Publishing from a research thesis. Nurse Author & Editor, 17 (3). Retrieved October 29, 2008, from http://​www.​nurseauthoredito​r.​com

Webb, C., & Roe, B. (2007). Reviewing research evidence for nursing practice: Systematic reviews . Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26 (2), 3.

Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial peer review: Its strengths and weaknesses . Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.

Wellington, J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2005). Writing for publication: What counts as a ‘high status, eminent academic journal’? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29 (1), 35–48.

West, R., & Stenius, K. (2009). Use and abuse of citations. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, S. Savva, & J. O’Reilly (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed . Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://​www.​parint.​org/​isajewebsite/​bookimages/​isaje_​2nd_​edition_​chapter7.​pdf

Wholey, J. S., Hatry, H. P., & Newcomer, K. E. (2012). Handbook of practical program evaluation . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wilcox, B. (2002). Thinking and writing for publication: A guide for teachers . Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Wright, V. H., Burnham, J. J., & Hooper, L. M. (2012). Faculty collaboration: How a wiki enhanced communication, organization, accessibility, and management of writing a book. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11 (1), 43–46.

Yarbrough, D. B., Shula, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yates, L. (2004). What does good education research look like? Situating a field and practices . Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Zaphorozhetz, L. (1987). The dissertation literature review: How faculty advisors prepare their doctoral candidates . Doctoral thesis, University of Oregon.

Zhang, G., Zeller, N., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D., Williams, J., Shea, C., & Misulis, K. (2011). Using the context, input, process, and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive framework to guide the planning, implementation, and assessment of service-learning programs. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement , 15 (4). Retrieved January 18, 2016, from: http://​openjournals.​libs.​uga.​edu/​index.​php/​jheoe/​rt/​printerFriendly/​628/​0

Zinsser, W. (2016). On writing well: The classic guide to writing nonfiction (30th anniversary) (reprint ed.). New York, NY: Quill.

Zull, J. E. (2006). Key aspects of how the brain learns. New directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 110 , 3–9.