Prof Comm Finals

Question 1

Lalumiere, M. L. (1993)

Answer 1

• Increasing the precision of citations in scientific writing
  
  • citations that refer the reader to useful sources of info as in (see e.g. Symons, 1979)
• citations that give support to a position or a statement
  
  • not empirical
    
    • to an opinion of an author
    • to conclusions derived from a narrative review of emperical studies
  • emperical
    
    • to the method and results on an emperical study
    • to the method and results of a quantitative review (meta-analyses)
• make a distinction between emperical/nonemperical work
• citing an authors opinion or conclusions derived from a narrative review is not the best way to support assertations

Question 2

McGue, M. (2000)

Answer 2

Authorship and intellectual property.

• scholarly status and career advancet depend on publication
• increase in collaborative research = disputes over authorship
• ethical principles
  
  • fidelity: agree on procedure for assigning and determing order, integrity of scientific community and evaluation, report findings accurately and thoughtfully
  • justice
    
    • distributive: researchers given credit
    • procedural: institutions, investigative teams have established explicit procedures for how credit is assigned
• ​​Identifies to public who is responsible for work
• Record of scholarly productivity
• Basis for judging individual expertise
• Requires author to assume professional responsibility for integrity of research
  
  • Research conducted ethically
  • –Findings reported accurately
  • –In agreement with conclusions
  • Willing to publicly defend conclusions
• Joint authorship:
  
  • May involve people from different institutions and countries
  • Pros:
    
    • Assistance with large project
    • Co-authors can increase breadth of project due to additional expertise
    • Co-authors can provide depth by adding issues a colleague may not have considered
    • Camaraderie can keep a project going
• ​Cons:
  
  • Requires coordination of effort
  • Doesn’t necessarily translate into less time or effort
  • Differences of opinion or approach may lead to abandonment of project &/or bitterness
  • May contribute less to scholarship & reputation of individuals than single authorship
  • –Logistics can be challenging
• Strategies for handling joint authorship:
  
  • Essential to have some understanding of:
    –how project will be managed
    
    • e.g., what data to collect; procedures for collection and storage of data, as well as access to data
      –how authorship will be determined
  • Sticky wickets:
    
    • –Longitudinal project
    • Large project
• ​General guidelines:
  
  • Typically, establishment of data archive not enough for authorship
  • It may be difficult for those not actively involved to accept responsibilities of authorship
  • Order authors according to degree of contribution
    
    • Typically assumed that first author was primary contributor
    • Should be consensus among authors as to order
    • –If decision process as to order should be communicated to readers, use publication note
  • Agreements should be flexible

Question 3

Hebb, D. O., & Bindra, D. (1952).

Answer 3

• Scientific writing and the general problem of communication.
• They agree with Boring that doing an experiment is NOT more important than writing it up for publication
• Readability can be improved by:
• Flesch (creator of readability tests) has merit, but abandoned the single index in favor of two independent ones.
• Now scores (0-100) are now provided
  
  • Reading ease: (difficulty index based on word and sentence lengths)
  • Human interest: (number of references to persons)
• Thus, the Flesch scale does not measure this larger aspect of readability, which is a problem.
• Essential problem of verbal communication
• Reading does not have these problems
• Refers to Boring “good writing is good manners: your problem is both to please and to help your public. This you can do only when you learn how to be the first victim of our writing, how to anticipate a reader’s difficulties and to hear yourself as others hear you.

Question 4

Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1998).

Answer 4

• Being there: Writing the highly cited article.
• Talking about success of previous article-employment interview
• Marv Dunnette described his achievements as simply “being there”-being in a situation where intellectual, empirical, and theoretical forces were such that he capitalized on the confluence of these dynamics.
• Previous article was successfull b/c. 1. found discrepency in prior research. 2. it was controversial. 3. 1st to notice that the interview might mitigate against the bias claim. 4. followed footsteps of giants. 5. timing, and 6. some luck
  *

Question 5

Arvey cont.- How other’s can write a highly cited article:

Answer 5

1. read and understand research
2. try and anticipate a need for a particular article
3. be aware of what’s going on in practioner world
4. write well
5. be reader friendly
6. point out research needs frequently and clearly

Read, anticipate, practioner, well, friendly, future

Question 6

Sternberg: 12.1 Deciding on a Journal

Answer 6

• Quality
• Content
  
  • 2 criteria
    
    • Substantive focus: topic of research
    • Methodological Focus: How was the research done
• Readership
• Length Restrictions
• Publications Lag
• Cost of Submission
• Journal Citation Reports
• Authorship Restrictions
  
  • Look at ISI/SSCI
    
    • Impact Factor: average number of citations to articles of a given journal published during the two previous years
    • Immediacy Index: how often an article is cited in the year it is published
• Types of Journals/Names

Question 7

Sternberg: 12.2 Submitting the Paper

Answer 7

• Once you have decided on the journal, make sure your paper meets submission requirements
• May not submit the same paper to two different journals
• Once rejected then can submit to other journals
• Include a cover letter
  
  • Intention to submit
  • Title
  • Length, number of tables and figures
  • Closely related manuscripts
  • Potential reviewers
  • Notice of any possible conflicts

Question 8

Sternberg: 12.3 A look Behind the Scenes: In the Editor’s Office

Answer 8

• What Happens After Submission to the Editor
  
  • Assigned manuscript number
  • Sent to two or three external reviewers: several weeks to several months
• The Editorial Decision
• Acceptance without revision
  
  • Accepted as is
• Acceptance with revision
  
  • Minor revisions
• Rejection with suggestions for revisions
  
  • Revisions that may make article suitable for publication
• Rejection
  
  • Not suitable for the journal
• No decision
  
  • Decision being withheld pending additional info., or the incorporation of suggestions for revision
• Reasons why articles are rejected
  
  • Lack of substance: too little work
  • Not sufficient advance over what has been previously done
  • Findings are insufficient
• The Aftermath
  
  • Before submitting to another article after rejection, review edits
  • Sometimes just need to wait and then resubmit

Question 9

Reasons to deliver papers

Answer 9

• Disseminate work that is not yet ready for publication
• Interact with colleagues interested in your topic and hear about others’ work
• Present work that does not fit the standard format for publication (e.g., workshop or discussion material)
• Network at a conference of your choice (and maybe be reimbursed or claim a tax write-off)

Question 10

Conference paper formats

Answer 10

• Paper: presentation of research report
• Symposium: collection of papers organized around a topic or theme
• Usually has a chair who may or may not be a presenter
• May include discussants
• Poster: presentation of a paper on a large poster board or poster sheet
• Workshops, discussions

Question 11

Tierney (1996): Presentations

Answer 11

• Beginning: get audience’s attention and focus their thoughts on you & the talk content
  
  • State the objective of the talk here
• Middle: develop your points
  
  • Explain or elaborate on each argument or idea
  • Remember: people tend to recall 3-5 points
• End: restate original objective with conclusion and make any closing comments

Question 12

Visuals in a presentation

Answer 12

• be relatively simple & straightforward
• have large, simple font
• include points rather than complete sentences
• be clear, sharp, & legible
• be ready to go before the presentation starts – arrive early!

Question 13

Preparation for presentations

Answer 13

• Be well-prepared – it not only enhances audience understanding, it boosts your confidence
• Practice, practice, practice!!!
• Determine whether you need aids, such as cards or notes
• But don’t use them if you don’t need them!

Question 14

CV = comprehensive listing of one’s professional activities

Answer 14

• Used by academicians, scientists, and health care professionals as a complete career summary (usually doctoral graduates)
• Often > 10 pp
• Literally means “the course of one’s life”

Question 15

Resume= A 1- or 2-page presentation of skills and work experience

Answer 15

• Generally written to secure a job interview
• Goal = advertise self and convince potential employer of “goodness of fit” with position

Question 16

Sections of the CV

Answer 16

• Other Professional Experience
• Special Skills
• Publications
• Presentations
• Community Service
• Associations/Affiliations
• Selected Workshops Attended

Question 17

Interviews

Answer 17

• No matter what you expect, prepare as if you will have a very demanding interview
  
  • Learn about the position
  • Learn about the organization
  • Learn about key people
  • Prepare appropriate questions
  • Practice answers to likely questions
  • Bring relevant materials
  • Arrive on time
  • Dress appropriately

Question 18

Interview phases

Answer 18

• Introductory: greeting, small talk, overview
  
  • Important because first impression
  • Nonverbals are key (handshake, eye contact)
  • Make sure to learn the interviewers’ names
• Middle: Q-&-A period (interviewer asks most Qs, but you can ask as well)
  
  • Give concise responses
  • Provide specific examples
  • Take notes if appropriate
• Closing: opportunity for final questions, get info about next step

Always ask questions
Do not ask about salary & compensation
Thank the interviewer by name

Question 19

Academic Honesty

Answer 19

• Bottom line: Paraphrase and cite liberally or quote exactly (include citation and page number)
• Good records facilitate good reporting and help avoid plagiarism
• Possible tracking systems:
  
  • Underlining and taking notes
  • Recording key information on note cards
  • Entering information in computer, with notation about whether it’s an exact quote
  • Bibliography software program (e.g., Refworks)
• Note: computer programs to detect plagiarism

Question 20

Types of citations

Answer 20

• Refer reader to useful sources of info
• (see, e.g., Symons, 1979)
• (for a review, see Symons, 1979)
• (cf*. Symons, 1979) *compare
  
  • Give support to position or statement; in order of strength

Question 21

Non-empirical sources

Answer 21

1) author’s opinion
2) conclusions from narrative review of studies

Question 22

Empirical sources

Answer 22

1) method & results of empirical study
2) method & results of quantitative review (meta-analysis)

Question 23

Joint authorship

Answer 23

• May involve people from different institutions and countries
• Pros:
  
  • Assistance with large project
  • Co-authors can increase breadth of project due to additional expertise
  • Co-authors can provide depth by adding issues a colleague may not have considered
  • Camaraderie can keep a project going
• Cons:
  
  • Requires coordination of effort
  • Doesn’t necessarily translate into less time or effort
  • Differences of opinion or approach may lead to abandonment of project &/or bitterness
  • May contribute less to scholarship & reputation of individuals than single authorship
  • Logistics can be challenging

Question 24

Determining Authorship Credit

Fine & Kurdeck (1993, p. 1142)

Answer 24

“although collaboration between two professionals can occur on an egalitarian basis, collaboration between faculty and their students is inherently unequal.”

2 Potential ethical dilemmas:

1. “faculty take authorship credit that was earned by the student”
2. “students are granted underserved authorship credit”

Question 25

General guidelines for authorship

Answer 25

• Typically, establishment of data archive not enough for authorship
• It may be difficult for those not actively involved to accept responsibilities of authorship
• Order authors according to degree of contribution
  
  • Typically assumed that first author was primary contributor
  • Should be consensus among authors as to order
  • If decision process as to order should be communicated to readers, use publication note
• Agreements should be flexible

Question 26

Issues Unique to Dissertation related to authorship

Answer 26

• Dissertation involves:
  
  • the work of the student
  • supervision (guidance & evaluation) by one or more faculty members
• This is not the same as collaboration undertaken by co-researchers
• Purpose of dissertation:
  
  • Demonstrate mastery of scholarly project
• However, the committee members decide when the project is complete, not just the student

Question 27

Outline

Answer 27

• Provides a means to map topics and their order of presentation
• Helps to ensure that the material presented is:
  
  • necessary
  • in a logical order
• assists the writer in thinking through how to accomplish the paper’s purpose
  
  • Notice the relationship between this function and the approach of a paper’s introduction
• provides a framework for deciding what content is important to include and how to organize it gives a starting point for actual writing

Question 28

Fine and Kurdeck (1993) cont.

Process recommendations (consistent with informed consent guidlines)

Answer 28

1. early on, supervisor should provide student with info about how authorship decisions are made
2. supervisor and student should assess task demands, extent of supervision required, and resonable expectations for contributions
3. the collaborators should discuss and agree on what is required to warrant aunthorship and the order thereof
4. agreements should be open to negotiation

Question 29

Fine and Kurdeck (1993) cont.

Outcome Recommendations

Answer 29

1. authors should be only those individuals who have made a professional contribution that is creative in nature
2. authorship decisions should be based on the scholarly contribution, not just time and effort
3. authorship decisions should not be affected by whether individuals were paid or had some employment status on the project
4. supervisors should consult with colleagues if ethical issues arise about authorship
5. if there is some disagreement, then an ad hoc third party should arbitrate the decision process