The Authorship Determination Process in Student–Faculty Collaborative Research

Abstract

This quantitative study provides a description of current and best practices for authorship determination in studentfaculty collaborative research. Doctoral students and faculty (N = 1,009) in education-related disciplines indicated how authorship decisions are made in common practice, how authorship decisions should be made, and their levels of comfort with the process. Their responses highlighted complexities inherent in student-faculty collaborations and informed practical recommendations for counselor educators and students.

Counselor Education Doctoral Students' Experiences With Multiple Roles and Relationships

“…Although boundary issues initially were studied as they pertained to counselor-client dual relationships, they often occur in a variety of other settings, such as college counseling centers (Dallesasse, 2010;Malley et al, 1992, as cited in Pearson & Piazza, 1997), ministerial relationships between clergy and parishioners (Haug, 1999), and higher education (Barnett, 2008;Biaggio et al, 1997;Blevins-Knabe, 1992;Bowman & Hatley, 1995;Holmes et al, 2000;Kolbert et al, 2002;Oberlander & Barnett, 2005;Schwab & Neukrug, 1994;Sullivan & Ogloff, 1998;Welfare & Sackett, 2011) where power differentials between two parties exist. Although dual relationships in therapeutic relationships were acknowledged, the ethics surrounding faculty-student relationships were widely neglected in the literature and ethics codes (Blevins-Knabe, 1992).…”

“…Welfare and Sackett (2011) called for future research regarding the attitudes and decision-making processes of students and faculty involved in the publications of collaborative research. The authors provided a comprehensive history of current and best practices for determining authorship in student-faculty collaborative research.…”

“…The authors provided a comprehensive history of current and best practices for determining authorship in student-faculty collaborative research. Welfare and Sackett (2011) found that some student researchers felt uncomfortable broaching the issue of authorship order with a professor, due in part to lack of familiarity in navigating the topic, and also due to fear of real or perceived negative consequences in other aspects of the student-professor relationship. The ACA 2014 Code of Ethics addresses research and publication in Section G. Researchers who invite students or supervisees to participate must clarify that participation in research (or not) will not affect any other professional relationship (e.g., supervisory or academic) (Standard G.2.b.).…”

“…When faculty and students have continuous and open conversations about the nature of dual relationships, a healthy climate for ethical relationships is fostered and demonstrates to students the importance of utilizing ethical decision-making models in everyday "gray" areas (Biaggio, Paget, & Chenoweth, 1997). Welfare and Sackett (2011) utilized the ethics codes for guidance regarding how to navigate authorship for publications. Confusion arises when different codes have different guidelines for evaluating authorship.…”

“…Researchers who have investigated multiple relationships in counselor education have noted the failure of some programs to emphasize the importance of creating and maintaining boundaries, or even to provide students with information on what constitutes an acceptable relationship and how to handle boundary violations (Barnett, 2008;Bowman & Hatley, 1995;Holmes et al, 1999;Kolbert et al;Scarborough et al, 2006). This lack of training is especially problematic considering that many counselor educators believe multiple relationships are essential to the growth and development of future counselor educators (Barnett, 2008;Biaggio et al, 1997;Blevins-Knabe, 1992;Bowman & Hatley, 1995;Holmes et al, 1999;Kolbert et al, 2002;Oberlander & Barnett, 2005;Remley & Herlihy, 2001;Scarborough et al, 2006;Welfare & Sackett, 2011). Furthermore, multiple relationships involving mentorship were consistently described as important to doctoral student success and professional development (Barnett, 2008;Bowman & Hatley, 1995, Holmes et al, 1999, Protivnak & Foss, 2009).…”