strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology...

7/27/2019 Strategies and Attributes of Highly Productive Scholars and Contributors to the School Psychology Literature Reco

1/30

Commissioned Article

Strategies and attributes of highly productive scholarsand contributors to the school psychologyliterature: Recommendations for increasing

scholarly productivity,,

Rebecca S. Martnez a,, Randy G. Floyd b, Luke W. Erichsen a

a Indiana University, USAb The University of Memphis, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 25 August 2011

Accepted 4 October 2011

In all academic fields, there are scholars who contribute to the re-

search literature at exceptionally high levels. The goal of the current

study was to discover what school psychology researchers with re-markably high levels of journal publication do to be so productive.

In Study 1, 94 highly productive school psychology scholars were

identified from past research, and 51 (39 men, 12 women) submitted

individual, short-answer responses to a 5-item questionnaire regard-

ing their research strategies. A constant comparative approach was

employed to sort and code individual sentiments (N=479) into cat-

egories. Seven broad categories of counsel for increasing productivity

Keywords:

Productive scholars

Ways to increase scholarly productivity

Contributions to literature

Qualitative research

Survey research

Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720

The former Editor of the Journal of School Psychology (JSP), Dr. Edward Daly III, commissioned this article to be developed as

part of a special issue of JSP. All manuscripts were subjected to masked peer review. Reviews were coordinated by Dr. Tanya Eckert

and Dr. John Hintze without using the JSP manuscript submission portal, the Elsevier Editorial System, to ensure that the manuscriptauthors were blind to reviewers' identities. The first author would like to acknowledge with gratitude her mentor, Dr. Ed Daly. She also would like to thank Mr. Rodney

Reid for teaching her to write well. Finally, Rebecca wishes to recognize the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference

(SPRCC) for its powerful impact on her development as a scholar in school psychology. We wish to thank the following for their

thoughtful and timely feedback on an early draft of the short-answer survey questions: J. Gayle Beck, Phil Carspecken, Jack

Cummings, Barbara Dennis, Art Graesser, Robert Neimeyer, Danielle McNamara, James Murphy and Leah Nellis. In particular, we ap-

preciate Robert Neimeyers suggestion that we interview some of the highly productive scholars. Additionally, we are grateful to the

following Journal of School Psychology associate editors for their feedback on the letter to participants and draft of the questions:

Sara Bolt, Robin Codding, Christine McWayne, and Kent McIntosh. We also appreciate all of the highly productive scholars for devot-

ing their time to this project. Melissa Bray, Frank Gresham, Scott Huebner, Tom Kratochwill, and Chris Skinner reviewed and approved their respective

interview transcriptions and summaries presented in Study 2 of this manuscript.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 812 856 8324; fax: +1 812 856 8333.

E-mail address: [email protected] (R.S. Martnez).

Action editor: Tanya Eckert.

0022-4405/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Society for the Study of School Psychology.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e /j s c h p s y c
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00224405http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00224405http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.10.003


2/30

emerged: (a) research and publication practices and strategies,

(b) collaboration, mentoring and building relationships, (c) navigating

the peer-review process, (d) strategies to bolster writing productivity

and excellence, (e) personal character traits that foster productivity, (f)

preparation before entering the professoriate, and (g) other noteworthy

sentiments. Results are discussed in terms of nine recommendations forscholars and graduate students who wish to increase their productivity.

In Study 2, five of the most productive scholars (1 woman, 4 men) par-

ticipated in a semi-structured interview about their high levels of pro-

ductivity. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed, and a

case analysis approach employed to profile each scholar. Study limita-

tions and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of Society for the Study of School

Psychology.

1. Introduction

The lives and practices of successful men and women, those whose accomplishments rise above the ordinary,

intrigue many people and have been the subject of several bestselling books. In Developing Talent in Young People,

Bloom (1985) studied 120 highly talented individuals who reached the pinnacle of success in their respective

fields by age 35. Bloom concluded that with the appropriate environmental nurturing almost anybody could

mirror the accomplishments of these extraordinarily successful people. More recently, Gladwell (2008) pub-

lished Outliers, chronicling the lives of people who had attained particularly high levels of success in their profes-

sions, including baseball and entrepreneurship. Both Bloom and Gladwell related that people do not become

consummate models of accomplishment in their fields simply because they were born that way. Rather,

these authors contend that people become the crme de la crme in their professions as a result of

the complex interplay between what they bring to the table and the environmental conditions along

the way that nurture, reinforce, and make possible their rise to the top. Under the right circumstances,

any man or woman can become extraordinary at his or her craft; in academic school psychology thecraft that must be cultivated is scholarly productivity. Although scholarly productivity is only one mea-

sure of success in academe, it is the benchmark against which high-stakes decisions about salary, pro-

motion, and tenure are measured at research universities. Accordingly, successfully publishing

research in peer-reviewed journal articles is the lifeblood of the graduate student seeking employment

at a research university, the tenure-track assistant professor desiring tenure, and the tenured professor

seeking promotion to full professor.

1.1. Productivity studies

One challenge to face when attempting to study these environmental conditions, strategies, andresources is objectively identifying the most productive scholars. This challenge may be overcome

by drawing on prior research using productivity indices which have been calculated in various ways

including a simple numerical tally of how many publications a researcher has published and taking

into account an author's position relative to his or her co-authors. The productivity indicator of pro-

gram prestige has been applied in psychology (Webster, Hall, & Bolen, 1993), education (Hsieh et al.,

2004) and school psychology (Davis, Zanger, Gerrard-Morris, Roberts, & Robinson, 2005; Kranzler, Grapin, &

Daley, 2011; Roberts, Gerrard-Morris, Zanger, Davis, & Robinson, 2006).

Little (1997) published the first study about the most prolific authors publishing in six school psychol-

ogy journals from 1987 to 1995. He employed three productivity metrics. First, he assigned equal credit to

all authors. Second, he awarded credit to first authors only. Third, he assigned authorship order credit

based on the author position formula. Later, Davis et al. (2005) used the simple count method to identifythe top 20 most productive authors across four school psychology journals from 1991 to 2003. Davis and

colleagues noted the flawed nature of the productivity score because it penalized collaboration by awarding

lower scores to authors with more co-authors. As the fields of educational psychology broadly (Hsieh et al.,

2004) and school psychology specifically (Roberts, Gerrard-Morris, et al., 2006) become more collaborative,

692 R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720


3/30

author position metrics for determining productivity become especially obsolete. To support this posi-

tion empirically, Roberts, Davis, Zanger, Gerrard-Morris, and Robinson (2006) applied both the simple

count and author position methods to identify highly productive scholars in five school psychology

journals from 1996 to 2005. They found that for the top few mostproductive scholars, the identification

metric applied was irrelevant to identifying them. The top five most productive scholars identified by

author order method were also identified in the top six using the simple count method.

Several studies in the literature have investigated highly productive scholars' research repertoires.

Tschannen-Moran and Nestor-Baker (2004) examined the tacit knowledge of 16 highly productive scholars

in education. Data were sorted and coded yielding twelve categories of these scholars' tacit knowledge and

strategies attributed to their high productivity (e.g., collaboration and social support, setting a research agen-

da, and publishing and coping with peer review). More recently, Mayrath (2008) asked 13 highly productive

educational psychologists to respond by email to one question: If you were going to explain why you were so

productive, what would you say? Scholars' responses were coded into four broad categories of attributions

of highly productive scholars: (a) collaboration, (b) passion/curiosity, (c) research skills, and (d) time

management. Data within each primary category were sorted into two to four sub-categories (e.g., for the

passion/curiosity category, passion for their work and curiosity including skepticism were subcategories.)

To date, there is no published study reporting the strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars inschool psychology. The current study was designed to redress this gap, and it is anticipated that this scholarly

counsel will serve as a guidepost for any research scholar intent on increasing his or her research publication

record. For this research, we conducted two studies to illuminate the strategies and environmental conditions

surrounding the most productive scholars in school psychology to date. It is our intention to serve thefield of

school psychology by making available to all school psychology scholars, including future scholars in thefield,

the practical information, skills, and strategies gleaned from the most highly productive scholars in our field

to date so all whodesire can improve their scholarship and increase their research contributions to thefield of

school psychology. The primary research questions were twofold: (a) How do school psychology scholars

who are highly productive contributors to the school psychology literature manage to be so productive?

and (b) What can we learn from them to increase our own productivity?

2. Study 1: Short-answer surveys

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants

The sampling frame population included highly productive scholars who were recognized in at least one

of three published studies (and the associated erratum for Roberts, Davis, et al., 2006) identifying highly pro-

ductive scholars in school psychology (see Davis et al., 2005; Little, 1997;Roberts, Davis,et al., 2006).Apoolof

94 highly productive scholars (23 women [24%], 71 men [76%]) was generated from the lists in the aforemen-

tioned studies. Email addresses were obtained for 91 of the living scholars; one highly productive scholar was

deceased. After receiving Institutional Review Board approval from the authors' corresponding universities,we invited these scholars to participate by email. Emails consistently were returned for two highly productive

scholars and three responded but declined participation. In total, 51 respondents (12 women [24%] women,

39 men [76%]) returned the completed survey, yielding a response rate of 56%. Participants received no com-

pensation for their participation.

2.1.2. Instrumentation

Various iterations of the survey were reviewed by seven scholars in school psychology, clinical psychology,

and cognitive psychology who had experience as peer reviewers and editors, and revisions were made based

on their feedback. The penultimate draft of the survey was reviewed by four associate editors for school psy-

chology journals, andfinalrevisions were made based on their feedback. Thefinal survey consisted offive brief

questions distributed by email (see Table 1). The invitation email, sent to potential participants, included anintroduction, a rationale for the study, and an attached Word document containing the survey. Below each

question on the survey, a text box allowed participants to type their answers. No text limit was given to par-

ticipants' replies. The five questions solicited participants' comments about the following: (a) books, journal

articles, and other reference resources focusing on the process of research and publication most valuable

693R.S. Martnez et al. / Journal of School Psychology 49 (2011) 691720


4/30

and worthwhile to recommend to others, (b) strategies and steps taken to foster research productivity, (c)strategies that have enhanced writing productivity, (d) strategies related to navigating the peer-review pro-

cess, and (e) graduate and undergraduate education that best prepared one for future productivity.

2.1.3. Procedure

In the spring of 2010, the highly productive scholars, based on the studies noted previously, were con-

tacted by email and invited to participate in the current study. Email addresses were obtained through

participants' university websites and by contacting other scholars in the field with knowledge about par-

ticipants whose emails were difficult to find. Email invitations were sent in early February 2010 to poten-

tial participants asking them to return the short-answer survey (via email or snail mail) within one month.

A reminder followed in mid-March to participants who had not yet responded. Two potential participants

could not be contacted and three declined participation. In late March, personal appeals were made to po-tential participants who agreed to participate but had not yet returned a survey.

2.1.4. Data analysis

Participants' responses to the survey questions (and associated unsolicited amendments provided by par-

ticipants) were converted to rich text documents and uploaded to the qualitative data analysis software pack-

age, MAXQDA10 (http://www.maxqda.com), which assists researchers in managing, organizing, and sorting

qualitative data sets. Analysis of the data began with a microanalysis that is used selectively and usually at

thebeginningof a project to generate ideas, to get the researcher deep into thedata, and to focus in on pieces

of data that seem relevant but whose meaning remains elusive (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 50). The first and

third authors (a tenured associate professor in school psychology and a second-year doctoral student in school

psychology, respectively) conducted independent microanalyses of the data by carefully reading and reread-ing all short-answer surveys by respondent and then resorting and rereading the responses by question.

The raw data (i.e., all responses) were analyzed as sentiments, or stand-alone beliefs and ideas, and

grouped or coded into categories using constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Constant compari-

son is a means of interacting with data that allows researchers to draw conceptually similar concepts into

broader categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Throughout the process of constant comparison, the re-

searcher categorizes each sentiment into conceptually similar groups (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Sentiments

in the current study varied in length from one word to a full paragraph. No sentiment was coded in more

than one category, and sentiments expressed only once across participants were coded in a miscella-

neous category and not included in the overall tally of expressed sentiments.

After thefirst and third authors developed a coding scheme, the first author's coding scheme was used as

the foundation for a subsequent line-item analysis conducted collaboratively by both authors. Both au-thors' coding schemes were open on the working desktop, and where there was a discrepancy in the

coding of a particular sentiment, discussion took place until 100% consensus was reached and a final

draft of the coding scheme was produced. On the final coding scheme, seven categories emerged

from the analysis of 479 sentiments.

Table 1

Questions included on the first survey e-mailed to the most productive scholars.

1. What books or journal articles have you most frequently turned to during your career that you believe other scholars should

possess, study, and apply to their research and writing? We are interested in knowing your most valuable reference texts or other

resources focusing on professional publication, research methodology and statistics, theory, and ideals for practice. Note that you

need not list resources in each category. Please provide as much reference information as possible for at least three books or articles.2. What are the most important strategies you have employed to enhance your research productivity? We are interested in knowing

about strategies related to the basic steps of research, such as project development, data collection, and data analysis. We welcome

your listing of multiple strategies, but you need not list strategies for every step.

3. What are the most important strategies you have employed to enhance your writing productivity? We are most interested in

knowing about practical strategies you have used to produce so many journal articles in your career.

4. What are the most important strategies you have employed to navigate through the peer-review process? We are interested in

knowing about strategies you have used to determine optimal journal outlets for your research, to cope with and respond to

reviewer feedback, and to engage in manuscript revision. We welcome your listing of multiple strategies, but you need not list

strategies for every category.

5. What activities during your undergraduate or graduate education best prepared you to be productive in publishing? We are

interested in knowing what training, mentoring experiences, or program requirements most enhanced your research and writing skills.

http://www.maxqda.com/http://www.maxqda.com/


5/30

2.1.5. Data trustworthiness and coding scheme reliability check

To increase credibility in the coding scheme, we invited two researchers (tenured professors in different

school psychology programs with a combined 27 years experience in academe) to apply the coding scheme to

half of the data. The first author emailed the researchers a document containing the six categories and 50% of

the data originally coded within each category. The researchers independently identified disagreements in the

coding scheme by highlighting those disagreements in the document and returned the highlighted document

to the first author. Mean interrater reliability between the two researches across the six original codes was as

follows: (a) Collaboration and building relationships (98%); (b) Preparation before entering the professori-

ate (96%); (c) Other noteworthy sentiments (100%); (d) Navigating the peer-review process (100%);

(e) Personal character traits that foster productivity (100%); and (f) Research and publication practices

and strategies (98.5%).

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Resources

In the first question, we asked highly productive scholars to recommend the books or journal articles

they personally consider most valuable and believe other scholars should own, study, and apply to their

research and writing. Table 2 lists (a) the 28 books, journal special issues, and journal articles which

were cited more than once and (b) the total times each was cited. A complete list of all resources

recommended can be obtained by emailing the first author. The five resources cited by four or more

scholars included two prominent texts devoted to school psychology research and practice (i.e., Reynolds and

Gutkin's The Handbook of School Psychology and Thomas and Grimes's Best Practices in School Psychology), two ad-

vanced research methods texts (i.e., Campbell and Stanley's Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Re-

search and Shadish, Cook, and Campbell's Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal

Inference), and two texts devoted to professional writing style and formatting, (Publication Manual of the Amer-

ican Psychological Association [2009] and Strunk and White's The Elements of Style [1999]).1 Of those 28 books

cited more than once, 8 (29%) focused on research design, 7 (25%) focused on statistical analysis, 4 (14%) focused

on school psychology foundations and its practices (e.g., assessment and intervention), 4 (14%) focused on psy-

chological measurement (e.g., validity), 3 (11%) focused on psychological theory guiding theory and practice,

and 2 (4%) focused on writing.

2.2.2. Sentiments

The remaining responses to the four questions on the short-answer survey were analyzed using the

methods described previously. We coded 479 sentiments and broadly categorized them into the following

seven higher-order categories: (a) collaboration, mentoring, and building relationships, (b) research and

publication practices and strategies, (c) navigating the peer-review process, (d) strategies to bolster writ-

ing productivity and excellence, (e) personal character traits that foster productivity, (f) preparation before

entering the professoriate, and (g) other noteworthy sentiments. Sentiments were further categorized into

subcategories within the higher-order categories. The categories and subcategories were consistent with pre-

vious research about highly productive authors (e.g., Mayrath, 2008). Table 3 lists the higher- and lower-order

categories and dispersal of coded sentiments across categories. In the following sections, we describe each of

the seven categories in greater detail and substantiate the descriptions using verbatim responses provided by

the highly productive scholars.

2.2.3. Collaboration, mentoring and building relationships

Building relationships and collaborating on scholarly activities was the most common strategy ac-

counting for the participants' high levels of scholarly productivity. In all, 86 (17.95%) of the overall sentiments

pertained to collaborations with colleagues, students, and schools. Highly productive scholars partake in ac-

tive research groups and share article authorship. They maintain that

you don't need to befi

rst author on

1 Due to variation in the mannerin which participants referenced books, we have referred to them in general terms, when possible, yet

cited their most recent editions.

http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-


6/30

every publication by working with 2 or 3 other colleagues, you can increase your productivity as they take

the lead on a project or two in addition to your own projects. These highly productive scholars advise others

to form partnerships with other researchers [to] take on different roles on different projects, includingfirst

author, senior/last author, and other author. Highly productive scholars surround [themselves] with talented,

productive people and in so doing build relationships as they network with others and join forces to build ac-

tive research teams. These relationships help some scholars with accountability. One highly productive scholar

commented:

I think collaborating helps me. It keeps me accountable. It doesn't matter if it is a colleague or a student

who is writing with me. If I give them a deadline for my portion of the writing project I am more likely to

meet the deadline.

Table 2

Resources cited more than once by highly productive scholars.

Reference Times

cited

BooksReynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (Eds.). (1999). The handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley. 8

Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.) (2008). Best practices in school psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists.

7

Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. 6

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association . Washington,

DC: Author.

5

Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.

New York: Houghton Mifflin.

4

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (1999). The Elements of Style (4th ed.) New York: Longman. 4

Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C. & Nelson, R. O. (1984). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and

educational settings. New York: Pergamon.

3

Campbell,D. T., & Cook, T. D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues forfield settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 3

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

3

Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, D.C: American

Psychological Association.

3

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2008). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson. 3

Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. C. (2009). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (8th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson. 2

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association., National Council on Measurement in

Education., & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. (2002). Standards for

educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

2

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. 2

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. 2

Cormier, W. H., Bounds, W. G., & Huck, S. W. (1974). Reading statistics and research. New York: Harper & Row. 2

Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (2000). Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

2

Jensen, A. R. (1980) Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press. 2

Jensen, A. R., & Nyborg, H. (2003). The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Boston: Pergamon. 2

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford

University Press.

2

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College. 2

Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 2

Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations. San Diego: Author 2

Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Boston: Authors Cooperative. 2

Journal special issue

Akin-Little, K. A., Little, S. G., & Gresham, F. G. (2004). Current perspectives on school-based behavioral interventions

[Special Issue]. School Psychology Review, 33(3).

2

Journal articlesCronbach, L. J, & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281302. 2

Meehl, P., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting

scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194216.

2



7/30

Another highly productive scholar lamented waiting until much later in his career to work with others to

advance his research program. He commented, I learned this too late in my career, but my productivity over

the past 56 years has quadrupled, thanks mostly to the opportunities afforded by collaboration. Simply stat-

ed, working together with other scholars who are productive and writing about the same things seems to be

a factor in the successful research careers of many highly productive scholars in school psychology.These scholars imparted considerable detail about ways in which they collaborate with others during all

stages of their research projects, participating in dynamic, active research teams and delegating responsibil-

ities to both graduate and undergraduate students. They also meet regularly with their research teams,

brainstorm to discuss new ideas, and keep a dynamic lineup of participants that welcomes volunteers

Table 3

Higher- and lower-order categories and dispersal of coded sentiments across categories.

# of coded

sentiments

% of total coded

sentiments

I. Research and publication practices and strategies 152 31.73%1. Know the journals, identify optimal outlet and consider your audience 32 6.68%

2. Organization, time management and prioritization 30 6.26%

3. Getting started on a manuscript 24 5.01%

4. Find your niche/expertise, pursue it vigorously, and conduct systematic research that builds

on initial success

20 4.18%

5. Keep learning, read widely, and stay current in the literature 15 3.13%

6. Publish in reputable journals 8 1.67%

7. Always have something in the hopper 7 1.46%

8. Funding for research 5 1.04%

9. Archival vs. new data sets 8 1.67%

10. Know cutting-edge statistics and how to analyze your own data properly 3 0.63%

II. Collaboration, mentoring, and building relationships 86 17.95%

1. Collaborate with good students and mentor future researchers 28 5.85%

2. General collaboration and building relationships 21 4.38%3. Collaborate and network with good colleagues 20 4.18%

4. Be part of an active research team and apportion responsibilities 15 3.13%

5. Collaborate with schools 2 0.42%

III. Navigating the peer-review process 73 15.24%

1. Take peer reviews seriously, address revisions thoroughly, and learn from constructive

feedback

39 8.14%

2. Don't take criticism and rejection personally 11 2.30%

3. Rewrite, revise, and resubmit without delay 10 2.09%

4. Become a reviewer 7 1.46%

5. Avoid journals that provide rude reviews 4 0.84%

6. Contact the editor 2 0.42%

IV. Strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence 61 12.73%

1. Have a protected writing time or place 25 5.22%

2. Pursue writing excellence, revise your work, seek feedback and practice writing frequently 25 5.22%

3. Submit highest quality work on first submission 7 1.46%

4. Model good writing and develop a template for writing manuscripts 4 0.84%

V. Personal character traits that foster productivity 53 11.06%

1. Persistence, discipline, and really hard work 25 5.22%

2. Interest, curiosity, flexibility, creativity, and passion 20 4.18%

3. Just do it! 4 0.84%

4. Capitalize on good luck 2 0.42%

5. Have the courage to publish (unpopular) results 2 0.42%

VI. Preparation before entering the professoriate 46 9.60%

1. Worked with faculty who were good role models, who provided mentorship, and who

published a lot

21 4.38%

2. Was not mentored or given the preparation to become a researcher during graduate school 9 1.88%

3. Importance of taking excellent coursework, especially in inquiry methods 8 1.67%4. Published as a graduate student 8 1.67%

VII. Other noteworthy sentiments 8 1.67%

1. Engender synergy between research and teaching 5 1.04%

2. Embrace qualitative research 3 0.63%

Summary of all sentiments 479 100.00%



8/30

[to conduct research]. Highly productive scholars capitalize on all collaborators' competencies by identify

[ing] team limitations and form[ing] partnerships to address gaps in expertise. As one highly productive

scholar commented many hands make lighter work and two heads are better than one so [scholars

should] develop a team to facilitate projects.

In addition to collaborating with their peers, highly productive scholars collaborate with their own research

mentors as well as with graduate and undergraduate students. In particular, the scholars in our survey com-

mented repeatedly about the importance of mentoring and collaborating with their students. They commented

that it is essential to work with able graduate students and listen to their suggestions. Furthermore, collabo-

rating with capable students is essential as you don't always have the time to do data collection yourself.

Highly productive scholars are committed to nurturing students interested in research and involving them in

current research efforts. One highly productive scholar involves undergraduate and graduate students at all

levels of the research process: I have undergraduates score/enter data/make tables and I have graduate

students help with writing and analyzing data [with appropriate authorship]. Highly productive scholars

are steadfast about furthering their program of research, but they also foster student research interests.

One highly productive scholar commented that while he has a primary line of research, [he] regularly en-

gage[s] with students to design/implement at least one fun study on a different but maybe related topic.

Moreover, highly productive scholars encourage many student papers and publications where they [the stu-dent] take the lead on some and [the highly productive scholar] on others to publish and present papers. For

one highly productive scholar, collaborating with his graduate students has been a major aspect of his suc-

cessful research career:

Another feature of collaboration that has advanced my career has been collaborating with my graduate

students. I have had thegood fortune to work with extremely bright and talented graduate students for

over 35 years. During this time I have had students who have challenged me, advanced my thinking,

and have later contributed major developments and components to the field of school psychology,

psychology, and education. It is this collaboration withstudents that has improved my own profession-

al contributions to the field in remarkable ways. In fact, I continue to collaborate with my former stu-

dents over the years.

Highly productive scholars also use collaboration with their graduate students as the platform from

which they mentor and prepare future scholars. These scholars provide opportunities to competent, in-

terested grad students to co-author papers, and they even engage them in the [peer] review process.

One scholar describes what the process is all about for him and his students:

I treat [my graduate student advisees] as partners in the creative scholarship and research enterprise,

and give them responsibility for returning and reporting on their assignments. This helps me to be

more productive, keeps me accountable, and is a great socialization strategy to develop young scholars.

The graduate students get a lot out of this publications, presentation opportunities, and mentorship

for careers. Many of my research team members have gone on to successful careers as scholars.

Although nearly all highly productive scholars commented that they pursue scholarly efforts by collabo-

rating with others, these scholars are particularthey don't collaborate with just anybody. Many highly pro-

ductive scholars repeatedly remarked about the importance of having the right collaborators, working

with good people, and collaborating with competent colleagues. As one highly productive scholar succinct-

ly put it, collaborate with others who know more and different than you do. These scholars share their ef-

forts with responsible, ethical and productive colleagues. They emphasized working closely with gifted

colleagues in measurement and research and interacting with researchers from other disciplines. One

highly productive scholar noted that collaborating with a variety of researchers has created an opportunity

for widening my experiences and knowledge base/depth and scope of research in significant waysallow

[ing] me to keep learning and using novel techniques in important ways, strengthening the research studiesimmensely. Similarly, another highly productive scholar advocated:

Collaborate with other researchers whocomplement your skill areas without duplicating them; for ex-

ample, if you are strong in a content area and want to conduct research in that content area, then try to



9/30

collaborate with someone who is strong in research methods and statistics, even if he or she knows lit-

tle or nothing about your preferred content area. If the collaboration proves fruitful, then conduct a se-

ries of studies with that person.

2.2.4. Research and publication practices and strategies

Highly productive scholars sharedmany of the practices andstrategies that have made their prolific research

careers viable. Indeed, 152 (31.73%) different sentiments regarded the scholars' particular research practices

and strategies. A widely held sentiment among highly productive scholars is that a researcher mustfirst famil-

iarize himself or herself with a variety of prospective journal outlets. Highly productive scholars discussed ac-

tively studying and saturating their knowledge about various journal outlets with the goal of discovering

the mission of the journal and finding a good fit for their work. One highly productive scholar noted that

it was essential to understand the kinds of articles and topics published by each journal before deciding if

his work was a match to the journal. Another highly productive scholar spends time reviewing the articles in

a particular journal, which he noted provides a very good sample of topics, length, and writing style appropri-

ate to that journal. One highly productive scholar commented that he has come to know the various journals

well enough that it is fairly obvious from the outset which outlet would be most appropriate for each piece of

writing. Another aspect of manuscriptjournalfit that several highly productive scholars discussed was know-ing their audience and purposefully selecting outlets that reached the broadest possible audience for the topic.

Although most highly productive scholars shared how important it was to carefully consider a journal's

reputation before submitting their manuscripts for peer review, there was no consensus among the scholars

about whether one should always aim for publishing exclusively in journals with the highest impact factors.

One highly productive scholar shared that he do[es] not always shoot for the highest quality outlet for

every piece but rather [he] tr[ies] to match the manuscript to the journal in terms of audience and quality.

On the other hand, some highly productive scholars always aim to publish in journals with high impact factors

to ensure the widest distribution of their work. One highly productive scholar commented that researchers

ought to try to publish in journals that have high impact factors. You may have made a great discovery, but

if no one reads or cites it, there is less chance that it will have any influence on advancing the discipline or

area. If new researchers are unsure of which journal to submit a particular manuscript, highly productivescholars recommend starting with school psychology friendly journals and also seeking the advice of

more experienced scholars to determine where to publish [one's] work. In sum, the overall sentiment

among these highly productive scholars centers on familiarizing oneself with available and relevant journal

outlets and submitting one's work to the highest rated journal possible, considering the target audience. An-

other comment made by a highly productive scholar offers this practical nugget of wisdom about deciding

where to submit one's work:

I have heard prominent scholars in the field say that they keep a mental list of journals ranked by pres-

tige. Starting at the top of the list, whenever their work is rejected by a journal, they keep sending the

paper to the next journal on the list, and follow this process until it is accepted somewhere. This sounds

systematic; however, it requires much stamina.

Highly productive scholars prioritize research and they actively and systematically work on advancing their

research agendas. These scholars jealously guard and organize their daily, weekly, and monthly schedules

around their research practices. For them, scheduling time for research is just as sacrosanct as teaching a

class. Another reason highly productive scholars accomplish so much lies in their organizational skills. Many

set artificial deadlines to keep themselves accountable and stay on track. One shared that he make[s] public

deadlines so I have [a] commitment to colleagues [and] students. Another organizational strategy shared by

several highly productive scholars is to have a master calendar of all research activities and progress. One highly

productive scholar follows a master calendar for the 9 months [with] an emphasis on the month and weekly

to do lists. Overall, it is evident that essential ingredients for a successful research career for many highly pro-

ductive scholars emphasize excellent time management, exceptional organization, and a clear vision for theevolution of their research. One highly productive scholar shared his conception of time management:

I must say that over time I have learned some pretty extraordinary time management strategies. I have

become extremely efficient in the work that I do, and the combination of good time management,



10/30

advanced planning, and high motivation have been a recipe for success. My time management has

allowed me to juggle not only professional work but also hobbies that consume major amounts of

time.

2.2.4.1. Getting started. Highly productive scholars revealed their rules of thumb for embarking on anynew research study or project. Many highly productive scholars, though not all, conceptualize a new

project by considering the underlying theoretical framework to guide the work. They emphasized that

there is nothing more practical than a good theory and that, in general, researchers must advance

theories and improve practices. Another highly productive scholar begins his research projects by

attempting to resolve practical problems in the field. He noted that the most useful strategy has

been to address presenting problems (i.e., do not tell educators what problems they have, but let

them tell you and then address them, collaboratively).

Several highly productive scholars also discussed advantages and disadvantages of collecting new

data versus using archival data sets. Some commented that archival data sets allow for more productiv-

ity since they permit [one] to conduct several studies on the same topic. Another noted, in using ar-

chival datasets, no time or very little time is used in the data collection process. Also such datasetsprovide me with much better quality data than I can produce on my own. On the other hand, other

highly productive scholars were adamant about collecting their own data, and one has even made

data collection a top priority in my job. Another highly productive scholar commented that a good

question is a better/easier foundation for research than data availability. He further warned other

scholars not to be misled by available data; it's easier/better to design a study to answer a good ques-

tion than (to) try to invent a question that can be answered by extant data.

Another practical aspect of getting started with research has to do with having necessary funding to carry

out all aspects of a research study. A few highly productive scholars discussed the importance of research fund-

ing. For one highly productive scholar grant monies provide freedom and support writing papers and prod-

ucts is the culminating point. Another commented that seeking external funding support for my projects

enhance(s) the likelihood that I can pay participants [and] hire students to help with data collection and pre-liminary analyses, and I can have funds to allow me to present research reports at professional meetings.

Many highly productive scholars also offered some practical suggestions about beginning to write a

new manuscript. However, there was no general conformity among the scholars about what section of

the manuscript to write first. Suggestions included the following: (a) establish the tables that will be in-

cluded first, (b)outline the major subsections of a comprehensive discussion, and (c) write hypotheses

first, then write an abstract, even start by thinking about what data you would like to collect. On the other

hand, there was consensus about one thinghighly productive scholars are prolific readers, and for many

of them, reading widely is the actual starting point of any new research endeavor. Highly productive

scholars remain informed about the literature and innovative research methodologies by engaging in

self-study, audit[ing] courses and read[ing] broadly in psychology. Highly productive scholars

read and read more.

They counsel other researchers to

read widely

and recommend

refl

ect[ing] onwhat you read in relation to your focused area of research.

Highly productive scholars concur that being familiar with current literature helps them advance sci-

ence. Knowledge of current literature permits scholars to identify key issues and questions which need

further inquiry or have not been addressed sufficiently. In particular, highly productive scholars recom-

mend conduct[ing] exhaustive literature searches on topics of interest to identify gaps in the literature

(because) these gaps translate directly to topics that are in need of innovative research. Highly productive

scholars also recommend mov[ing] away from an over-researched problem. One highly productive

scholar illustrates how he familiarizes himself with the literature before he begins any new research pro-

ject:

The first strategy is to engage in extensive reading and wide-scale assessment of the existing liter-ature in a particular topical area prior to beginning a project. I typically spend several days (some-

times over a period of several weeks) reviewing articles and materials related to a particular topic

or project that I am about to begin. Specifically, I spend a great deal of time reading the original

sources, research reviews, and summaries of the existing literature in a particular area. This process



11/30

has always helped me to develop my thinking and conceptual frameworks for advancing my own

research and writing.

Many highly productive scholars commented on the importance of setting in motion a systematic and

planful program of research that is progressive, programmatic, and builds on initial successes. Several

scholars advised against a shotgun approach to conducting research. They encourage new scholars to

find a niche early and pursue it vigorously. One highly productive scholar articulated this particular sen-

timent succinctly: It (is) essential that scholars be able to articulate their research program and be able to

look down the road, beyond a particular study, to others that might be logical next steps, depending on

results obtained. Several highly productive scholars suggested capitalizing on synergistic efforts or col-

lecting data linked to multiple projects, and writ[ing] more than one study about the topic to help en-

sure that scholars set in motion a systematic, cohesive program of research.

Further, synergistic research efforts appear to facilitate efficiency. As one highly productive scholar

noted I try to make my projects relate to one another so that there is cohesiveness to the projects. I

find that doing related studies means that we can share the same experimental preparations across pro-

jects, helping us be more efficient. Another highly productive scholar regularly makes every attempt to

write a paper presentation, literature review, grant application, and original research study with each ef-fort. In addition to pursuing a systematic line of research, many scholars are highly prolific in their area of

expertise because they pursue depth over breadth by stay[ing] within [their] area of expertise and

pursu[ing] only research questions [that they are] intensely interested in.

Another manifest strategy key to the success of many highly productive scholars is that they generally al-

ways have something in the hopper. One highly productive scholar commented that it is essential to get

several projects going at one time and be able to shift focus from one to another. For these highly productive

scholars, it is helpful to have research projects and writing projects at various stages of development [be-

cause] there is no point in having too much down time while waiting to hear back on editorial decisions

regarding manuscripts already under review. One highly productive scholar shared his rule of thumb:

I have followed what I call the rule of 2. Two manuscripts/chapters in press, two under review,two in the works, and two on the drawing board/data collection. As long as I can keep the rule of

2 going I've been able to keep up my productivity.

Highly productive scholars offered different suggestions concerning how many projects or programs of re-

search are optimal to move forward simultaneously. One highly productive scholar suggested develop[ing]

two or three viable programs of research. Another highly productive scholar engage[s] in five or six research

studies simultaneously as they progress at different rates. And a third highly productive scholar focus[es] on

no more than three writing projects at time. Others recommended think[ing] small or limiting one's efforts

to one or two projects at one time. As one highly productive scholar noted, too often, new researchers want to

solve the problems of the world or answer all of the big questions in one study. In sum, highly productive

scholars' collective wisdom indicates that one should simply yet systematically even relentlessly pursuea topic or small number of related topics of intense personal interest. Highly productive scholars have an innate

curiosity and passion for their work. They pursue research questions that they are intensely interested in.

They collectively advise others tofind their passion and contribute in areas in which you have a natural inter-

est. One highly productive scholar commented, For me, follow your bliss! If you are intrinsically motivated to

examine an issue, I believe this goes a long way towards enhancing research productivity.

2.2.5. Navigating the peer-review process

Prolificacy requires frequent acceptance of submitted manuscripts. Respondents' remarks about navigating

the peer-review process provide valuable insight into a highly germane aspect of scholarship. Highly productive

scholars made 73 comments (15.2%) about the importance of taking reviewer feedback seriously while avoiding

defensiveness. It is noteworthy to mention that a few highly productive scholars lamented the horribly flawedpeer-review process. One example provided by a highly productive scholar stated our field has not published

negative results studies and so we have a knowledge base built on positive findings that happen to make it in

the journals. Nevertheless, another highly productive scholar stated in most cases the process is fair and the

suggestions make our papers much, much better. Several highly productive scholars also noted that becoming



12/30

a reviewer enhances one's own scholarship quality. Although not all reviewers are accurate in their

conclusions, scholars ought to pay attention to the reviewers and try to see the article through [the

reviewer's] eyes. One highly productive scholar observed:

In most cases, manuscripts can be revised, and it behooves us as researchers to take on the task

and, in many cases, the recommendations may be actually quite positive. One needs to accept at

the outset that there are going to be many criticisms and alternative ideas expressed; therefore, it

is important not to take the reviewer comments as a dismissal or a negative perspective on our

work.

Along this line, highly productive scholars compose a detailed letter to accompany revisions that clearly

elucidates the changes they made and provide precise rationale for why certain changes suggested by re-

viewers were not made. One highly productive scholar suggested that, the most important product one pro-

duces is the letter to the editor that goes along with a revised/resubmitted piece. Indeed, doing so mak[es] it

really easy for the editor to see that the revision is desirable. Further, laying out the rationale for what you

did (not) change and why is essential for getting the piece into print. Another highly productive scholar

noted that he only responded to every reviewer comment when instructed to by the action editor; however,most respondents urged researchers to address all points of reviewer feedback thoughtfully. If questions re-

main about a particular review, some highly productive scholars advised call[ing] the editor [because] re-

viewers may have important feedback, but the editor decides which feedback is most important. A sentiment

commonly noted was captured in the following quotation: Feedback is better than praise [and] one must put

ego aside, accept the feedback provided, and make the necessary alterations as appropriate.

Additionally, highly productive scholars urge researchers to take peer reviewers' comments seriously

when deciding how best to proceed after a manuscript is rejected. These highly productive scholars

urge persistence in trying to get a manuscript published and caution inexperienced researchers [not to]

misinterpret a revise/resubmit decision from an editor as a rejection. One highly productive scholar

commented, When an article is rejected or if a substantial revision is requested, the odds are great that

at least some of the points made by reviewers [are] salient and merit consideration. Be sure to makethose modifications before resubmitting the article anywhere.

Highly productive scholars noted that major criticisms should be addressed even if the authors intend

to resubmit to a different journal, although some reported success submitting manuscripts to alternative

outlets unchanged or minimally revised. In addition, it seems that highly productive scholars who learn

from the peer-review process are likely to improve their work progressively and advance the field.

These scholars find the peer-review process instructive; they benefit from careful reviews and per-

ceive rejections and revisions as mechanisms to improve their work rather than as evidence that they

have failed. Highly productive scholars counsel that one should not be afraid of well done reviews [be-

cause] they can make your manuscript better. Again, the peer-review process is viewed by most scholars

as a form of collaboration among colleagues; in the words of one highly productive scholar, take feed-

back from reviewers seriously; this is a collaboration and one can learn a lot.Highly productive scholars counseled others against becoming defensive and allowing emotions to

take over following reviewer feedback. They acknowledged that the peer-review process can discourage

you and acknowledge that coping with reviewer feedback requires effort (especially for the young re-

searcher). After receiving peer feedback, one highly productive scholar does the following:

I read reviews, then ignore them for about a week or so before I re-read them and begin revision. It's

just too close to jump from reading to revision; I need to let the feedback simmer before I'm ready

to respond. I remind myself of some of the things I've said about other people's work, and remem-

ber that I've probably learned more from reviews than from reading over the years. It helps take

some of the sting out of the process.

Several other highly productive scholars also noted that they allowfeedback to simmer by permitting some

time to pass between initially receiving a review and beginning revisions; time allows for a more dispassionate

reading. One highly productive scholar remarked that even when he does not agree with reviewer feedback, he

encourages himself by keeping in mind that revisions present an opportunity to clarify [his] thinking (which



13/30

probably was not communicated well enough in the first place). Indeed, keeping a positive attitude when re-

ceiving negative reviews is helpful, even essential. One highly productive scholar commented:

I don't let negative feedback and rejection deter me. Scholars in almost any field have a tendency to be

rigid, uptight, and to expect higher standards of other's work than they do of their own. Thus, you need

to expect that some reviewers and editors won't like your work, and it may get rejected. That's just

part of the process and you need to be willing to consider other possible outlets and to let the negative

feedback improve future work, but not discourage you.

Conversely, highly productive scholars actively avoid submitting their manuscripts to journals where

they have received rude reviews. One advised others to avoid a journal if they can't provide some sort

of positive feedback even with a reject. Essentially, highly productive scholars advise, return(ing) to

journals where you have been treated with respect, given timely and constructive feedback. One highly

productive scholar commented on the importance of the journal associate editors in the process:

An outstanding associate editor makes all the difference. Someone who synthesizes individual

reviewers' comments and recommendations to provide an author with explanation regardingan editorial decision and/or guidance regarding ways to improve a manuscript is very helpful

to an author. Someone who simply passes along the individual reviews, which can be in conflict

or not even very well done is of little help to the author, and I believe this shows in the quality of

the journal and what it publishes. Based on my familiarity, I have tended to submit to journals

under the leadership of the former and avoid those of the latter.

Highly productive scholars revise and turn their work around quickly, even when (they) are other-

wise busy. This seems to be a priority and one highly productive scholar commented that it has been

rare in my experience to have something accepted without revision. Also, I don't recall an article [for

which] I resubmitted post revision that wasn't accepted. A few other highly productive scholars stressed

how important it is to get a manuscript back out there and when it's a reject, sending it onto anotherjournal immediately.

Most highly productive scholars have improved their scholarship and productivity by serving on ed-

itorial review boards. These scholars maintain that participating in the review process as referees gives

them a greater appreciation of the intricacies of the peer-review process, allows them to be better able

to anticipate criticism, and keeps them abreast of the latest knowledge in the field. Evaluating others'

writing has allowed these scholars to improve their own work. One highly productive scholar noted

that reviewing helps you fine-tune the presentation of your own work for publication. Another highly

productive scholar said that reviewing helped me figure out the habits and unwritten criteria for each jour-

nal [and] seeing what other reviewers and the action editor note regarding manuscripts that I have

reviewed has also helped a lot.

2.2.6. Strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence

With 12.73% (n =61) of the sentiments, strategies to bolster writing productivity and excellence

address one of the very practical and requisite aspects of being a highly productive scholar. Many high-

ly productive scholars in this study noted that writing is most easily accomplished when time to write

is both regularly scheduled and protected. Highly productive scholars noted how important it is to

block off, set aside, and schedule time simply to write. One highly productive scholar acknowl-

edged that doing so is incredibly difficult given the competing demands of the academic life and sug-

gested that protected writing days be scheduled off campus. Some highly productive scholars also

endorsed working from home as a way to focus on writing, while others mentioned writing on nights

and weekends rather than attempting to find time during already packed workday schedules. A number of

other highly productive scholars discussed specific schedules that foster their own writing productivity, suchas particular writing days or parts of days (e.g., 5:00 AM until work is supposed to start and I write on a

schedule which is typically in the morning and I stop writing before lunch) set aside entirely for writing and

protected against distractions. One highly productive scholar advised writers to set aside time each week for

writing and urged them simply, "Don't give [the time] up.



14/30

Although nearly all highly productive scholars agreed that devoting time specifically to writing allows

for greater productivity, they differed in how they most efficiently use this protected time. Some work best

when they schedule small chunks of time between other daily activities:

I feel like ifI wait until I have a lot oftime to writeit won't happen I have tried to adopt the philosophy

of just turning to a writing project when I have time (even if it is a smaller amount of time than I would

like).

Another highly productive scholar urged others to write every day [e]ven if it is an hour at a time.

One highly productive scholar says: I am required to write one page a day and I monitor my progress

on a daily basis. I also graph my results. Conversely, another noted that he is a burst writer and needs

longer periods of time to pound out documents and does not write efficiently within one- or two-

hour blocks. Yet another highly productive scholar writes best in mass quantities rather than spread-

ing things out. Aspiring scholars will benefit from finding the writing times and places that work best for

them, knowing that different strategies match different work styles.

Several highly productive scholars remarked about the importance of learning to write well by pursu-

ing excellence, seeking feedback on their writing, and practicing regularly. These scholars edit, re-edit,and then re-edit their own work. One highly productive scholar succinctly counsels: Become a student

of writing. Writing excels when you practice, practice, practice. Two scholars recommended Stephen

King's text, On Writing, and one commented:

I don't read his fiction, but I respect [King's] productivity. In this book on the writing process, he said

he devotes so many hours each day at a set time and simply sits down and tries to write at least a

minimum number of pages during those hours. Then he walks away. That type of effort has served

me well. I don't write around the clock anymore, but I devote time to writing on a regular basis, and

I simply expect that I need to produce a few pages each time.

Highly productive scholars approach writing in a very practical way and several disclosed that theyhave discover[ed] the template necessary for writing quality research-based articles. Indeed, one

highly productive scholar has been successful in his research career by looking for formulaic ways to

construct a manuscript based on articles already published in [a particular] journal. Other highly pro-

ductive scholars acknowledged that they hone in on particular authors' writing style and try to incor-

porate it in [their] own writing. Another highly productive scholar divulged that he cuts and pastes

sections of articles that I think are really neat and want to include some component into [a] writ-

ing list [so I] can keep track of everything in one place.

It may be encouraging for many readers to know that for some highly productive scholars, writing

is the hardest part of the research process. One highly productive scholar revealed that he is a a

very slow writer because I do lots of revisions. Another even disclosed that I've never considered

myself a particularly good writer so it is more effortful for me than others I think. Many of the com-ments regarding high-quality writing echoed the sentiments expressed pertaining to the peer-review

process. That is, when it comes to their writing, highly productive scholars take advantage of oppor-

tunities to write and receive feedback. More specifically, these scholars' best writing is writing that

has been carefully reviewed and edited by himself or herself as well as other collaborators. Highly pro-

ductive scholars counsel other scholars to seek feedback from experienced scholars and use that

feedback to make your work better. It is noteworthy that for highly productive scholars, the intense

scrutiny and revision of their work is done before submitting a piece of work to journals for publica-

tion consideration. Highly productive scholars submit their best work from the start; they are metic-

ulous in ensuring that they submit nearly perfect drafts the first time. One highly productive scholar

commented:

The submitted article must be crisp and terse and interesting and apply the very best statistical and

measurement methods. Try to preempt methodological issues by giving more detail and evidence.

You can always cut back later after you have passed the hurdle of being encouraged to revise and

condense.



15/30

2.2.7. Personal character traits that foster productivity

Eleven percent (n =53) of the overall sentiments were coded in the category about personal character

traits that bolster the scholars' exceptional productivity. The most striking and frequent traits to emerge

from the data were that highly productive scholars are persistent, disciplined, and hard working. To be

sure, one highly productive scholar commented, Persistence is probably more important than intelligence

in research success. Another highly productive scholar commented how he taught himself early on the

discipline to stick at work for extraordinary periods of time. Highly productive scholars also used self-

descriptive traits such as perseverance, persistent, open-minded, and patient to describe what

makes them so productive. Highly productive scholars work at it constantly and they never give up.

Another motto among highly productive scholars seems to be: Just do it! Several highly productive

scholars expressed that they had to let go of perfection and simply get the job done. One highly productive

scholar advised, don't delay, focus on specific writing activities and do it NOW do it immediately done,

next thing to write move on. Another highly productive scholar observed that we spend too much time

thinking/talking about research and writing, and not enough time doing them. Moreover, highly productive

scholars recognize and take advantage of times when luck is on their side. A few highly productive scholars

commented about being open to unlikely opportunities. One highly productive scholar even credits a

large portion of his high level of research productivity to good luck:

Another feature that cannot be downplayed and that has contributed to my successful career in re-

search and publishing has simply been good fortune, or what people might commonly refer to as

good luck. In many cases, I have been, for various reasons, at the right place at the right time, and

therefore able to embrace opportunities that otherwise might not have been a strong influence. So,

it is in many ways that the destiny of events in history and my embracing these events that have

prompted and promoted my own professional development over time.

2.2.8. Preparation before entering the professoriate

We asked highly productive scholars to comment on the activities and experiences influencing their

high productivity before entering the professoriate. They provided 46 (9.60%) sentiments about beginningtheir publishing careers as graduate students, either on their own or by working with faculty mentors who

involved them with publishing early in their graduate careers. A few highly productive scholars commen-

ted on the ways their graduate (and undergraduate, in one case) coursework prepared them to become

prolific scholars. Requirements to write papers and taking advanced stat courses were instrumental

to laying the groundwork for future scholarship.

Additionally, during graduate school many, although not all, highly productive scholars had great col-

laborative relationships with their advisors. These scholars worked with faculty who were effective role

models, who provided mentorship, and who published considerably. One highly productive scholar com-

mented that as a grad student, I was encouraged to present at conferences and co-author papers with my

advisor. Several other highly productive scholars credited being very active in working with a productive

faculty member as a graduate student and modeling behavior of [a] major professor with helping themin their early development as researchers. It seems that for many scholars observing the productivity

level and the research process of [a] mentor, attending a graduate program that encouraged graduate

students to publish, and being mentored by faculty who involved students in their research activities

were instrumental in laying the early foundation for their prolific research careers. One highly productive

scholar commented:

Working with a mentor/major professor closely in the research and publication process can be ab-

solutely invaluable in helping you learn to navigate the process. Most of the activities and things

one needs to learn in research and particularly in the publication process are not taught in classes.

Another highly productive scholar credits his current status as highly productive to his training andexperience before entering the professoriate:

I had the good fortune to have wonderful faculty mentors were able to provide me with feedback,

but also the support that I needed to be productive in professional writing. I had the good fortune to



16/30

have critical commentary from my mentors in graduate school in terms of professional writing, re-

search design and statistics, and the journal review process. Had I not had early mentoring in the

process of submitting work for publication, I probably would have headed in quite a different direc-

tion in my career and that probably would be primarily practice in a school setting (which would

have been very personally rewarding). Nevertheless, with this mentoring experience I was able

to move forward into an academic career and feel a sense of efficacy and competence in professional

research and writing.

Notwithstanding all of the positive graduate school experiences many highly productive scholars

reported, others reported that they did not receive adequate guidance or mentoring in research as a grad-

uate student. One highly productive scholar noted that although I tapped different people's input [I] did

not have one mentor so to speak. Another commented most of what I learned I learned on my own. I had

little research mentoring in undergraduate or graduate school. I learned more by trial and error than by

anything else." Some highly productive scholars expressed their disappointment (even to this day) with

the lack of research guidance they received during graduate school. Nonetheless, despite limited to non-

existent mentorship during graduate school, resilient scholars find a way to learn the ropes and can even-

tually become highly productive scholars. One highly productive scholar illustrated:

I received very little research mentorship during either my undergraduate or graduate training. This

was a plus and a minus. The drawbacks are obvious. It took me 34 years of very hard work to get

published on a regularbasis. On thepositive side, I was forced to pull myself up by my own bootstraps.

Although this process was very hard on me, I learned an enormous amount by doing it.

2.2.9. Other noteworthy sentiments

The final category accounts for the fewest items (1.67%, n =8); nonetheless, they warrant mention. Al-

though investigating the strategies highly productive scholars successfully employ is the primary purpose

of this study, a few of their responses revealed how the synergistic relationship between their research

and teaching improves their scholarship and bolsters their research productivity:

Teaching in many ways helped me prepare for scientific contributions because I had to do some

writing to outline the content of my teaching activities. And teaching content always clarified my

thinking on a topic. Nevertheless, this process typically necessitated pretty extensive time commit-

ment and work over a long period of time but was very helpful.

One highly productive scholar actively search[es] for overlaps within teaching, research, and

extension/engagement and counsels other scholars try to teach courses [closest] to your scholarship.

Yet another highly productive scholar noted, I teach what I research and research what I teach. Using

my research as part of my teaching allows me to think about my research in different ways while being

more efficient. Similarly, another highly productive scholar observed:

When research questions come to mind, mostly based on questions of practice, I try to begin to

think about or outline different ways they might be addressed. Even if I do not get to them, and

that's most of the time, they help [with] teaching classes since they represent questions the field

may not have sufficient information about and we can think about the qualities of information

needed so that the question might be addressed.

2.3. Discussion

Scholarly productivity, operationalized by publications in peer-reviewed journals, weighs heavily on

high-stakes research position searches as well as tenure and promotion decisions. Consequently, publish-ing one's scientific work is indisputably one of the principal responsibilities of the tenure-track school psy-

chology assistant professor and future tenure-track school psychology professor. Indeed, at research

universities, decisions about salary, promotion, and tenure generally are based on research contributions

over teaching and service (Nihalani & Mayrath, 2008). One of the greatest fears of the new tenure-track assistant



17/30

professor is whether he or she will earn tenure. Consequently, greater transparency about what makes highly

productive scholars in school psychology so productive could be of tremendous benefit to young scholars striv-

ing to become productive enough to earn tenure, and such knowledge might aid seasoned scholars in making

more frequent and impactful contributions to the field. The first study sought to make a contribution to the lit-

erature about highly productive scholars in school psychology by asking the most prolific current scholars two

questions: (a) How do school psychology scholars who are highly productive contributors to the school psychol-

ogy literature manage to be so productive? and (b) What can we learn from them to increase our own

productivity?

Drawing from Bloom's (1985) work, we conclude that virtually any current school psychology student

or emerging scholar can become a more productive researcher if he or she employs the strategies shared

by the highly productive scholars described in the first study. The sentiments expressed are supported in

past literature on highly productive researchers in academe. For example, Kiewra (2008) culled from his

experience and offered advice to new scholars: (a) follow your bliss, (b) spend and create time, (c)

build collaborative relationships, (d) hone technique, and (e) frame failure. Likewise, Tschannen-Moran

and Nestor-Baker (2004) examined the tacit knowledge of 16 highly productive scholars in education

and reported the following knowledge and strategies attributed to their high productivity: (a) collabora-

tion and social support, (b) coping with competing demands, (c) navigating institutional context, (d) po-litical skills to gain access to resources and power, (e) setting a research agenda, (f) research to practice

connections, (g) connecting to your passion/knowing yourself/satisfaction, (h) perseverance in overcom-

ing obstacles/self-efficacy/confidence, (i) writing skills/writing process, (j) publishing and coping with

peer review, (k) setting goals/maintaining focus, and (l) standards of rigor. The current findings from con-

temporary highly productive school psychology scholars support past research on what makes scholars

highly productive.

3. Study 2: semi-structured interviews

We were interested in connecting with five of the most productive scholars in school psychology sim-

ply to have a conversation and learn in greater depth what makes them so productive. These conversations

allowed us to address some of the more subjective and personal issues related to scholarship and produc-

tivity which could not be addressed adequately in the short-answer survey. For Study 2, we developed

semi-structured interview questions using the general protocol developed by Kiewra and Creswell

(2000) who interviewed highly productive educational psychologists.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

The top two scholars across each of the three studies (Davis et al., 2005; Little, 1997; Roberts, Davis, et al.,

2006) which yielded the original population of 94 highly productive scholars were identified and invited via

email to participate in a semistructured interview. These highly productive scholars had participated in Study

1, and all agreed to participate in Study 2. They were Melissa Bray (University of Connecticut), Frank Gresham

(Louisiana State University), Scott Huebner (University of South Carolina), Tom Kratochwill (The University

of Wisconsin) and Chris Skinner (The University of Tennessee Knoxville).

3.1.2. Instrumentation

The first and second authors developed a semistructured interview protocol to guide the interviews

with the highly productive scholars. The questions included on this protocol were either drawn from

prior research or developed from a preliminary review of responses from Study 1 or from research results

obtained from concurrent studies (see Albers, Floyd, Fuhrmann, & Martinez, 2011). Thefirst question adapted

from Mayrath (2008) was If you had to explain why you are so productive, what would you say? Additionalopen-ended questions included those targeting personal characteristics, interpersonal influences, general

time management, strategies to enhance research and writing, and experience with the peer-review process

(in particular, review practices and perceptions of reviewer bias). The final question solicited the highly pro-

ductive scholars' advice for junior scholars in school psychology.



18/30

3.1.3. Procedure

The first author conducted the interviews by phone between early March and late April 2010.

Appointments for interview days and times were made by email. An introduction and purpose for

the interview was discussed at the beginning of the interviews. Additionally, permission was sought

and granted by all participants to record the conversation digitally and transcribe the interviews.

Permission to follow up also was granted by each highly productive scholar at any point when clar-

ification was essential for responses that might not have been clear in the interview. Each interview

lasted between approximately 45 and 90 min. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and the tran-

script was shared with the highly productive scholar for approval. The scholars were given the op-

tion to supplement or modify any portion of the transcript. Analyses for Study 2 are based on the

final, approved interview transcripts. General information provided about each of these scholars

was obtained from their university websites.

3.2. Results

The first author identified key themes in the transcripts of the highly productive scholars, and these

themes, with supporting quotations, are reported. Interview summaries are presented alphabeticallyfor: Melissa Bray, Frank Gresham, Scott Huebner, Tom Kratochwill, and Chris Skinner.

3.2.1. Melissa Bray

Dr. Melissa Bray is a Professor at the University of Connecticut. She is an alumna of the University of

Connecticut, having earned her PhD at UConn in 1997. Her areas of interest and scholarship include com-

munication disorders such as stuttering and selective mutism, classroom disruptive behavior, self-

modeling, and physical health and wellness, especially asthma. During the interview, Bray credited

much of her productivity simply to h

strategies and attributes of highly productive scholars and contributors to the school psychology...

Documents