Working With Coauthors

2021 ◽  
pp. 417-451
Author(s):  
Seth J. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Student ◽  
Collaborative Writing ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Job Description ◽  
Problem Solve

This chapter reviews issues involved in collaborative writing. A coauthor job description is provided, emphasizing that a coauthor’s role is to provide whatever feedback and thoughts that occur to them as they review drafts. Coauthors also can support the lead author by being available to answer questions or problem-solve issues that occur as the first author is writing the draft. Authors are advised to progress their work as far as they can before sharing the manuscript with coauthors. The chapter also addresses some of the challenges involved in working with coauthors, such as delays, coauthors who refuse to approve manuscripts for submission unless their demands are met, and coauthors who manipulate and coerce other authors. Mentor–mentee collaborations and teams where a graduate student is leading a collaboration with several senior scholars are also addressed.

Navigating the Decisions and Ethics of Authorship: An Examination of Graduate Student Journal Article Authorship

2020 ◽  
pp. 107769582091876
Author(s):  
Sevgi Baykaldi ◽  
Serena Miller
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Student Success ◽  
Graduate Student ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Student Authorship

Authorship and authorship order are visual shortcuts that communicate student success. We content analyzed to what extent graduate students published as lead authors in 10 refereed communication and media journals over a decade (2007–2016) examining student authorship, coauthorship, and affiliations. Graduate students appeared in approximately 23% of the sampled articles with graduate students most often appearing as lead author on multiauthored articles. If there is an increasing expectation to secure lead authorship, students may need to navigate the authorship process. Guidelines are provided on how to assess and negotiate authorship based on intellectual contributions, tasks, and sustained commitment.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: An Autoethnographic Journey on Doing Participatory Action Research as a Graduate Student

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Van T. Lac ◽  
Michelle Fine
Keyword(s):  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Graduate Student ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Senior Scholar ◽  
Traditional Institutions ◽  
School Partnership ◽  
Critical Participatory Action Research ◽  
The University

The lead author documents the promises and pitfalls of doing critical participatory action research (PAR) as a graduate student within traditional institutions. This autoethnographic essay captures the vulnerabilities of the first author as she reflects on the human work that draws her to PAR, details the tensions that surfaced in the daily practices of doing PAR with youth, and addresses unforeseen hurdles that emerged from the ethics review board and the university–school partnership. The piece concludes with an epilogue from Dr. Michelle Fine, a senior scholar in the field of critical PAR, as she responds to the concerns raised in this essay.

Observer Agreement on Disfluency and Stuttering

1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard F. Curlee
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Student ◽  
Adult Male ◽  
Observer Agreement

Groups of undergraduate and graduate stndent listeners identified the stutterings and disfluencies of eight adult male stutterers during videotaped samples of their reading and speaking. Stuttering and disfluency loci were assigned to words or to intervals between words. The data indicated that stuttering and disfluency are not two reliable and unambiguous response classes and are not usually assigned to different, nonoverlapping behaviors. Furthermore, judgments of stuttering and disfluency were distributed similarly across words and intervals. For both undergraduate and graduate student listeners, there was relatively low unit-by-unit agreement among listeners and within the same listeners from one judgment session to another.

Student's Say: ‘What If My Clients End Up With a Chinese Accent?'

ASHA Leader ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 64-65
Author(s):  
King Kwok
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Student ◽  
English Language Learner ◽  
English Language ◽  
Language Learner

A graduate student who is an English-language learner devises strategies to meet the challenges of providing speech-language treatment.

Federal Graduate Student Loans to Cost More

ASHA Leader ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Neil Snyder
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Student ◽  
Student Loans

The Graduate Dysphagia Course: Opening the Door to New Frontiers

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (13) ◽  
pp. 104-112
Author(s):  
Karen A. Ball ◽  
Luis F. Riquelme
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Student ◽  
Paradigm Shifts ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Approaches To Teaching ◽  
Graduate Level ◽  
Graduate Curriculum ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Language Pathology

A graduate-level course in dysphagia is an integral part of the graduate curriculum in speech-language pathology. There are many challenges to meeting the needs of current graduate student clinicians, thus requiring the instructor to explore alternatives. These challenges, suggested paradigm shifts, and potential available solutions are explored. Current trends, lack of evidence for current methods, and the variety of approaches to teaching the dysphagia course are presented.

Determinants of Interrater Reliability of Job Analysis: A Meta-analysis

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga F. Voskuijl ◽  
Tjarda van Sliedregt
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Job Analysis ◽  
Job Descriptions ◽  
Job Description ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Descriptive Information ◽  
Interrater Reliability Coefficients ◽  
Reliability Coefficients

Summary: This paper presents a meta-analysis of published job analysis interrater reliability data in order to predict the expected levels of interrater reliability within specific combinations of moderators, such as rater source, experience of the rater, and type of job descriptive information. The overall mean interrater reliability of 91 reliability coefficients reported in the literature was .59. The results of experienced professionals (job analysts) showed the highest reliability coefficients (.76). The method of data collection (job contact versus job description) only affected the results of experienced job analysts. For this group higher interrater reliability coefficients were obtained for analyses based on job contact (.87) than for those based on job descriptions (.71). For other rater categories (e.g., students, organization members) neither the method of data collection nor training had a significant effect on the interrater reliability. Analyses based on scales with defined levels resulted in significantly higher interrater reliability coefficients than analyses based on scales with undefined levels. Behavior and job worth dimensions were rated more reliable (.62 and .60, respectively) than attributes and tasks (.49 and .29, respectively). Furthermore, the results indicated that if nonprofessional raters are used (e.g., incumbents or students), at least two to four raters are required to obtain a reliability coefficient of .80. These findings have implications for research and practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document