Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring.

Scholars and policy-makers have expressed concerns about the crediting of coauthors in research publications. Most such problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones. But our research shows that there is no consensus on "deserving" or on what type of contribution suffices for co-authorship award. Our study uses qualitative data, including interviews with 60 US academic science or engineering researchers in 14 disciplines in a set of geographically distributed research-intensive universities. We also employ data from 161 website posts provided by 93 study participants, again US academic scientists. We examine a variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co-author credit and unwarranted inclusion, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes. Determinants of outcomes include characteristics of disciplines and fields, institutional work culture, power dynamics and team-specific norms and decision processes.

Using the prisms of gender and rank to interpret research collaboration power dynamics.

Collaboration is central to modern scientific inquiry, and increasingly important to the professional experiences of academic scientists. While the effects of collaboration have been widely studied, much less is understood about the motivations to collaborate and collaboration dynamics that generate scientific outcomes. A particular interest of this study is to understand how collaboration experiences differ between women and men, and the attributions used to explain these differences. We use a multi-method study of university Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics faculty research collaborators. We employ 177 anonymous open-ended responses to a web-based survey, and 60 semi-structured interviews of academic scientists in US research universities. We find similarities and differences in collaborative activity between men and women. Open-ended qualitative textual analysis suggests that some of these differences are attributed to power dynamics - both general ones related to differences in organizational status, and in power dynamics related specifically to gender. In analysis of semi-structured interviews, we find that both status and gender were used as interpretive frames for collaborative behavior, with more emphasis placed on status than gender differences. Overall, the findings support that gender structures some part of the collaborative experience, but that status hierarchy exerts more clear effects.

Perspective: adopting an asset bundles model to support and advance minority students' careers in academic medicine and the scientific pipeline.

The authors contend that increasing diversity in academic medicine, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics requires the adoption of a systematic approach to retain minority high school and college students as they navigate the scientific pipeline. Such an approach should focus on the interrelated and multilayered challenges that these students face. The authors fuse an alternative conceptualization of the scientific and technical human capital theoretical framework and the theory of social identity contingencies to offer a conceptual model for targeting the critical areas in which minority students may need additional support to continue toward careers in science. Their proposed asset bundles model is grounded in the central premise that making greater progress in recruiting and retaining minorities likely requires institutions to respond simultaneously to various social cues that signal devaluation of certain identities (e.g., gender, race, socioeconomic status). The authors define "asset bundles" as the specific sets of abilities and resources individuals develop that help them succeed in educational and professional tasks, including but not limited to science and research. The model consists of five asset bundles, each of which is supported in the research literature as a factor relevant to educational achievement and, the authors contend, may lead to improved and sustained diversity: educational endowments, science socialization, network development, family expectations, and material resources. Using this framework, they suggest possible ways of thinking about the task of achieving diversity as well as guideposts for next steps. Finally, they discuss the feasibility of implementing such an approach.

Understanding bureaucracy in health science ethics: toward a better institutional review board.

Research involving human participants continues to grow dramatically, fueled by advances in medical technology, globalization of research, and financial and professional incentives. This creates increasing opportunities for ethical errors with devastating effects. The typical professional and policy response to calamities involving human participants in research is to layer on more ethical guidelines or strictures. We used a recent case-the Johns Hopkins University/Kennedy Kreiger Institute Lead Paint Study-to examine lessons learned since the Tuskegee Syphilis Study about the role of institutionalized science ethics in the protection of human participants in research. We address the role of the institutional review board as the focal point for policy attention.

The Internet's impact on policy evaluation: information compression and credibility.

As with all media, the Internet structures and frames information, rewarding some information search and decision behaviors while punishing others and, thereby, strongly influences evaluation research results and possibilities. Now that the Internet is for many evaluators the information medium of choice, the impacts of the medium on evaluation deserve careful attention. The objective of this article is to lay groundwork for a theory of the impact of the Internet on evaluation and policy analysis. Questions addressed include the following: (a) What is the impact of the Internet on the evaluator's professional role, work norms, and work habits? (b) Does the use of the Internet affect who is an evaluator or the meaning of professional evaluation? and (c) How does evaluation via Internet affect the technical quality and credibility of evaluation? A key thesis is that the Internet compresses information in the sense that it is not always easy to distinguish among information resources and, especially, the authority of the information provider and the nature of the knowledge warrant. On one hand, the Internet's information compression seems to hold potential for the democratization of evaluation. On the other hand, the diminished ability to make quality distinctions about evaluation-relevant information may undercut the legitimacy of evaluation.