- Email: [email protected]
Guidelines for collaborative research
Original Articles FEATURE ARTICLE
G u i d e l i n e s for C o l l a b o r a t i v e R e s e a r c h Joan E. Thiele
The purposes of this survey were to examine guidelines for collaborative research, determine the extent of agreement, and discover any sources of disagreement within research groups. Listing of names on publications or conference presentations and delineation of roles and responsiblities were the most frequently discussed items by members of collaborative research teams. Less then half of the respondents reported disagreements within their groups. Major sources of disagreement were the order of listing authors' names, the roles and responsibilities of group members, and choosing conference presenters. Both the most frequently discussed items and those that were sources of disagreement were incorporated into guidelines for group research. The use of these guidelines for group endeavors may encourage and strengthen collaborative research. © 1989 by W.B. Saunders Company.
OLLABORATION is the sharing of talent, exPertise, and workload to maintain progress toward the goal of a completed project. This pooling of talents in research provides a wide range of skills that complement each other and furthers research endeavors. A variety of factors support the use of guidelines for collaborative research. Therefore, the purposes of this investigation were to examine existing guidelines for collaborative research, determine the extent of agreement, and discover any sources of disagreement, among research group participants. The results of this investigation guided the development of guidelines for group research.
C
From the Intercollegiate "Centerfor Nursing Education, Washington State Universtiy, Spokane. Joan E. Thiele, PhD, RN: Associate Professor of Nursing, Intercollegiate Center for Nursing Education, Washington State University, Spokane. Address reprint requests to Joan E. Thiele, PhD, RN, Associate Professor of Nursing, Intercollegiate Center for Nursing Education, Washington State University, W. 2917 Ft. Wright Dr, Spokane, WA 992.04. © 1989 by W.B. Saunders Company. 0897-1897/89/0204-0002505.00/0 150
As recognition of the benefits of collaborative research has spread, a trend toward research by groups of investigators has developed. Between 1952 and 1980, the frequency of articles in nursing research journals written by more than one author has risen from 7% to 40% (Brown, Tanner, & Padrick, 1984). The trend from research done by single investigators to that done by multiple investigators has given rise to issues relating to the etiquette and ethics of group efforts. In particular, collaborative works raise questions of authorship, contribution, and recognition of effort. Nursing has yet to develop its own set of ethical standards and guidelines for research and publication. Nursing has been described by Downs (1981) as being " a profession in a hurry." This " h u r r y , " perhaps, explains why research activities have been accepted as standards for~promotion, tenure, and professional standing prior to development of a set of ethical standards and guidelines for researchers (Werley, Murphy, Gosch, Gottesmann, & Newcomb, 1981). Authorship and assignment of credit in proportion to effort are major issues that arise from colApplied Nursing Research, Vol. 2, No. 4 (November), 1989: pp. 150-153
GUIDELINES FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
laborative endeavors. To solve these problems, several authors have investigated present modes of assigning publication credit (Brown et al., 1984; Stevens, 1986; Waltz, Nelson, & Chambers, 1985). From these efforts, existing patterns for assigning publication credit in nursing research were identified. Authors were listed (a) according to extent of contribution; (b) with the topic originator first and others in order of extent Of contribution; (c) alphabetically; and (d) with those needing a publication credit (e.g., for tenure) first and the others alphabetically. Two areas of concern not addressed in the literature are the time frame during which agreements are established and discussion among group members of potential presentations and publications. Delineation of the roles and responsibilities of research members and parameters that guide forma-
Collaboration is the sharing of talent, expertise, and workload.
151
SUBJECTS
The population for this investigation included nurse researchers who participated in group research presented at a national nursing education research conference. The total population was 200 nurse researchers; in this study, they were represented by the 63 individuals identified as the presenters of each collaborative research endeavor. METHOD
A researcher-developed questionnaire was used for data collection. The face validity was established by questionnaire review by three experts in research. For an item to be placed on the questionnaire, 90% concurrence among the group of experts was required. Content validity was determined by a literature review for items that served as the focus of agreement or disagreement in research groups. An internal consistency reliability of .9478 was calculated by Cronbach's alpha statistical procedure. RESULTS
tion of agreements are also unclear. The absence of established guidelines for the conduct of nursing research within a group environment may inadvertently contribute to reluctance of some nurses to participate in group endeavors. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this exploratory investigation was to determine the extent to which researchers participating in collaborative projects discussed and established a process for determining authorship, selecting conference presenters, and defining responsibilities of group members. The extent of group agreement, the sources of disagreement, and the timing of discussions about individual roles and responsibilities also were determined. RESEARCH QOESTIONS
Four research questions were investigated in this study: What was the extent of development of written research agreements among all .~aembers of nursing research groups? What specific areas were addressed in the research agreements? What was the extent of disagreements within nursing research groups? To ,/chat extent would guidelines for group or collaborative research be used by nursing research groups?
A total of 63 questionnaires was mailed; 48 were completed and returned. This represented a response rate of 76%. As reported by the respondents, 176 researchers from across the United States and Canada were represented by the 48 separate group members who responded. The size of the collaborative groups varied from 2 to 15 researchers. Twenty-six of the groups consisted of 2 members, while 22 groups were comprised of 3 to 15 members. Group Discussion Items
Respondents were asked to identify the topics that their research group members discussed to determine roles, responsibilities, and allocation of credit. The item of discussion reported most frequently was the order in which researchers' names were listed on publications and/or conference presentations. The responsibilities and roles of members were the second and third most frequently occurring items. Following these, designation of presenter(s), naming the principal investigator, and designating persons to perform tasks were identified as other group discussion topics. Table 1 lists discussion topics and their frequency of occurrence.
JOAN E. THIELE
152
Table 1. Items Discussed by Research Group Members Topic Order of names of authors or presenters Responsibilities of members Roles of members Presenter at conference Designation of the principal investigator Who would perform which task Recognition of ,efforts and contributions of members Spin-off projects and/or other extensions of the original project Responsibilities of project director or coordinator Who would have access to all data Who would be acknowledged, but not as an author Which journals to submit manuscript(s)
Number
Percentage
43 41 39 38
92 87 83 81
38 37
81 79
34
72
29
62
24
51
20
43
11
23
12
23
/Vote. The number of responses obtained varied per item; percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Sources of Disagreement Slightly less than half (21 of 48) of the respondents reported disagreements within their research groups. The issues that evoked the greatest amount of discussion by groups were also those about which disagreements centered. That is, the order of authors' names, the roles and responsibilities of members, and the identification of presenters were major sources of disagreement reported by respondents. Table 2 lists reported sources of disagreements and their frequency. Availability of Research Guidelines In contrast to the number of research groups that reported discussing various aspects of their groups' work~relationship, only. two respondents reported using or developing written guidelines. An additional 41 respondents reported developir/g v.erbal agreements during the course of research. Development of verbal agreements occurred on initiation of a project in almost one half of groups (n = 25; 48%). In addition, agreements were Siscussed again during the project in slightly more than one half of'the groups (n =. 29; 56%). One individual noted that discussion and development
Table 2. Sources of Disagreements Within Groups Topic
Number
Order of names of authors Recognition of efforts and contributions of members Presenter at conference Who would be identified as the principal investigator Responsibilities of members Roles of members Roles of the leader Responsibilities of leader Who would be acknowledged, but not as an author Who would have access to all data Responsibilities of project director or coordinator. Other Content; research methods Leader challenged by another member of the group
4
Percentage 20
3 3
15 15
3 3 2 2 2
15 15 10 10 10
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
Note. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
of written guidelines would have been useful, particularly in assisting with understanding the workload and time commitments involved with conducting research. Another respondent reported that records were kept of each meeting detailing workloads and research efforts. Of the 22 persons who collaborated in groups of 3 or more persons, 10 indicated that written guidelines would have helped prevent disagreements among group members, while 6 said that Written guidelines would not have helped. Of 26 persons who reported conducting research within a 2-member group, only 2tin; dividuals responded that written guidelines would have been helpful; however, 3 respondents from 2-member groups indicated that written guidelines would be needed in larger group settings. Projected Use of Guidelines in Future Projects Subjects were asked, " I f you were to be involved in another group research endeavor, would you c o n s i d e r d i s c u s s i n g and d e v e l o p i n g guidelines?" Ninety-eight percent (n = 46) of respondents answered "definitely" (n = 26) or "maybe" (n = 20). Additional comments indicated that the use of written guidelines would de-
153
GUIDELINES FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
pend on the situation and the particular research group members. The absence of available guidelines was noted as a major reason for proceeding with verbal agreements only. In many instances, verbal agreements were clarified and modified during the study. Suggested Guidelines Following analysis of survey data, group research guidelines were developed (Table 3). The proposed guide!ines include thoseitems that were most frequently discussed and mentioned as sources of disagreement by respondents. It is recommended that each potential member of a research group receive a copy of these guidelines when considering participating in collaborative research. Items specific to each group should be thoroughly discussed and agreed on by all members at the onset of research. Decisions, date(s), and any modifications should be recorded on each participant's copy of the guidelines. Periodic review and modification of agreements may be necessary, depending on the particular research and any changes in group membership. Rather than being restrictive, these guidelines direct activities of research group participants. Each research group will include members who possess different skills and abilities, and open discussion in the early phases of a group endeavor may lead to noncompetitive and productive working relationships. CONCLUSION The amount of research conducted by members of the nursing profession is steadily increasing. Collaborative research, the sharing of expertise and the conducting of research through group efforts, is consistent,with this increased research productivity in nursing. As research in nursing matures, rules of etiquette for researchers need to be developed. Discussion of rules of conduct and development of
Table 3. Guidelines for Group Research Item
Decision(s)
Date/Sign
1, Designation of principal investigator/group leader 2., Responsibilities of princlpal investigator 3. Responsibilities of members 4. Process for deciding the following A. Authorship of any articles or other written materials resulting from the study B. Where to submit abstracts for presentations/poster sessions C. Presenter(s) D. Recognition of efforts and contributions of members E. Acknowledgment of members' contributions to group efforts on written documents F. Extension of the research and/or spin-off projects 5. Assignment of tasks 6. Tentative time schedule of research 7. Access to data by group members and by nongroup members
explicit written agreements among all members of research teams may prevent misunderstandings. Collaborative research provides a mechanism by which the talents of many individuals may be focused on a single research endeavor. Inherent in collaboration is the development of positive relationships among participants. By setting forth written guidelines at the onset of a project, conflicts that impede research and stifle the growth of individual researchers may be avoided.
REFERENCES
Brown, J.S., Tanner, C.A., & Padrick, K.P. (1984). Nursing's search for scientific knowledge. Nurs~g Research, 33, 26-32. Downs, F. (1981). Soup (F_xtitorial).NursingResearch, 30, 322. stevens, K.R. (1986). Authorship: Yours, mine or ours? Image, 18, 151-154.
Waltz, C., Nelson, B., & Chambers, S.B. (1985). Assigning publication credits. Nursing Outlook, 33, 233-238. Werley, H.W., Murphy, P.A., Gosch, S.M., Gottesmarm, H., & Newcomb, B.J. (1981). Research publication credit assignmenti Nurses' views. Research in Nursing and Health, 4, 261-279.
G u i d e l i n e s for C o l l a b o r a t i v e R e s e a r c h Joan E. Thiele
The purposes of this survey were to examine guidelines for collaborative research, determine the extent of agreement, and discover any sources of disagreement within research groups. Listing of names on publications or conference presentations and delineation of roles and responsiblities were the most frequently discussed items by members of collaborative research teams. Less then half of the respondents reported disagreements within their groups. Major sources of disagreement were the order of listing authors' names, the roles and responsibilities of group members, and choosing conference presenters. Both the most frequently discussed items and those that were sources of disagreement were incorporated into guidelines for group research. The use of these guidelines for group endeavors may encourage and strengthen collaborative research. © 1989 by W.B. Saunders Company.
OLLABORATION is the sharing of talent, exPertise, and workload to maintain progress toward the goal of a completed project. This pooling of talents in research provides a wide range of skills that complement each other and furthers research endeavors. A variety of factors support the use of guidelines for collaborative research. Therefore, the purposes of this investigation were to examine existing guidelines for collaborative research, determine the extent of agreement, and discover any sources of disagreement, among research group participants. The results of this investigation guided the development of guidelines for group research.
C
From the Intercollegiate "Centerfor Nursing Education, Washington State Universtiy, Spokane. Joan E. Thiele, PhD, RN: Associate Professor of Nursing, Intercollegiate Center for Nursing Education, Washington State University, Spokane. Address reprint requests to Joan E. Thiele, PhD, RN, Associate Professor of Nursing, Intercollegiate Center for Nursing Education, Washington State University, W. 2917 Ft. Wright Dr, Spokane, WA 992.04. © 1989 by W.B. Saunders Company. 0897-1897/89/0204-0002505.00/0 150
As recognition of the benefits of collaborative research has spread, a trend toward research by groups of investigators has developed. Between 1952 and 1980, the frequency of articles in nursing research journals written by more than one author has risen from 7% to 40% (Brown, Tanner, & Padrick, 1984). The trend from research done by single investigators to that done by multiple investigators has given rise to issues relating to the etiquette and ethics of group efforts. In particular, collaborative works raise questions of authorship, contribution, and recognition of effort. Nursing has yet to develop its own set of ethical standards and guidelines for research and publication. Nursing has been described by Downs (1981) as being " a profession in a hurry." This " h u r r y , " perhaps, explains why research activities have been accepted as standards for~promotion, tenure, and professional standing prior to development of a set of ethical standards and guidelines for researchers (Werley, Murphy, Gosch, Gottesmann, & Newcomb, 1981). Authorship and assignment of credit in proportion to effort are major issues that arise from colApplied Nursing Research, Vol. 2, No. 4 (November), 1989: pp. 150-153
GUIDELINES FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
laborative endeavors. To solve these problems, several authors have investigated present modes of assigning publication credit (Brown et al., 1984; Stevens, 1986; Waltz, Nelson, & Chambers, 1985). From these efforts, existing patterns for assigning publication credit in nursing research were identified. Authors were listed (a) according to extent of contribution; (b) with the topic originator first and others in order of extent Of contribution; (c) alphabetically; and (d) with those needing a publication credit (e.g., for tenure) first and the others alphabetically. Two areas of concern not addressed in the literature are the time frame during which agreements are established and discussion among group members of potential presentations and publications. Delineation of the roles and responsibilities of research members and parameters that guide forma-
Collaboration is the sharing of talent, expertise, and workload.
151
SUBJECTS
The population for this investigation included nurse researchers who participated in group research presented at a national nursing education research conference. The total population was 200 nurse researchers; in this study, they were represented by the 63 individuals identified as the presenters of each collaborative research endeavor. METHOD
A researcher-developed questionnaire was used for data collection. The face validity was established by questionnaire review by three experts in research. For an item to be placed on the questionnaire, 90% concurrence among the group of experts was required. Content validity was determined by a literature review for items that served as the focus of agreement or disagreement in research groups. An internal consistency reliability of .9478 was calculated by Cronbach's alpha statistical procedure. RESULTS
tion of agreements are also unclear. The absence of established guidelines for the conduct of nursing research within a group environment may inadvertently contribute to reluctance of some nurses to participate in group endeavors. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this exploratory investigation was to determine the extent to which researchers participating in collaborative projects discussed and established a process for determining authorship, selecting conference presenters, and defining responsibilities of group members. The extent of group agreement, the sources of disagreement, and the timing of discussions about individual roles and responsibilities also were determined. RESEARCH QOESTIONS
Four research questions were investigated in this study: What was the extent of development of written research agreements among all .~aembers of nursing research groups? What specific areas were addressed in the research agreements? What was the extent of disagreements within nursing research groups? To ,/chat extent would guidelines for group or collaborative research be used by nursing research groups?
A total of 63 questionnaires was mailed; 48 were completed and returned. This represented a response rate of 76%. As reported by the respondents, 176 researchers from across the United States and Canada were represented by the 48 separate group members who responded. The size of the collaborative groups varied from 2 to 15 researchers. Twenty-six of the groups consisted of 2 members, while 22 groups were comprised of 3 to 15 members. Group Discussion Items
Respondents were asked to identify the topics that their research group members discussed to determine roles, responsibilities, and allocation of credit. The item of discussion reported most frequently was the order in which researchers' names were listed on publications and/or conference presentations. The responsibilities and roles of members were the second and third most frequently occurring items. Following these, designation of presenter(s), naming the principal investigator, and designating persons to perform tasks were identified as other group discussion topics. Table 1 lists discussion topics and their frequency of occurrence.
JOAN E. THIELE
152
Table 1. Items Discussed by Research Group Members Topic Order of names of authors or presenters Responsibilities of members Roles of members Presenter at conference Designation of the principal investigator Who would perform which task Recognition of ,efforts and contributions of members Spin-off projects and/or other extensions of the original project Responsibilities of project director or coordinator Who would have access to all data Who would be acknowledged, but not as an author Which journals to submit manuscript(s)
Number
Percentage
43 41 39 38
92 87 83 81
38 37
81 79
34
72
29
62
24
51
20
43
11
23
12
23
/Vote. The number of responses obtained varied per item; percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Sources of Disagreement Slightly less than half (21 of 48) of the respondents reported disagreements within their research groups. The issues that evoked the greatest amount of discussion by groups were also those about which disagreements centered. That is, the order of authors' names, the roles and responsibilities of members, and the identification of presenters were major sources of disagreement reported by respondents. Table 2 lists reported sources of disagreements and their frequency. Availability of Research Guidelines In contrast to the number of research groups that reported discussing various aspects of their groups' work~relationship, only. two respondents reported using or developing written guidelines. An additional 41 respondents reported developir/g v.erbal agreements during the course of research. Development of verbal agreements occurred on initiation of a project in almost one half of groups (n = 25; 48%). In addition, agreements were Siscussed again during the project in slightly more than one half of'the groups (n =. 29; 56%). One individual noted that discussion and development
Table 2. Sources of Disagreements Within Groups Topic
Number
Order of names of authors Recognition of efforts and contributions of members Presenter at conference Who would be identified as the principal investigator Responsibilities of members Roles of members Roles of the leader Responsibilities of leader Who would be acknowledged, but not as an author Who would have access to all data Responsibilities of project director or coordinator. Other Content; research methods Leader challenged by another member of the group
4
Percentage 20
3 3
15 15
3 3 2 2 2
15 15 10 10 10
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
Note. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.
of written guidelines would have been useful, particularly in assisting with understanding the workload and time commitments involved with conducting research. Another respondent reported that records were kept of each meeting detailing workloads and research efforts. Of the 22 persons who collaborated in groups of 3 or more persons, 10 indicated that written guidelines would have helped prevent disagreements among group members, while 6 said that Written guidelines would not have helped. Of 26 persons who reported conducting research within a 2-member group, only 2tin; dividuals responded that written guidelines would have been helpful; however, 3 respondents from 2-member groups indicated that written guidelines would be needed in larger group settings. Projected Use of Guidelines in Future Projects Subjects were asked, " I f you were to be involved in another group research endeavor, would you c o n s i d e r d i s c u s s i n g and d e v e l o p i n g guidelines?" Ninety-eight percent (n = 46) of respondents answered "definitely" (n = 26) or "maybe" (n = 20). Additional comments indicated that the use of written guidelines would de-
153
GUIDELINES FOR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
pend on the situation and the particular research group members. The absence of available guidelines was noted as a major reason for proceeding with verbal agreements only. In many instances, verbal agreements were clarified and modified during the study. Suggested Guidelines Following analysis of survey data, group research guidelines were developed (Table 3). The proposed guide!ines include thoseitems that were most frequently discussed and mentioned as sources of disagreement by respondents. It is recommended that each potential member of a research group receive a copy of these guidelines when considering participating in collaborative research. Items specific to each group should be thoroughly discussed and agreed on by all members at the onset of research. Decisions, date(s), and any modifications should be recorded on each participant's copy of the guidelines. Periodic review and modification of agreements may be necessary, depending on the particular research and any changes in group membership. Rather than being restrictive, these guidelines direct activities of research group participants. Each research group will include members who possess different skills and abilities, and open discussion in the early phases of a group endeavor may lead to noncompetitive and productive working relationships. CONCLUSION The amount of research conducted by members of the nursing profession is steadily increasing. Collaborative research, the sharing of expertise and the conducting of research through group efforts, is consistent,with this increased research productivity in nursing. As research in nursing matures, rules of etiquette for researchers need to be developed. Discussion of rules of conduct and development of
Table 3. Guidelines for Group Research Item
Decision(s)
Date/Sign
1, Designation of principal investigator/group leader 2., Responsibilities of princlpal investigator 3. Responsibilities of members 4. Process for deciding the following A. Authorship of any articles or other written materials resulting from the study B. Where to submit abstracts for presentations/poster sessions C. Presenter(s) D. Recognition of efforts and contributions of members E. Acknowledgment of members' contributions to group efforts on written documents F. Extension of the research and/or spin-off projects 5. Assignment of tasks 6. Tentative time schedule of research 7. Access to data by group members and by nongroup members
explicit written agreements among all members of research teams may prevent misunderstandings. Collaborative research provides a mechanism by which the talents of many individuals may be focused on a single research endeavor. Inherent in collaboration is the development of positive relationships among participants. By setting forth written guidelines at the onset of a project, conflicts that impede research and stifle the growth of individual researchers may be avoided.
REFERENCES
Brown, J.S., Tanner, C.A., & Padrick, K.P. (1984). Nursing's search for scientific knowledge. Nurs~g Research, 33, 26-32. Downs, F. (1981). Soup (F_xtitorial).NursingResearch, 30, 322. stevens, K.R. (1986). Authorship: Yours, mine or ours? Image, 18, 151-154.
Waltz, C., Nelson, B., & Chambers, S.B. (1985). Assigning publication credits. Nursing Outlook, 33, 233-238. Werley, H.W., Murphy, P.A., Gosch, S.M., Gottesmarm, H., & Newcomb, B.J. (1981). Research publication credit assignmenti Nurses' views. Research in Nursing and Health, 4, 261-279.