Feature
No.40
January 2004
 
    

Genuine Collaboration Versus Multiple Authorship
Dr. Charles F. Cicciarella, USA


For purposes of discussion, the term scholarly collaboration will be used here to refer to two or more people, departments, or other entities working together synergistically on a scholarly project. The term multiple authorship will be used to refer to the situation of two or more people being listed as authors of a research paper or of some other form of report of a scholarly work. Clearly, the two tend to go together. When there has been a scholarly collaboration, multiple authorship is almost certain to follow. However, the two are certainly not the same. Multiple authorship does not necessarily imply collaboration beyond a superficial level. The fact that a journal article has two or more authors does not necessarily imply anything beyond that each made some sort of contribution to the project reported. The multiple authors might well have each worked almost entirely in isolation from one another.
Scholarly collaboration is something that should be widely encouraged, at least at some level. It seems to be recognized that collaboration can result in synergy, the work of each collaborator being amplified by that of the others, and the productivity of a collaborating group being greater than would be possible if each member worked alone. On the other hand, multiple authorship is sometimes frowned upon. There seems to always be a degree of suspicion that multiple authorship might mean that some authors may be getting credit for doing more than they really did. Publication guidelines, such as those of the American Psychological Association (2001) include rules for establishing who does and does not qualify to be listed as an author of a research report, the very existence of which implies a perceived need for restricting who is listed as an author. Rules for the evaluation of a university faculty member’s scholarly productivity also frequently assign less value to multiple-authored articles than to sole-authored articles, thus discouraging some faculty members from getting involved in collaborative efforts.
This article is an attempt to accomplish three goals related to the topic of multiple authorship and scholarly collaboration. First, it will provide some discussion of the issues themselves. Second it will provide a series of narrative examples of successful collaborations between various types of entities found within the scholarly environment. Third, but integrated with the second, it will make some suggestions for some areas of scholarly efforts, with the field of exercise science, that might best be addressed through collaborative efforts. Hopefully, the result will be the inspiration of one or more such efforts in reality.

The Issue of Multiple Authorship
The last twenty years have been a period, for the field of physical education and exercise science, of increasing demand for productivity coupled with decreasing availability of resources. The situation has often been described, not without reason, as being asked to do more and more, with less and less, until we are doing everything with nothing. The author is unaware of the origin of this expression. This situation has led to changes in how university faculty are evaluated and rewarded with respect to publication of scholarly work.
The demand for productivity by faculty has led to the development of evaluative instruments that are often used to determine if a faculty member is promoted, tenured, or even retained. In the category of scholarly activity, these instruments usually attempt to generate some sort of numerical rating. Although the rating procedures often attempt to assess the quality of output as well as its quantity, the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals is often the most significant factor in the final rating. The quality of a scholarly work is often extremely difficult to assess and frequently tends to be based on the reputation of the journal, or on the type of other forms of publication, much of which is highly subjective and dated.
One of the affects of the pressure to publish, described above, is a tendency toward a pressure for authorship. Any contribution to a scholarly project that technically qualifies for authorship under guidelines such as those of the American Psychological Association (2001) is expected by the contributor to lead to inclusion as an author. This has resulted, in turn, in faculty evaluation instruments that give greater weight to sole authorship, to first authorship, or to publications with fewer authors over those with more.
A probably unintended effect of the above is what might be described as an interactive effect between willingness to collaborate and competence to do so. That is, it will tend to discourage collaboration in scholarly efforts by those capable of working alone, but to encourage collaboration by those who have difficulty being productive when working alone. Neither of these effects is favorable for the production of quality work.

The Issue of Collaborative Scholarship
Though suspicion of multiple authorship, as described above, has tended to discourage collaboration, there has been pressure, at the same time, for it. Some university system governing bodies, for example, have attempted to encourage, or even require, various forms of collaboration among corresponding departments from different universities, among departments within a university, or between universities and business interests. Funding proposals may be awarded extra points during the review process if they call for collaboration among departments, for example, or departments may be required to report on collaboration in an effort to show that similar departments in geographically nearby institutions are not redundant. Theoretically, collaboration among groups such as the above is a way of increasing productivity without increasing resources. The combination of resources from different groups makes possible efforts that none could undertake alone. Whether or not this comes at the loss of opportunities elsewhere is not generally addressed.

Examples and Suggestions for Successful Collaboration
The forces tending to encourage collaborative scholarly efforts and those with the opposite influence might appear to be irreconcilable. The real need, however, is for scholarly efforts to be well-conceived and competently executed. Such efforts are probably most likely to come from projects that are undertaken for what might be described as the right reasons. That is, projects attempted because of a genuine desire to solve a problem, rather than because of a need for obtaining authorship, and collaboration because of specific talents that can contribute to a project’s success, rather than because of some right to be included or just for the sake of making a project collaborative. The following are several examples of actual efforts between various types of collaborators, each accompanied by one or more suggestions for similar projects.

Inter-Departmental Collaboration –Student Project Sponsorship and Grant Seeking
Within a typical American university, faculty are usually organized into departments, and departments into schools, colleges, or other administrative structure according to some perceived commonality of interest. A Department of Health and Exercise Science, Physical Education, or Kinesiology, for example, is typically (though not always) a component of a School or College of Education. Other departments in the larger unit usually involve other aspects of education. Perhaps because of common interests, but possibly also as a result of physical proximity, we tend to interact primarily with others within our own departments and/or school/college. Physical educators tend to talk with physical educators; psychologists with psychologists, and so on.
The above structure is one that may promote collaboration among colleagues within a department or college. Surely there is nothing wrong with that. However, it may also tend to work against interaction, and consequent scholarly collaboration, among members of less closely related departments.. Nevertheless, the following two examples illustrate how collaboration between two very distantly related departments can be successful.

Student Project Sponsorship
At the author’s university, senior students in engineering are required to complete a course called Senior Design. This is a full year course in which they must demonstrate the ability to meet the needs of a client by designing, building, and testing a device of some sort. Students typically work in teams of two to four, usually representing several engineering majors, such as mechanical, electrical, and so on. The author happens to be heavily involved in the activity of cave exploration, both as a recreational sport and as a science. The desire to have a way to map the interior of a cave without having to walk on (and potentially damaging) fragile surfaces led to an offer to sponsor a senior design project of producing a laser-based range finder. The topic was presented to students at their first class meeting of the fall quarter and adopted by one group of three Electrical Engineering students. Although the students were not ultimately successful building a working range finder, the project led to the establishment of a positive working relationship between the departments of Electrical Engineering and Health and Physical Education (now called Health and Exercise Sciences).In subsequent years, this led to two groups of senior design students designing improved LED (light-emitting diode) helmet lights, and a third group designing a three-way Fitt’s Law – Reaction time apparatus, and another student building an improved stabilometer – computer interface. All these projects were successful, except for the Fitt’s Law apparatus, which is underway in the current year.
Each of the above efforts was a successful collaboration because it involved a good match of needs and resources. The students involved needed a genuine project, as opposed to a mere exercise, through which to demonstrate their ability as engineers, and the sponsor involved had a genuine need to be met. Clearly, the most obvious examples of additional collaborations of this type would be between students in engineering and students or faculty with interests in specific sport activities or areas of sport sciences. With rapid improvements in technology, there are all sorts of laboratory items related to exercise science that might be improved in utility or made less expensive. In addition to projects predominantly in electrical engineering, computer programming, mechanical engineering, and materials science hold promise. Other areas in which undergraduate students are commonly expected to complete some sort of senior project open additional opportunities.

Inter-college Grant Seeking
The working relationship established through the projects described above also led to a pair of proposals for funding involving collaboration between Health and Exercise Science and the College of Engineering. One was for the design and testing of a field-based electrocardiograph recorder and the other was for two projects designing and testing of devices for monitoring core body temperature and heart rate under very hot and humid conditions. All three projects grew from the needs of the author in attempting to perform exploratory work in volcanic caves rendered extremely hot and humid by steam emissions through ground cracks. Although only the second proposal received funding ($10,000.00) prototypes of the intended devices were constructed, and results presented at a conference (Hill, Cicciarella, McShane, Cheng, and Roemer, 2002; Cobb, Cicciarella, McShane, Cheng, and Roemer, 2002) The other project remains open and in search of funding.
Although grant money for projects in physical education and exercise science is severely limited; nearly unavailable, in fact, for projects not related to health or medicine, funds in engineering and various areas of science are generally more accessible. [Though still far from easy to obtain]. Collaborations between physical education or exercise science and engineering or science, therefore, represent an opportunity for inter-departmental fund-seeking. Development of new or improved laboratory apparatus or sport equipment, such as the temperature monitoring device described here, are examples of engineering projects with potential. Science-related, collaborative projects might include things such as using the skills associated with a specific physical activity to assist in field data collection, using members of an activity class or competitive team as subjects in medical, physiological, or psychological studies, or attempts to invent new kinds of sport activities using newly developed materials or discoveries. Other collaborations might include efforts to design and build unique facilities, such as a climbing wall, and attempts to develop virtual experiences or simulations of hazardous or difficulty physical activities, such as ballooning or caving.

Employment of Students with Unique Talents
In past years, student workers have been frequently employed by the author’s department. Except when funded through a specific grant or contract, however, students were always hired as office workers and could be assigned to other projects only when not needed for office work. Although very supportive of office work this was not very helpful for research as availability was spotty and talents were not usually what was needed.
Because of both an increasing emphasis on research productivity and the good working relationship established between Health and Exercise Sciences and the College of Engineering, when a graduate student in engineering, and with a background in computer programming, applied for a part-time job as a student worker, it was decided to assign him to work on specific, programming-related tasks under the author’s supervision. Thus far, this has resulted in development of software for highly flexible measurement of reaction time, and a second project, currently underway, to develop a simple video game for use in studying effects of slight delays in feedback. A third project to develop software for a computerized study of group behavior is planned.
Although undergraduate students rarely have training in methods of research, many may have skills that might have collaborative potential. The most obvious examples, other than the one above, might be unique sport skills, such as rock climbing or cave exploration, prior work or military experience, experience related to specific health problems, or even skill with video production. Availability of a student with video production experience, for example, might lead to a collaborative project to produce an instructional video. One with extensive experience in a specific sport might lead to access to unique subjects that might be useful in a study relating to that sport.

Inter-Institutional Data Collection
Several years ago the author conducted a study of health-related knowledge, behavior, beliefs, and attitudes among freshmen at a university (Cicciarella, 2000). Studies of freshmen provide baseline data for studies of change during the college years and when repeated might serve as a measure of trends in effectiveness of health education in high schools. After two replications or near replications of that study (Kuo-Sen and Cicciarella, 1998; Cicciarella, and Su-chen, 1999) a third was proposed (Cicciarella, 1999) and subsequently organized in which freshmen at two universities were the subjects, (Cicciarella, Kluka, Lilly, Love, and Taylor, 2002). That study required collaborators at the second university. It also greatly broadened the generalizability of its results and provided additional comparisons of sub-populations that could be made. Thus, the combined value of the collaborative study was than if the two universities had been studied separately. Although nothing has, as yet, been initiated, this study is one for which the collaborative effort could be usefully expanded in a significant way. The study could be the state or an even larger geographic area. Such a study would require collaborators at every involved institution. Although this introduces a risk that some collaborators might become involved so as to seek authorship without any significant contribution, a study on such a scale also provides many more analytic opportunities. Authorship issues can be addressed by assigning specific aspects of the study to specific groups of collaborators.
Inter-institutional collaboration might be attempted for many other projects in which replication of the data collection process within each institution would enhance the value of the data. In addition to health knowledge of freshmen, some suggestions include the incidence of colds or other illnesses relative to various factors, dietary habits, exercise behaviors, and sport and activity interests. Studies of seniors or other classes, faculty, staff, alumni, or even members of the surrounding community might also be viable.

Collaboration within Special Interest Organizations
There are many specific population groups for which certain kinds of incidents are unique, but relatively rare. For example, among the ten thousand or so cavers in the United States there are a few dozen serious injuries and one or two deaths in a typical year. A central repository of incident reports can, in such cases, be a useful resource for identifying patterns or commonalities among them and subsequently for developing ways to reduce their frequency or severity. Such data is, in fact, collected and published every two years as American Caving Accidents (Putnam, 2003).
Because incidents of the above type are rare and widely separated in time and location, a central repository of reports can only be assembled through a collaborative, or at least a cooperative, process. This, in turn, requires some source of motivation for each participant. In the case of the caving accident report repository, a sense of having contributed to the safety of others is probably the motivation for most contributors. Other sources of motivation might include the expectation of acknowledgements of their contribution in future publications, or access to the repository itself for purposes of analysis. In the case of physicians, the reporting of instances of certain diseases is a legal requirement.
The world of sport and exercise is replete with questions that might be addressed through this form of collaborative research. Nearly all sports in which injuries, overuse syndromes occur at more than trivial rates, or that involve specialized risk of illness, are examples. Whether or not assembly of an incident database is possible probably depends on the degree to which potential contributors are identifiable and can be motivated to participate. A few years ago the author did a literature review of articles (Cicciarella, 2002) related to diseases that might be encountered in association with caves and found many contributors eager to provide what they had already gathered.
Some special interest organizations also may have sub-groups of members whose interests may support research collaboration. The author is an officer, for example, of two such groups within the National Speleological Society, known as the Human Sciences and Medical sections, respectively. Provided a research topic is relevant to the specific interests of the group, these groups are likely to be highly cooperative in assisting with a study. They may even seek out an expert in research methodology, on occasion, for assistance with a study of their own origin. The author has been involved in several unpublished surveys of cavers attending large caving events, for example, and several studies relating to human performance are currently planned for the summer of 2004. Additional opportunities may be found in any organization of similar nature.

References
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association 5th. Ed. Washington, DC: Author.
Cicciarella, C.F. (1998, July). Health knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices of university freshmen. Paper presented at the World Congress of the AIESEP, New York.
Cicciarella, C.F. (1999, November). A proposal (or two) for statewide collaborative research. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Louisiana Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, New Orleans.
Cicciarella, C.F. (2002). Diseases associated with caves. International Sports Journal, 6 (2), 107-118.
Cicciarella, C.F., Kluka, D., Lilly, T., Love, P. and Taylor, A. (2002). AIDS/HIV knowledge among freshmen at two Louisiana universities. LAHPERD Journal, 65 (2), 13-17.
Cicciarella, C.F. and Su-chen, S (1999, November). Nutrition knowledge of university athletes. Poster presented at the annual conference of the Louisiana Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, New Orleans.
Cobb, R., Cicciarella, C.F., McShane, M., Cheng, C. and Roemer, L. (2002, October). Pulse monitor for high humidity and temperature environment. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Louisiana Association of Exercise Physiologists, Lafayette, LA.
Hill, J., Cicciarella, C.F., McShane, M., Cheng, C. and Roemer, L. (2002, October).Body temperature monitor for high humidity and temperature environment. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Louisiana Association of Exercise Physiologists, Lafayette, LA.
Kuo-Sen, S. and Cicciarella, C.F. (2000). Fitness knowledge of entering freshmen at Louisiana Tech University. LAHPERD Journal, 63 (2), 10-12.
Putnam, W.O. (2003). American caving accidents. [Special issue]. NSS News, 61 (6) Part 2.


Dr. Charles F. Cicciarella
Department of Health and Exercise Sciences
Louisiana Tech University
Email: ciccia@woodard.latech.edu




http://www.icsspe.org/portal/bulletin-january2004.htm