dissertation collaborative work

Graduate School
Current Students
Dissertation & Thesis Preparation

Including Published, Co-authored, or Collaborative Material in a Thesis or Dissertation

Workday student support.

Graduate students can find "how to" guides and support information on our Workday support page .

Note: The information below applies to any co-authored or collaborative work, whether published or not.

Students are encouraged to publish and/or otherwise share work, as appropriate, from their research during the course of their degree programs. Obtaining permission to do so from collaborators should be considered in advance. “Publication” can be thought of broadly – and may be in the form of journal articles or book chapters; creative pieces (e.g., film, art, creative writing) shown or published in public venues; or other scholarly artifacts such as reports, policy briefs, webpages or computer applications, curricula, etc., that are in use in a professional or community domain. Nothing should be included in the thesis that cannot be made open-access through cIRcle (after a short-term embargo, if warranted and approved). Proprietary information may be an exception.

Articles or artifacts that have been published may be included as separate chapters of the thesis or may be incorporated within other sections of the thesis, subject to the considerations below.

Attribution : Material published elsewhere (or in press) must be identified and suitably acknowledged in both the text and the Preface. For collaborative work (published or not), in which the student is one of several authors/creators, the student must clearly describe in the Preface their relative contribution to and role in the work.

Presentation : Units of measure, abbreviations, and the numbering scheme for tables, figures, footnotes, and citations should be used consistently throughout the thesis. The thesis must contain a single bibliography, typically after the main body of the text but before any appendices. These requirements may entail minor changes to the original manuscript. Students may also augment the published work with additional material.

Coherence : Taken as a whole, the thesis should reflect a deliberate and purposeful approach to conducting and presenting the scholarly work. This consideration should guide the placement of manuscripts or artifacts in the main body of the work. More deeply, it means that the introduction, literature review, and conclusion must address the significance of each component in the broad context of the overall program of scholarship described by the entire body of work.

Copyright : Use of copyrighted material must be supported by permission from the copyright holder, and this must be acknowledged in the Preface and be fully cited. Tables and figures from copyrighted sources must have "Reprinted with permission of …" in their captions, unless they appear as part of a block of material covered by a copyright acknowledgement in the Preface.

More information:

Why Grad School at UBC?
Graduate Degree Programs
Application & Admission
Info Sessions
Research Supervisors
Research Projects
Indigenous Students
International Students
Tuition, Fees & Cost of Living
Newly Admitted
Student Status & Classification
Student Responsibilities
Supervision
Managing your Program
Health, Wellbeing and Safety
Professional Development
Final Doctoral Exam
Final Dissertation & Thesis Submission
Life in Vancouver
Vancouver Campus
Graduate Student Spaces
Graduate Life Centre
Life as a Grad Student
Graduate Student Ambassadors
Meet our Students
Award Opportunities
Award Guidelines
Minimum Funding Policy for PhD Students
Killam Awards & Fellowships
Dean's Message
Leadership Team
Strategic Plan & Priorities
Vision & Mission
Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
Initiatives, Plans & Reports
Graduate Education Analysis & Research
Media Enquiries
Newsletters
Giving to Graduate Studies

Strategic Priorities

Strategic Plan 2019-2024
Improving Student Funding
Promoting Excellence in Graduate Programs
Enhancing Graduate Supervision
Advancing Indigenous Inclusion
Supporting Student Development and Success
Reimagining Graduate Education
Enriching the Student Experience

Initiatives

Public Scholars Initiative
3 Minute Thesis (3MT)
PhD Career Outcomes

Constructing ‘Doable’ Dissertations in Collaborative Research

Alignment work and distinction in experimental high-energy physics settings.

Many young scientists are trained in research groups, yet little is known about how individual doctoral dissertations are carved out of collaborative research projects. This question is particularly pronounced in high-energy physics, where thousands of physicists share an experiment’s apparatus, data, and the authorship of publications. Based on qualitative interviews with researchers working at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, this paper analyses what makes a PhD dissertation ‘doable’ in this context. Describing the levels of work organisation, the challenges, and the actors involved in constructing ‘doable’ dissertations in collaborative research, I argue that doctoral dissertations are the emergent product of alignment work performed throughout the PhD. Individualisation is achieved by temporally, qualitatively and formally distinguishing dissertations from work on collective publications. I discuss how these processes shape the roles of students and advisors, and the content and value of dissertations in collaborative research.

2022-12-15 (2)
2022-02-28 (1)

How to Cite

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Science & Technology Studies is the official journal of EASST

Impact factor (2021): 3.105

5 year impact factor: 2.494

Acceptance rate: 15%

Days to first editorial decision (2023): 24

Days to accept (2023): 192

Current Issue

eISSN 2243-4690

🎉 Welcome Week is almost here... Welcome 2024 🎉

Students co-creating dissertations with community organisations

It's not too late to check out the benefits for yourself, making your dissertation go further, do more.

Studying for a master's here at UCL? The dissertation is a key element during a demanding and challenging year - why not make it go further and mean more? At the Community Research Initiative, we support you to consider doing your dissertation in collaboration with a small-to-medium sized non-profit organisation.

We think your dissertation can go further than just you and your grade at the end of the year. By collaborating, you are making knowledge more democratic by including the views and experiences of people not usually invited to influence research and you are increasing the chances of your findings changing something in the world, because you've developed it with people who know what is needed to make change happen.

Collaboration is different to asking a non-profit to help with recruitment of people to your study so that you can interview them or give them a survey to complete. If you ask a non-profit to recruit people for you, chances are they haven't had any say or influence over the interview questions or survey. Worse still, they probably had no influence or involvement with the overall aims or objectives in the first place. Your ideas and dissertation research question might be interesting but ask yourself - will the findings be useful for anyone? Will they change anything for the better for anyone?

This is really important to think about because it's linked to the concept of impact. Research should have impact and we have obsessed over journal impact factors and citations for years. But within universities, we think of impact in a very narrow way and often the impact remains within academia, certainly in the immediate and short-term. Did you know that it can take years and years for health service research findings to actually change clinical practice? Surely we want the findings from research into the best dementia care, for example, to very quickly lead to improved dementia care?

It is so important to ask the right questions with our research. And by right questions, we mean the questions that, when answered, lead to useable and useful new knowledge for those who are directly impacted, involved, or in some way, affected by the 'problem' for which we are trying to find the solution. If we make sure our aims for research include producing findings that are useful and useable in the real world, we stand a much better chance of having the right kind of impact!

How do we know what the right questions are? By taking what's called a participatory approach and collaborating with people at a non-profit organisation: they are experts in their own right, with different knowledge and experience compared to the higher education sector. The aim of the non-profit sector is collective action for social change - they will have lots of ideas for what the important research questions are to ask. All we need to do is listen and engage.

What will collaboration do for me?

Well, it is our aim to help you do more with your dissertation and with your time here at UCL. We have developed a service to enhance the student experience through lots of exciting opportunities to develop new skills, make new friends, work in a participatory way, and build new networks or identify new career options.

Students come to us for lots of different reasons and there is no judgement from us on your motivations! It can be for naked career ambition, altruism, or simply wanting someone else to help with the research question. Students have told us it feels like they are getting better value-for-money, that it helps because they don't know anyone in London or the UK, or that they hope it will improve their job prospects. Everyone is welcome at the Community Research Initiative as long as benefit to a non-profit organisation can be part of the picture.

I felt a newfound excitement toward my dissertation because the charity are focused on the type of policy-oriented work I’d be hoping to go into after graduating. MSc Environment, Politics & Society student, 20-21

Recently we wanted to check if we are achieving this central aim of ours, to improve student experience around the dissertation. We were delighted to work with Niamh Healy , a UCL PhD student, as our research assistant. Niamh read all the written student feedback we had received between 2018-19 and 2020-21, looking for patterns or meaning across it all.

Students do benefit from collaborative working

What Niamh's analysis of our student feedback uncovered was consistent themes around career benefits, support for students, and learning opportunities.

Career benefits

A recurring theme running through the feedback was career prospects. Working with the Community Research Initiative to help meet and possibly collaborate with a non-profit organisation means students don't just have the appearance of being employable - they have the skills and experiences to back this up. Career benefits included network building, increased subject knowledge, and exposure to the organisation's professional activities. Students draw upon their collaborative dissertation experience during job interviews after their master's is finished and benefit from hearing first-hand when suitable jobs were coming up in the organisation or wider sector.

Working with my community partner really put me in a working frame of mind MSc Anthropology, Environment & Development student, 20-21

Support with your dissertation

We try to support you in a personalised and flexible way and it seems like students really like this. From the feedback we received, it was clear that students appreciate direct support from the Community Research Initiative manager as well as through a wider "community research community" made up of like-minded students, other staff in the Volunteering Service, and non-profit partners.

We know this year is super intense, can be daunting, and is certainly overwhelming at times. Therefore we take a really personal, caring, encouraging approach:

The best thing about joining the Community Research Initiative was the team - they are truly interested in helping you. They are not going to tell you 'this is what we have, that's all you can choose from'. MSc Medical Anthropology student 20-21

Our practical support will help you too, according to previous students! The kind of practical support we offer includes recommendations for non-profit organisations, a brokerage service where we get in touch on your behalf, and providing a template of a research partnership agreement because we think it is important to protect and support your ambitions to work in a different way.

We can also take the role of a 'critical friend' and help you narrow down your interests, form research questions, and advise on research ethics processes. This often feels like a 'kick start' to your dissertation that you won't get from your supervisor or personal tutor necessarily!

Finally, students benefit from our help with the admin of a new collaboration! This includes setting up meetings, bringing your supervisor into the process, offering advice and tips for how to take part in the initial meetings with a non-profit. Sometimes, we can even chair meetings which might have any particularly tricky situations.

Learning in new ways, in new places

It's far more exciting when your learning happens in different settings and takes different forms, right? Students certainly benefit from the Community Research Initiative in different settings: student group work; networking events; bespoke 1:1s ; multi-disciplinary team meetings including a non-profit sector partner. International students in particular can benefit from the networking opportunities we provide, such as making friends or learning and understanding a sector or industry that is totally different to back home.

There is a huge learning benefit to doing your dissertation 'in the real world'. For example, learning how to manage expectations, including your own; how to negotiate; how to align different agendas and needs between the academic and the real worlds; how to work flexibly and reactively. These are skills that are not easily learned during a traditional dissertation because the opportunities and challenges are different.

But, while it was hard to manage everyone's expectations, it was still a really exciting process, because in every conversation we were coming up with new ideas and all of the research questions that we considered were really interesting and it would have been very exciting to spend time answering any one of them! MSc International Public Policy student, 20-21

The development of research ideas is an area of particular student benefit. Dissertation ideas, co-designed with a non-profit partner organisation, are interesting, exciting, and meaningful. Students benefit from a different perspective on a topic they are intellectually interested in and are able to narrow down their ideas through talking with people not commonly included in the research process.

Step by step it became more clear what was an interesting, relevant and realistic research topic. I’m very glad I gave myself the time to slowly figure that out. Affiliate student, Bartlett School of Planning, 21-22

With a non-profit partner, students observe that it's a different relationship than with an academic supervisor and you can benefit from this more informal relationship; it's a working relationship where you can relax and be honest and gain confidence in speaking and working with different people than those typically within the university setting. We are completely independent from any master's programme and so students also benefit from an unrestricted space to try out ideas, be honest about ambition, speak up about worries or fears.

How can I get involved?

It's not too late to join the Community Research Initiative 22-23 to begin your journey towards setting up a collaborative dissertation! You can book a 1:1 appointment with Anne, sign up so you don't miss anything, or even take part in some skills workshops.

The full report, including methods, will be available soon.

Types of Accommodation
Finding Accommodation
Advice for Renters
Housing Repairs
Council Tax
Useful Housing Contacts
Budgeting and Managing Your Income
Student Financial Support
Managing Debt
Postgraduate Funding
Academic Misconduct
Extenuating Circumstances
Interruption and Withdrawal
Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA)
UCL Complaints Procedure
Tips for Panel Hearings
Employment Rights
Flatmate Finder
Language + Writing
Financial Literacy and Capability
Gender Expression Fund
Sarah Douglas Hardship Fund
Student Activities Participation Fund
Student Parents and Carers
Student Sex Workers
Report a Hate Crime or Hate Incident
Hate Crime Resources
The History
Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours at UCL
Registration 2020
FAQs for Staff
to Police & TfL
Frequently Asked Questions
Mental Health
Sexual Health
Spotting a Scam
Travelling at Night
Sexual Violence and Harassment
Advice Service Contact Form
Advice Service Policies and Procedures
Counselling Appointments with UCL
UCL's Report + Support Tool
Bloomsbury Café
George Farha Cafe
Gordon's Café
Print Room Cafe
Institute Bar & Kitchen
The Huntley
Mully's
Sustainability
Bloomsbury Shop
Officer Attendance and Voting Records
No Confidence Procedures
Your Activities Reps
Accountability and Questions for Officers
Academic Rep Successes
Find your rep
Staff Resources
Hall Community Officers
Student Networks
Activities Zone
Education Zone
Welfare & Community Zone
Union Executive
Student Choice Awards
Student Insight
Rep Elections 2024
Student Sustainability Council
UCL students organising for sustainability
Dissertations for sustainability
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Microwaves map
'Ditch the Disposable' campaign
Find an opportunity
Find a Club or Society
Find your departmental society
Skills Sessions
Arranging transport to and from fixtures
Reclaim Match Travel Expenses
Paying your referee
How to Order Kit
How to get the right insurance for members and coaches
Organise a trip or tour
Entering External and BUCS/LUSL Leagues, Knockouts, Tournaments and Events
Running a Project Active session
Sports Finance
How to hold fair auditions
How to submit a theatre bid
Club and Society Room Bookings
Event Deadlines
Union Rooms
Sports Facilities
External Venues
Organise an Event with an External Speaker
How to add a Club/Society event to the What's On Calendar
Hiring and borrowing equipment
Event Forms
How to report an incident or accident
Risk Assessments
Catering and Food Safety
Insuring equipment
How to Make an Insurance Claim
Key Event Safety Contacts
Our Commitment
How to run an AGM
How to run an EGM
Removing someone from your committee
Non-student membership
Friends' Trust Applications
How-to-Guides
Society Events
Start a New Club or Society
Associate/Visiting membership terms and conditions
Club and Society Elections
Find a club
Performance Sport
Events and Campaigns
All Jokes Aside
Social Sports
Explore the Gym
Book a Class
Book our Squash Courts
Find an in-person class
Find an online class
Join Social Sport
HEAR Community Volunteering
Volunteering in Departments
Alumni Stories
Volunteering & Your CV workshops
Browse the directory
Volunteering for Postgrads
Contact the Volunteering Service
Partners Breakfasts
Promoting your volunteer roles
Partner Profiles
Sign up for our newsletters
Volunteering Fairs
Volunteering Awards 2020
Volunteering Awards Ceremony 2021: Your Definitive Guide!
Oliver Hare UCL Altruism Award
Our Aims and Objectives
Meet the team
Now you're volunteering
Safeguarding
Find the Volunteering Service
Our three year strategy
Info for Academic Departments
Our Service Standards
Volunteering Society
Postgrad Focus Groups
Community Volunteering Strategy
Supporting Partners
Volunteering and UCL Academic Departments
Social Hackathons
Support the UN's Sustainable Development Goals
UCL Volunteering Society
Student-Led Project Directory
Volunteer Expenses
Volunteering Service Student Led Projects Registration Form
Accident & Emergency Procedure
For current Volunteers
Getting started
Community Noticeboard
CRIS Student Showcases
Develop into a great research collaborator
Have a conversation, be inspired!
Meeting the community
Get yourself a Students' Union profile!
Taking part in the clinic
What do we get out of this?
Info for PhD students
Info for staff
Postgraduate Summer
Project Active
Club Nights
Events at Phineas
Sports Night
Events at UCL East

Writing collaborative publications during your PhD

This guest post is by Kylie Budge, a PhD student in art/design education at the University of Melbourne in Australia. She is on the editorial team of the theteachingtomtom , in her role at RMIT University as a Learning and Teaching Advisor

Academic publications (journal articles, conference papers and so on) are either collaboratively written or sole-authored. I would strongly suggest trying the collaborative route for your first experience . However – and this needs to be emphasised – I’m not suggesting starting with a collaborative publication because it’s easy to do and sole-authored work is difficult. It’s not as simple as that. Despite the difficulties that can arise, generating and bouncing ideas off your writing partners is often less lonely, more interesting and more productive than doing it alone. Especially for a first-timer.

Getting started means finding people to write with. In my discipline, collaborative articles are often written by very small teams (2-3 people). In other disciplines (eg. the sciences), it’s common for large groups of authors to publish together. Even if you’re brand new to academia you already know one or two academics – your supervisor/s. You could consider writing with them, especially if you’d like to write about something stemming from your PhD topic. Chances are they will be interested in it too if they’re supervising your PhD project.

If you’d rather not write with your supervisor, then seek out people who are interested in similar topics and talk to them about what they’re writing about and your ideas. Over time your common interests will clarify and they might invite you to write with them,or you can be brave and suggest a writing project to them. Once you’ve got a couple of people (or more) to write with and a project in mind you’re ready to start. But before you do, there are a few other things to think about.

Collaborative writing involves a combination of writing and process styles. Not everyone works or writes the same way. It may take you a few experiences of writing collaboratively before you work out what your preferred writing process is and the kind of writing that suits you best.

Conceptualise the project with your fellow collaborators as much as you can before you start writing the article itself. This means talking together about what the article is going to focus on, particularly the contributions to knowledge. Try white boarding together as a group as you synthesise your ideas and clarify purpose of your article.

As you conceptualise the focus of your writing project, choose a publication or conference to target the final product of your labours. Wendy Belcher’s “Writing Your Journal Article in Twelve Weeks: A Guide to Academic Publishing Success” has some great strategies. Consciously focus on the style of the publication or conference you are targeting as you write.

Set a timeframe to work in. What period of time suits the authors to have the finished article written in? Twelve weeks? Longer? If you’re writing for a conference a deadline will be set by the organisers, which can make this decision easier.

Make use of the great collaborative writing tools out there. I’ve used Google Docs for two recent collaborative projects with great success. Any collaborative writing tool that enables you all to write in the one space (thus saving version control headaches involved when emailing drafts to each other) is worth its weight in gold.

In the draft stage, ask each person to write in different colours so that it’s easy to see who has written what. This way if you want to clarify, or question, a part of the writing you know who has contributed the area and can work from there. At the final stage, when all writers are happy, you can then change the text colour to black.

Work out what the collaborative writing process will be in advance. Will each person write a section or not? Some collaborative writers are able to work quite fluidly, dipping in and out of various sections without carving out sections for specific authors to write. Other combinations of people are not able to work like this. There is no one right way in terms of process. But it is important to talk about and to work out an agreed process to try .

Discuss and review the article you are writing at regular points during the writing project. This keeps everyone on track.

When you feel ready, give a good draft of the article to a ‘critical friend’ to read and ask for feedback on aspects that you (the group of writers) nominate – eg. structure, flow, engagement of the reader etc. Ensure the critical friend you approach has academic publications and can give feedback with a degree of experience.

Collaborative writing can be hugely rewarding for early career academic writers, however, communicating honestly and well with your writing partners is key! An added bonus is you can establish some strong networks which can lead you into more exciting writing adventures in the future.

Have you written papers with others? Or with your supervisors? Do you have any tips or techniques to share – or traps to look out for?

Publications and your PhD

Is the University a Bad Boyfriend?

Whisper to me....

Enter your email address to get posts by email.

Email Address

Sign me up!

On the reg: a podcast with @jasondowns
Thesis Whisperer on Facebook
Thesis Whisperer on Instagram
Thesis Whisperer on Soundcloud
Thesis Whisperer on Youtube
Thesiswhisperer on Mastodon
Thesiswhisperer page on LinkedIn
Thesiswhisperer Podcast
12,209,999 hits

Discover more from The Thesis Whisperer

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

The Peer Review

Perspectives on Collaborative Scholarship

Kelsey Hixson-Bowles, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Enrique Paz, Miami University of Ohio

We address some of the most pressing issues facing new and experienced scholars interested in embarking on collaborative publications. Collaboration can be a daunting task. We recognize that it is not always easy to determine when you should collaborate, with whom you should collaborate, or how to collaborate. On top of all these challenges is the formidable tradition of single-authored texts that many of our departments continue to uphold, especially in the humanities. In spite of the challenges collaboration presents, we and many other scholars find collaboration to be productive and rewarding. This article shares what we learned by interviewing six writing center professionals who actively have engaged in collaborative scholarship throughout their careers.

As writing center tutors and professionals, we participate daily in the social production of written text. Though providing feedback in a tutoring session differs from co-authoring a paper, both activities express the social nature of writing (Berlin, 2009; Bizzell, 2009; Bizzell & Rubin, 1988; Bruffee, 1984). Given this, it’s no surprise that writing center scholars and professionals tend to gravitate towards opportunities to collaborate; in fact, our journals are increasingly publishing collaboratively written articles. Many names have appeared together in writing center studies: Rebecca Day Babcock and Terese Thonus (2012), Dana Driscoll and Sherry Wynn Perdue (2012, 2013, 2014), Anne Geller and Harry Denny (2013), Pam Bromley, Kara Northway, and Eliana Schonberg (2013), Shanti Bruce and Ben Rafoth (2009), Anne Geller, Michele Eodice, Frankie Condon, Meg Carroll, and Elizabeth Boquet (2007), etc. And, if we look at the broader field of composition and rhetoric, we find teams such as Ede and Lunsford (1984; 1986; 1990; 1992; 1998; 2001; 2012). Though these examples suggest that collaboration abounds in our field, Neal Lerner’s (2014) recent study suggests that it is not as common as it seems within writing center scholarship. Only 18% of articles published in The Writing Center Journal feature more than one author (p. 73). Regardless, we support Eodice’s (2003) sentiment that “we can and should demand collaboration” (p. 129). For, as McNenny and Roen (1992) have boldly stated, “Scholarship is collaboration. It cannot be otherwise” (p. 307), nor should it be.

Though we may value collaboration, local contexts often limit it. Day and Eodice (2001), for instance, were denied the opportunity to collaboratively produce a dissertation, a rare feat that few graduate students consider seriously. Similarly, some scholars have found that collaboratively written articles count differently in the tenure process than single-author texts. Such local constraints can be discouraging, especially for developing scholars.

To combat these challenges, this article provides guidance for emerging scholars embarking on collaborative projects. We (Enrique and Kelsey) are both drawn to writing about collaboration because we share the common belief that two heads are better than one and because we hope to encourage others to collaborate. Kelsey’s prior experiences with collaboration as well as her interests in collaborative leadership and creativity drive her to learn more about how others collaborate in administration and scholarship. Enrique’s research on authorship and plagiarism convince him to challenge the dominance of single-authored texts through his scholarship and teaching. Having both collaborated already, we are eager to acknowledge the benefits, challenges, and rewards of collaborative work. While the scholarship we cite above is invaluable, this article adds to the conversation by documenting how successful collaborators in our field have managed their relationships and work.

In particular, to address some of the most pressing issues facing scholars interested in embarking on collaborative publications, collaboration can be a daunting task. It’s not always easy to figure out when you should collaborate, with whom you should collaborate, or how to collaborate. On top these challenges is the tradition of single-authored texts that many universities uphold, especially in the humanities (Laurer & Asher, 1988). In spite of the challenges collaboration presents, we and many other scholars find collaboration to be an effective means of improving both one’s scholarship and one’s scholarly identity.

To demonstrate the motivations and methods of collaborating researchers, we interviewed writing center scholars who have actively engaged in collaborative work throughout their careers. Six scholars offered insights from their collaborative experiences:

Dr. Ben Rafoth is a professor of English and the director of the writing center at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. In addition to the numerous leadership positions he has held in IWCA, his collaborative scholarship includes Tutoring ESL Writers (2009) with Shanti Bruce and the forthcoming Tutoring Second Language Writers , also with Shanti Bruce.
Michele Eodice is the associate provost for academic engagement at the University of Oklahoma as well as the director of the writing center. She also serves as a co-editor for The Writing Center Journal . Her latest collaborative project, the Meaningful Writing Project with Anne Geller and Neal Lerner, continues her career-long commitment to collaboration, which began in her dissertation, and First Person 2 (2001) with Kami Day.
Dana Driscoll is an associate professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Her research in writing center studies and transfer of learning has produced multiple co-authored publications, including “Theory, Lore, and More: An Analysis of RAD Research in the Writing Center Journal, 1980-2009” (2012), winner of the 2012 IWCA Best Article Award.
Sherry Wynn Perdue, co-author of “Theory, Lore, and More” with Dana, is the writing center director at Oakland University. Her many collaborations also include “Negotiating the Sponsorship Continuum: Preparing Humanities Undergraduates to Conduct RAD Research” (2014) also with Dana and student co-authors Jacob Matthews, Enrique Paz, and Jessica Tess. Sherry also collaborates as a co-editor of The Peer Review .

Carolyn Wisniewski is the writing center director at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. She recently received her Ph.D. from University of Tennessee-Knoxville in 2014. Her collaborative works as a graduate student and beyond are under review for publication or currently in progress. Her research interests include writing program administration, post-secondary writing teacher education, and composition theory and pedagogy.

Jessica Reyes is the assistant director of the writing center at Towson University. Her research examines social justice in the writing center, community engagement, collaborative leadership, and local institutional structures’ impact on writing tutoring. Like Carolyn, her collaborative projects, which include a long-term research project with Kelsey, are in progress or under review. As an assistant director, she also collaborates with her undergraduate writing center consultants on conference presentations and local writing projects.

These six scholars offer diverse perspectives and experiences with collaboration. Ben and Michele, both full professors, represent established scholars late in their careers. Dana is recently tenured and in the middle of her career, while Carolyn, a new Ph.D., is pre-tenure and early in her career. Our interviews also included two professionals in staff positions: Sherry, director at Oakland University, and Jessica, who recently received a master’s degree and accepted a position at Towson. We combine the insights of these scholars with our own perspectives as graduate students and graduate writing center administrators, who collaborate to produce scholarship, including this article.

In what follows, we synthesize the stories, experiences, lessons, and advice offered by these scholars. Through our interviews, several major questions emerged as key concerns for collaboration, as follows:

Why should/do we collaborate?
With whom should we collaborate?
How can we find collaborators?
How should we negotiate conflict?
How can we manage the collaborative writing process?
How does collaborative scholarship affect tenure and professional advancement?

We conclude with reflections on what this discussion suggests for scholars seeking to publish in The Peer Review and for writing center studies’ scholarship more generally. Our interviews provided many insights and revealed best practices for scholars seeking to work collaboratively. We hope that this discussion will serve as a resource to enable that work.

Why Should/Do We Collaborate?

As will become apparent throughout our discussion, collaboration offers several benefits. Foremost, scholars can simply accomplish more when they work with other people. Dana found this to be true in her collaborations. For their investigation on RAD research in writing center scholarship, Sherry and Dana were able to split their duty of reading every issue of The Writing Center Journal . Carolyn’s collaborative research allowed one project to include twice as many classroom observations thanks to including multiple observers. Kelsey and Jessica are currently amassing a large data set that would be too time-consuming for either of them complete individually. The affordances collaboration offers to data collection and analysis can result in more detailed data sets.

Collaboration also allows for the division of intellectual labor. When working together, scholars can address difficult problems in the research and writing processes more effectively. Ben, for example, reported that his collaboration with Shanti Bruce began because he had difficulty addressing questions about second language writers alone. A problem-solving partner can expedite solutions and conclusions, enable more critical thought on a subject, and keep peers motivated. Alternately, as Dana put it: “I like working with collaborators because my thinking is better when I’m working with other people.” The cooperation of multiple minds can prevent roadblocks that might bring a single scholar’s work to a halt.

This cooperative contact also provides the opportunity to learn new skills from your collaborators. Both Dana and Sherry spoke about the important skills they gained from their experience working together. Dana’s social science background provided her with the tools to design qualitative and quantitative studies, which complemented Sherry’s training in humanities, including experience with secondary research and literature reviews. After years of writing together, Dana has learned from Sherry’s expertise and feels better equipped to compose literature reviews because of the collaboration. Likewise, Sherry shared that her knowledge of methodologies and data-analysis has expanded due to her work with Dana. Michele referred to these knowledges as “skill sets,” which collaborators rely upon but also learn from one another through their work. Working with scholars who have complementary skill sets enables us to address new tasks while producing new scholarship.

Individual work also benefits from collaboration and collaborators. All of our interviewees described how they have applied knowledge, skills, and experiences from collaborative writing to their individual projects. Jessica, in fact, always works to employ collaborative practices throughout her individual work, soliciting colleagues’ input to reproduce the intellectual energy collaboration brings. Sherry noted how often she leans on collaborators to motivate her and push her forward during slumps she encounters in her own writing. And Dana simply believed that collaboration made her a better writer and helped her to transition successfully from writing for a dissertation to writing for publication. For undergraduate and graduate students in particular, collaborations with faculty and established scholars often functions like an apprenticeship and serves as an introduction to publishing, producing scholarship, and the politics thereof.

Finally, collaborations are also rewarding on an individual level because of the potential for rich personal and professional relationships to develop. Bluntly, collaborative work is just more fun. Michele confessed that she “[finds] writing very lonely.” Dana echoed this sentiment as well when she said, “So much of our scholarship is so isolating. It’s so nice just have another person that you can work with. ” When scholars come together to produce scholarship and research, they get to share an experience that is, for many, intimate. The result is that collaborators often build lasting relationships out of their collaborations, which deepen both their social and professional networks.

With Whom Should We Collaborate?

Choosing your collaborators is perhaps the most important decision you will make when embarking on collaborative work. When asked how to make this decision, many of our interviewees recommended seeking out those who share your interests and excitement for the questions you want to pursue. Indeed, mutual passion for collaborative scholarship and writing brought Kelsey and Enrique together to write this piece. We were both drawn to exploring the nuances of collaborative relationships in our field as well as motivating other scholars to experiment with collaboration in their own work. Likewise, Dana describes how her relationship with Jennifer Wells (see Driscoll and Wells, 2012) began because of their shared research interest in student attitudes toward writing transfer and similar findings from their own research. Dana holds that there is “safety in numbers,” reminding us that collaborators reinforce, support, and advance our research and arguments.

Nearly all of our interviewees also expressed that friendship is a tremendous asset to all collaborative relationships. As such, it makes sense to seek out people you like and would like to work with. A foundation of friendship will be useful, since collaborators quickly learn about each other’s personal and professional lives. It’s nearly impossible to avoid; almost all aspects of our lives influence our work, and when we collaborate with others, we invite them to learn about those aspects of our lives that influence our work the most. When we began our collaborations for this article, Kelsey was two weeks away from her wedding. Collaborating with Enrique became another ball to juggle during that busy month. At the same time, Enrique and his wife prepared for a baby due toward the end of our editing. We each had to understand, respect, and adapt to each other’s lives and personal responsibilities as much as to our intellectual perspectives or work practices. No matter what it is—marriage, moving, babies, dissertations, illness, etc.—developing and maintaining friendship with your collaborators makes the process of working together more productive and sustainable. As Jessica put said, we should seek out those who will support, promote, and encourage us in all of our endeavors.

The fact that these friendships establish trust and motivate accountability is also important. Sherry emphasized the importance of friendships that have a solid foundation of trust in her collaborations. Developing a blend of trust and friendship in this way allows collaborators to “forgive each other,” Sherry noted. As our students will often complain to us, “group projects” often result in a series of frustrations. Even those of us who continue to choose collaborative projects may still experience basic frustrations when working with others. Missing deadlines, disappointing feedback, differences of perspective, unintended offenses—there are many scenarios that may cause friction between collaborators. However, as Dana mentioned, we are more generous and accepting of these scenarios with friends. Having a friendship anchored in trust provides collaborators with the motivation and means to communicate their frustrations, negotiate solutions, and mend fractures.

In fact, Ben went as far as to liken collaboration to marriage. Both require a commitment (and for long-term projects, these commitments may even last longer than some marriages). Both require a foundation of friendship and trust. Both require that all involved be willing to work through frustrations and negotiate challenges, keeping the shared goals and values as their primary priority. McNenny and Roen (1992) echo Ben’s sentiment, stating “In a collaborative project, as in marriage, each member needs to respect each other; each needs to be committed to the project; and each needs to carry his or her share of the load” (p. 305). And in fact, we see many collaborations that emerge from or lead to marriage—which Michele referred to as “intimate collaboration.”

In other cases, as we mentioned above, we should seek new collaborative relationships with scholars who have skill sets we do not yet possess. Consider what gaps exist in your knowledge of the subject at hand, the theory that informs it, or the methodological expertise needed to perform research about it. Sherry and Dana shared how their respective training in humanities and social sciences methods were complementary. Ben offered an example about seeking collaborators for methodological knowledge from his time as an undergraduate at Miami University, where Donald Daiker, Max Morenberg, and Andrew Kerek worked on their sentence-combining research. These scholars reached out to Richard Hoffman (credited in a footnote) from Educational Psychology for his advice on methods and research design. Ben believed that such interdisciplinary collaboration ought to happen more often: “It would be nice to see more of it, because methodologically, there’s a lot of expertise that we can really not just learn from but use if we could work with people in other disciplines.” Ben’s comments point to the need to expand our collaborations to others whose knowledge and training would complement our own and enable us to approach complex questions more effectively. We might begin seeking collaborators by considering what colleagues in other disciplines might bring to our projects, and in doing so we could expand the kinds of questions we ask and refine how we answer them.

Without fail, our interviewees confirmed each other’s advice to our readers. Pursue collaborations with people you like, who share your values, who complement your workflow and strengths, and who will move with you toward your common goals.

How Can We Find Collaborators?

Perhaps the greatest barrier for entry into collaborative work is simply locating and engaging with fellow scholars. Our interviewees advised us to find others who share our research interests and whose skills and knowledges complement our own. But where do we find these people?

First, think local. Many of our interviewees found their collaborators at their own institutions. Dana and Sherry met when Dana was a faculty member at Oakland University. Their work emerged from conversations they had during their regular encounters. Indeed, Michele reminded that much collaborative research springs from interesting and/or unusual events encountered in daily work that result in collaboration with whomever happened to be beside us at the time. Ben and Shanti Bruce began working together at IUP when they noticed their undergraduate tutors clamoring for more knowledge on second language writers. They have maintained that relationship, and it has produced a book and an edited collection. Many others, including Enrique and Kelsey, have found collaborators while at graduate school. The MA program in English at Kansas State University brought Jessica and Kelsey together, and Carolyn also found her collaborators among her colleagues in her Ph.D. program. Michele’s collaborations with Kami Day began in graduate school and produced both her dissertation and the book First Person 2 . The coursework and camaraderie of graduate programs allow you to learn much about your colleague’s research interests and experiences. Take advantage of the proximity to begin collaborations with like-minded people and establish productive relationships.

Conferences and professional organizations also provide excellent opportunities to meet or seek out collaborators. Being active among organizations like the IWCA or WPA or attending conferences like National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Writing, will not only keep you informed of new research but also immerse you into a community of scholars, many of whom will share in your excitement for collaboration. A number of Ben’s collaborative works have emerged from his time as treasurer of IWCA. He would often collaborate and publish with other board members in response to interesting problems or questions the IWCA board encountered. Attending presentations relevant to your research interests will expose you to presenters and attendees who share them. An enlightening presentation or a thoughtful question from an audience member might point you toward a collaborator. Enrique found many of his future co-panelists and collaborators. Further, Carolyn points to conference workshops like the IWCA Collaborative and Research Network Forum at Central Carolina Community College or the Graduate Research Network at Computers and Writing as means of sharing your work and hearing about other’s research. Organizations often offer mentorship and networking opportunities for graduate students, such as the WPA Graduate Organization. These opportunities to gather with fellow scholars and discuss our ideas are well-trodden paths towards collaboration.

We also recommend subscribing to organizational listservs such a WPA-L and WCenter. Many scholars turn to the listservs to ask questions, seek advice, and even find collaborators. The discussions that circulate through these channels will point toward others who share your interests.

Subpoint: Collaborating Across Faculty, Administrator, and Student Positions

While many of our interviewees recommended that younger scholars and students should seek out experienced mentors and researchers, we want to draw attention to how uneven positions of power can make collaboration difficult. As Sherry said and Dana echoed, we don’t talk enough about power and authority in writing center studies. Power is particularly relevant in scholarly collaborations; as McNenny and Roen (1992) point out: “Whatever roles are adopted, the success of collaborative projects will always involve questions of ‘who wields the power, to what end the collective works, and how people are respected or abused in that pursuit’” (p. 306).

All interviewees who have worked collaboratively from a higher position of power, Sherry, Jessica, Michele, Ben, and Dana have all worked with undergraduate and graduate students, acknowledged the need to be aware and reflective about the power dynamics involved in such collaborations. Sherry noted that, when she and Dana collaborated with three undergraduate consultants (including Enrique) to produce “Negotiating the Scholarship Continuum” (2014), the group often fell into “unconscious patterns…as though Dana was still their teacher and I was still their boss.” As one of those undergraduate students, Enrique can attest to the rigidity of those patterns; it was incredibly hard to break out of those roles. To do so, Sherry and Dana had to make conscious moves that would invite the undergraduate students to assume more equal roles as collaborators. In his interview, Ben described similar moves. First, faculty or staff should be explicit about their desire to work as peers and true collaborators. From the outset, the relationship between the ‘boss’ and the student should be clear . Following this, they should also create many opportunities for graduate and undergraduate collaborators to offer written and verbal feedback. Most important, Ben noted, is to then use that feedback, that is, to demonstrate that you value their feedback by applying it to your project.

Faculty or administrators seeking to approach graduate or undergraduate students for collaboration should also recognize the influence and pressure that such a request might carry. Dana emphasized the student must feel comfortable and must know they can decline the invitation. Students must also be made aware of the demands and expectations that collaborative work entails. As she puts it:

I’ve always seen it like taking the student through a doorway, and saying, ‘Hey, there’s this world out there. If you’re interested in stepping through [the door], I’m happy to walk with you. But if you want to stay in this room, that’s fine too.’ And giving the student a sense, that if you’re interested in doing this collaboration…it’s going to go beyond the course, you’re going to get feedback you don’t like… Kind of setting them up what happens if they’re interested in taking that step and understanding that.

Ben too cautioned against strong and sudden requests for collaboration. He takes care to gauge the student’s potential interest in innocuous ways beforehand using “feelers,” as he put it. Both he and Dana advised that students should know what they are getting into, but also that faculty should be realistic about their expectations. Just as any other collaborator, student collaborators face other demands that also draw their attention and resources. More importantly, perhaps, Dana recognized that students might have different goals than faculty. For instance, a publication may not be worth much to a student depending on her career goals. She drives us to consider what graduate and undergraduate students who don’t intend to pursue academic careers are getting out of our collaborations. Sherry described it as a reciprocity that’s necessary between all collaborators. How does collaboration benefit the student as much as it would benefit you?

Taking the other perspective, younger scholars and students should be bold about seeking mentorship through collaborations. Ben believes that graduate students should take the initiative in approaching faculty or writing center directors and asking about collaborating. Younger scholars have much to offer, particularly those working in writing centers. Their current knowledge of the field and the latest research, as well as their daily application of that knowledge in writing center practice (Grobman and Kinkead, 2010; Fitzgerald, 2014) can complement the experience and long-term view of the field a senior scholar possesses. Michele noted that she learns much from her students, and she encourages them to teach her what they know. Dana provided an excellent example of learning from her student collaborator. While collaborating with Roger Powell for their article in this issue of The Peer Review , they had a conversation about transfer in which Roger shared some of his thoughts and helped Dana to rethink some of her ideas on the subject. Indeed, as Sherry had described, these collaborations are reciprocal and always offer much to both parties.

Like faculty and administrators, graduate and undergraduate students should be clear about what they are seeking from collaboration, if they are seeking collaborations at all! One of our interviewees related a story in which a professor invited himself into her collaboration with another graduate student and took control of the paper, even changing the essence of their argument. Other interviewees related similar stories of faculty members who took on collaboration because they were unaware that the student only wanted advice or mentorship. Sherry cautions, “It’s important for young scholars, which is hard because you don’t have the power, to make clear when you’re asking for a partner or for somebody to read something.” Despite this difficulty, students must, for the sake of their scholarly identity, assert their agency by being clear about their expectations for mentorship or collaboration.

How Can We Manage the Collaborative Process?

We all work through the writing process in different ways, but how can we work productively when bringing two or more unique styles and writing habits into one project? Each of our interviewees approached the writing process differently, and sometimes they approached the collaborative process differently with different collaborations. While there is not one best way to write collaboratively, three best practices emerged from our interviews:

Communicate clearly and often
Respect and adapt to your collaborator’s work practices
Define expectations explicitly

The importance of clear, open, and frequent communication manifests in different ways depending on the collaboration and collaborators. Dana’s Writing Transfer Project, a research team investigating transfer and writing, has begun having more frequent meetings to thoroughly develop their ideas and establish direction and values. Ben described his phone conversations with collaborators, adding that he would often make impromptu calls simply to talk to his collaborator, to share his progress, and hear from them. Several of our interviewees, including Dana, Michele, and Sherry, would record these sorts of conversations to refer back to them while drafting and revising. Indeed, Dana recognized that many of these discussions resemble drafting a document. Recording meetings allows everyone to access a detailed record of project decisions, which can then be accessed while negotiating disagreements or producing text.

Distance meetings alone, however, will not suffice, according to our interviews. Dana and Michele both spoke of the importance of arranging face-to-face, in-person work sessions, no matter the physical distance between collaborators. While writing The Everyday Writing Center , Michele and her collaborators carved out time around conferences to meet for work sessions. They even planned four-day weekend work sessions at one collaborator’s home. Dana and the Writing Transfer Project group arrange at least one meeting year—which Dana referred to lovingly as “transfer camp”— in a central location at one of the collaborator’s residences to meet, plan, write, and talk. Live, personal interactions help to sustain collaborative relationships and are an essential part of any project.

Moving from planning to writing will require flexibility as collaborators attempt to meld their composing practices. Sherry noted that collaborative writing is not a second-nature activity. Indeed, our scholarly training, built on seminar papers and dissertations written individually, emphasizes individual writing so much as to make collaborative writing awkward and unfamiliar. Accordingly, we must learn to adapt to and understand each other’s different approaches, responsibilities, and workflow strategies.

As we alluded to earlier, different roles, responsibilities, and lifestyles influence our approach to collaborative projects. As Michele warned, “Time is the enemy,” and each collaborator wars with time in their own way. Everyone designs their workdays, work weeks, and free time differently. Dana and Jessica, for example, guard their personal time, preferring to contain work within the Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 5:00 work-week. Sherry and Kelsey, on the other hand, are comfortable spreading work out into the evening and on weekends as necessary. Understanding the way collaborators allocate time will help to understand when work gets down, when it might be done, when others are available, and who might take on time-sensitive tasks.

At the same time, our preferred ways of working can shift over time due to demands or changes in employment, growing families, etc. In these cases, sometimes our projects must enter into a “holding pattern,” as Michele described it, until collaborators are settled into new environments or have addressed their local responsibilities and are ready to engage your project again. Sherry described how the demands of a writing center director—annual reports, budgeting issues, consultant training—often interrupted her collaborative work with Dana and overrode their personal deadlines. Carolyn is currently experiencing a holding pattern as she and her peers settle into their postgraduate lives, a shift which has turned their previously local collaboration into a long-distance partnership. Leaving in-person collaborations and integrating distance technology, such as real-time video conferencing software and collaborative composing programs, requires patience as Carolyn and her collaborators acclimate. Respecting and understanding the many roles that collaborators juggle is vital to building a supportive and trusting relationship.

It is equally important, however, to define expectations for collaborative projects explicitly. Who will write what? When should it be done? How will we revise? Being explicit about each collaborator’s responsibilities eliminates confusion and helps ensure that the work is divided in a way that everyone is comfortable with. Ben has certainly experienced the value that clearly and quickly defining expectations provides. His editorial work with many contributors on many projects has shown him the need to make his values and expectations for contributors clear. Doing so has allowed him to avoid potentially difficult or unproductive relationships. However, Kelsey would add, we must also be willing to adjust expectations as work progresses. Though Kelsey and Jessica divided the work of data collection, set deadlines, and worked diligently, they quickly realized that their original timeline was unrealistic. They tried different strategies including scheduling “working meetings” where they met virtually, using video conferencing, and working silently rather than conversing. They also began logging their progress to communicate progress to one another and have a form of accountability. Their strategies exemplify the benefits of being flexible in response to unforeseen problems.

While there are productive strategies for collaborating, we again emphasize that there is no right or ideal way to distribute the workload of collaborative writing. Some collaborators, such as Michele, prefer to “co-conceive,” composing together at every step and allowing all contributors to participate in the work of writing. She contrasts this with a “stitch-together” method wherein each collaborator is assigned a portion of draft to compose before bringing the work together again. For this article, the “stitch-together” method was particularly appropriate, as both Kelsey and Enrique were often traveling or otherwise unavailable at various times during this article’s composing. So, they divided the various parts between each other, drafted sections, and then came back together to combine their writing into a whole draft. While “stitching together,” Jessica emphasized that revising together is absolutely essential to composing a truly collaborative text. Working together, often at the same time through video conferencing and collaborative composing software, allows collaborators to present their project confidently through a unified vision, voice, and style throughout their writing. No matter how you divide the labor, ensure that each collaborator knows and understands their role, the expectations of that role, and how work will proceed throughout drafting and revision.

How Should We Negotiate Conflict?

Despite carefully planning and dividing labor, the greatest challenges that threaten collaborations are often interpersonal. As any writer knows, writing (especially published writing) can be quite personal, and collaborations can often bring about conflicts and disagreements. It is important for collaborators to be able to negotiate these differences and overcome them in order to sustain their research as well as their relationship.

Many of our interviewees acknowledged that much of this conflict could be avoided at the start of collaborations. Many said that whom you choose to collaborate with may well be the most important factor in avoiding serious conflict. When collaborating with friends, we also focus on maintaining the relationship, fostering generosity and trust between collaborators who understand criticism as constructive and disagreements as productive. Dana commented, “If you disagree with somebody and you like them, then it’s not really a big deal, because you have your friendship. If you don’t really know them and you disagree with them, that could really throw a wrench in things.” Accordingly, both Dana and Sherry recommended getting to know one another and building that relationship throughout your collaboration, thereby becoming more flexible and trusting in your work together. Having that trust allowed Dana and Sherry to respect disagreements as indicative of different perspectives or responsibilities and not as personal faults. As Carolyn described it concerning her own collaborations, “We’re friends, and we understand.”

At the same time, however, introducing collaborative projects into a well-established relationship brings a slightly different set of challenges. Relationship dynamics must shift while you become accustomed to your new roles and responsibilities to each other. Jessica and Kelsey discovered that embarking on a long-term collaborative research project requires a different kind of negotiation than mediating disagreements. Kelsey and Jessica found themselves too often relying upon the generosity and understanding that friendship provides. Their collaborative work was readily set aside as other responsibilities demanded attention and they knew their friend would understand. They had to learn how to be accountable to without policing each other. While open and honest communication helped them sort through these challenges relatively easily, such issues can become major if they are not addressed quickly.

To negotiate disagreements, Michele referred again to having the same values, or what McNenny and Roen (1992) called a shared “ethical framework” (p. 306). When asked about addressing conflict during collaboration, Michele replied decidedly, “Well, that doesn’t really happen if you have same values.” Ede and Lunsford (1990) have also reported on conflict that can arise when co-authors don’t share values for a project and each tries “to impose his vision on the entire work” (p. 70), bringing the project into disarray. Researchers should initiate collaboration with people who share their values and build relationships with collaborators that will enable mutual trust and understanding.

Understanding what each collaborator’s role or responsibilities will be also helps avoid potential conflicts. Though work style or collaborative methods may vary, each collaborator should know the part they will play. Ben warned that establishing responsibilities and tasks is particularly important when working on very meaningful projects, whether personally (as in, time invested) or professionally (as in, tenure). Conflict sometimes arises because a collaborator has fallen behind or hasn’t fulfilled their role. Though it is important to respect the other roles and responsibilities your collaborator has, it is also important to try to resolve the issue. Dana recommended simply talking with people to see how they are doing and what’s happening – “Reaching out rather than letting it fester.” She also suggested being proactive by sending kind reminder emails ahead of deadlines.

As you assign roles early in your collaboration, you must also consider the issue of authorship. Questions like “whose name will be first?” can quickly lead to disagreements. Negotiate who will be first author early in your collaboration and what responsibilities you expect the first author to carry. The role of lead author, Michele argued, should include more responsibility, as being lead author often comes with more recognition. By the same token, however, Michele suggested that first authorship should always go to the person who needs it most. Who still needs tenure? Who is going on the job market soon? Other collaborators might have alternative ways of choosing their authorship order. Lunsford and Ede (2012), for example, have sustained their collaboration to produce many publications, and they report that they simply take turns. No matter how you choose, be sure that all parties know what responsibilities their role entails.

Ultimately, however, if you cannot reconcile differences during your collaboration, Ben recognized that sometimes “enough is enough,” and it may be best to simply walk away from a project. He recalled a contributor to one of his edited collections who disagreed with the editor’s values, and they decided to walk away. Because of situations like this, Ben recommended developing a plan for what to do with any work you have done—converting chapters from a failed book venture into journal articles, for example. As Ben has found, salvaging what one can is more productive than dwelling on a project and attempting to force it through irreconcilable conflicts.

How Does Collaborative Scholarship Affect Tenure and Professional Advancement?

If your conflict concerning collaboration is not interpersonal, perhaps it is professional or political. Scholarly writing about collaboration invariably recognizes the risk collaborative authorship might present for an untenured scholar (see McNenny and Roen, 1992; Lunsford and Ede, 2012; Facione, 2006). The dominance of single-authored articles and books in earning tenure weighs heavily on many collaborators, and many of our interviewees have experienced resistance to their collaborative work. In graduate school, Michele and Kami Day planned for a collaborative dissertation, which their graduate school would not allow. Sherry recognized that her lack of collaborative work prior to her research with Dana resulted from the negative opinion of collaborative work common during her graduate training in the 90’s. The stigma against collaboration has not evaporated completely, either. During her time at Oakland University, a member of the tenure committee warned Dana not to collaborate. Although all interviewees recognized the professional resistance collaborators might encounter, they offered insights on how collaborations had positively impacted their professional advancement.

In particular, several scholars reported that collaboration allowed them to do work that would have otherwise been impossible. As we mentioned above, the division of labor and coordination of knowledge made possible by collaboration allows for more complex thought and deeper insight, as well as more data collection and analysis, than an individual author could accomplish (Reither and Vipond, 1989; Ronald and Roskelly, 2001). Concerning the works that have resulted from his collaborations, Ben describes the benefits this way:

Another [reason to collaborate] is seeing some reward for this, and I mean rewards in the professional sense, where you can see that – Oh, this is a book! A book is a big deal. We need books to get tenure and promotions and make our name in the field.

The scholars we interviewed described the positive impact that collaborative writing has had on their professional advancement and work better than we could hope to:

Dana: “[Collaboration] has made my career.”
Sherry: “I do not believe I would have entered this Ph.D. program, that I would have taken the next step and worked so hard on behalf of my individual writing had I not gotten involved with [collaboration].”
Jessica: “I almost never not collaborate, because I think I do better work when I’m with other people…and I know I can’t do it all.”
Carolyn: “You’re building reflective practice into your research process through collaboration because you so often have to talk about what you’re doing and what you’re thinking and be really mindful about the choices that you’ve made. I think that forces you to reflect on what you actually think, the way that you’re synthesizing knowledge and the way that you’re trying to present it to others. I think that influences the way that I write, think, and how I interact with graduate students.”

These scholars’ statements encourage us to view collaboration as enabling professional advancement, not hindering it. While the negative evaluation of collaboration in one’s career is well documented, we hope the experiences of these scholars provide a counterpoint that demonstrates the positive results collaborations can bring to one’s career.

Perhaps the best and most important argument for working together comes from Michele:

“The earth is in rough shape. We would benefit from collaborating to solve some real serious problems. I can hardly think of a time where having people work together will not come to a good conclusion.”

Michele points to the affordance collaboration offers for addressing important issues that no one could tackle alone and whose ramifications might extend beyond academia. We hope that these comments from our interviewees might cause writing center scholars to reflect critically on their work and how they might begin collaborating to solve some “real serious problems.”

Collaboration and The Peer Review

Our interviews offered us rich insights and led us to reflect on our own views of and experiences with collaboration, and we encourage others to do the same. As we close, we would like to share our reflections on what we’ve learned during this process. As graduate students and young scholars, the successes our interviewees have experienced as a result of collaboration encourage us to push through the stigma against collaborative works. Certainly, it hasn’t always been easy for them, but seeing how they have negotiated the social and political tensions that surround collaborative scholarship gives us hope that we too can be successful as we pursue collaborative projects. Accordingly, we are deeply grateful to Ben, Michele, Dana, Sherry, Carolyn, and Jessica for all they have shared. We hope that their stories and advice demonstrate not just how to collaborate successfully but also why we need to collaborate in the first place.

We also gained a deeper understanding of how to use collaboration to develop as scholars. Hearing our interviewees describe the benefits they reap when collaborating with graduate and undergraduate students encourages us to seek out established scholars, propose a collaborative project, and learn from them in the process. We join these scholars to emphasize the need to seek particular collaborators to learn certain things, like the publication process, methodological knowledges, or new writing practices and genres. As writing centers are cross-disciplinary spaces, we particularly hope to see writing center scholars engage in cross-disciplinary scholarship to expand the methodologies we employ in writing center work. We hope that future contributors to The Peer Review will apply the insights offered in this discussion to find ways to produce interesting scholarship while learning new skills.

As inaugural graduate student reviewers for TPR, we hope that this piece has demonstrated this journal’s commitment to supporting collaborative scholarship, as laid out in the TPR mission statement. The Peer Review aims “to challenge the primacy of the single author” as well as “to facilitate collaboration between emergent and established scholars.” Put simply, the entire editorial team intends for this journal to sponsor and support collaborative work. In particular, we encourage future contributors to consider collaborating with new scholars in order to introduce these emerging voices to our field and mentor them while producing new knowledge. We also hope that through these collaborations, future submissions might showcase exciting research agendas in the thorough and complex ways that collaboration enables. Ultimately, we aim to position The Peer Review as a venue that values collaborative scholarship and might represent and argue for that value to our field, to tenure committees, and to academic institutions, both now and in the future. We welcome future contributors to join us in that vision.

Acknowledgements

In her interview, Michele Eodice passed along one of her professors’ advice to always acknowledge all those who contributed to your work. We’d like to thank her and our other interviewees for their generosity and insight. We also thank The Peer Review ’s editors and reviewers for their feedback and encouragement. Finally, we would like to acknowledge our mentors, past and present, for modeling successful collaborations. We thank you for your patience, guidance, and kindness.

Babcock, R. D. & Thonus, T. (2012). Researching the writing center: Towards an evidence-based practice . New York: Peter Lang.

Berlin, J. (2009). Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class. In S. Miller (Ed.), The Norton book of composition studies (667-684). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Bizzell, P. (2009). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to know about writing. In S. Miller (Ed.), The Norton book of composition studies (479-499). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Bizzell, P. & Rubin, D. L. (1988). The social construction of written communication in College Composition and Communication, 40 (4), 483-486.

Bromley, P., Northway, K., & Schonberg, E. (2013). How important is the local, really? A cross-institutional quantitative assessment of frequently asked questions in writing center exit surveys. Writing Center Journal 33 (1), 13-37.

Bruce, S., & Rafoth, B. (2009). ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors , Portsmouth, NH: Boynton.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind” in College English, 46 (7), 635-52.

Day, K., & Eodice, M. (2001). (First person) 2: A study of co-authoring in the academy . Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Driscoll, D., & Wynn Perdue, S. (2012). Theory, lore, and more: An analysis of RAD research in The Writing Center Journal , 1980-2009. The Writing Center Journal, 32 (1), 11-39.

Driscoll, D., & Wynn Perdue, S. (2014). RAD research as a framework for writing center inquiry: Survey and interview data on writing center administrators’ beliefs about research and research practices. The Writing Center Journal, 34 (1), 105-133;

Driscoll, D. L., & Wells, J. (2012). Beyond knowledge and skills: Writing transfer and the role of student dispositions. Composition Forum 26 . Retrieved from http://compositionforum.com/issue/26/beyond-knowledge-skills.php

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Ede. L. & Lunsford, A. (1998). “Writing back.”In S. Jarratt and L. Worsham, eds. Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words (313-20) . New York, NY: MLA.

Eodice, M. (2003). Breathing lessons or collaboration is… In M. A. Pemberton and J. Kinkead (Eds.), The Center Will Hold (114-129). Logan, UT: Utah State University.

Facione, P.A. (2006). Significant contributions to collaborative scholarship and tenure. Liberal Education, 92 (3), 38-45.

Fitzgerald, L. (2014). Undergraduate writing tutors as researchers: Redrawing boundaries. Writing Center Journal, 33 (2), 17-35.

Geller, A. E. & Denny, H. (2013). Of ladybugs, low status, and loving the job: Writing center professionals navigating their careers. Writing Center Journal, 33 (1), 96-129.

Geller, A. E., Eodice, M., Condon, F., Carroll, M., & Boquet, E.H. (2007). The everyday writing center: A community of practice. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Grobman, L., & Kinkead, J. A. (2010). Undergraduate Research in English Studies (pp. 1-273). National Council of Teachers of English.

Haviland, C. P., & Mullin, J. A. (2009). W ho owns this text?: plagiarism, authorship, and disciplinary cultures. Logan, UT: Utah State University.

Lauer, J. M. & Asher, J. W. (1988). Composition research: Empirical designs . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lerner, N. (2014). The unpromising present of writing centers studies: Author and citation patterns in The Writing Center Journal , 1980 to 2009. Writing Center Journal 34 (1), 67-102.

Lunsford, A., & Ede, L. (1986). Why write… together: A research update.* Rhetoric Review , 5 (1), 71-81.

Lunsford, A., & Ede, L. (1992). Collaborative authorship and the teaching of writing. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, 10 (2), 681-702.

Lunsford, A., & Ede, L. (2012). Writing together: Collaboration in theory and practice . Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin’s.

McNenny, G., & Roen, D. H. (1992). The case for collaborative scholarship in rhetoric and composition. Rhetoric Review , 10 (2), 291-310.

Reither, J. A., & Vipond, D. (1989). Writing as collaboration. College English 51 (8), 855-867.

Ronald, K., & Roskelly, H. (2001). Learning to take it personally. In D. Holdstein and D. Bleich (Eds.), Personal effects: The social character of scholarly writing (253-266). Logan, UT: Utah State University.

Wynn Perdue, S., Driscoll, D. L., Matthews, J., Paz, E., & Tess, J. (2014). Negotiating the sponsorship continuum: Preparing humanities undergraduates to conduct RAD research. Perspectives on Undergraduate Research and Mentoring, 3 (2). Retrieved from http://blogs.elon.edu/purm/negotiating-the-sponsorship-continuum-preparing-humanities-undergraduates-to-conduct-rad-research-purm-3-2/

UC Irvine Electronic Theses and Dissertations banner

Exploring and Supporting Today's Collaborative Writing

Wang, Dakuo
Advisor(s): Olson, Judith S.

Collaborative writing has become increasingly common and complex. Many researchers in Human Computer Interaction (HCI) have conducted extensive research on this topic for the last 25 years. Technologies were built and tested in the laboratory. I continue this stream of work by revisiting computer-supported collaborative writing within today’s context. Today, many commercially available word processors have built-in features to support collaboration, such as supporting synchronous editing and archiving editing history. Now that these features are available outside laboratories, how are people actually using these new capabilities in the wild? In my dissertation project, I aim to explore this question using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. In addition, to analyze the collaborative writing practices utilizing the detailed behavioral data traces, I have built an information visualization system, DocuViz, that complements existing research methods. This dissertation work contributes both a visualization system and the novel research approach of using these visualizations to study collaborative writing. This work also reveals various features and practices that people use to write collaboratively. By quantifying collaboration markers, such as styles of work or participation equity, the statistical analyses reveal the relationships between the practices that people use and the quality of the documents that they produce. Our results suggest that people write collaboratively more often than they used to, and they use various styles of working (e.g., outline then divide and conquer or template) to coordinate their collaborations. A few factors (e.g., power dynamics, privacy, and community’s norms) influence the practices that people choose. Some group behaviors (e.g., having a leader or equal participation) are associated with higher quality outcomes. In summary, I construct a holistic understanding of the users’ perceptions and practices that they developed in adapting to today’s collaborative writing technology. By synthesizing both the findings from my research and previous literature, I extend the existing research framework of collaborative writing, propose behavioral guidelines for users who want to write together better, and generate design implications for system designers. In addition, I offer two visualization tools used in this research that might be useful to authors themselves as well as to future research.

Enter the password to open this PDF file:

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How can I state my collaborations in my thesis?

During my PhD I had the opportunity to collaborate with people with many different affiliations.

Now that I am ending my Thesis I would like to read sum hint on how to compactly mention them, their affiliations, and possibly the logos of their affiliations.

I say possibly because I don't know whether I can do that legally speaking.

collaboration
affiliation

At almost any university, your thesis will include an "author declaration" stating that the thesis is your original work , and that you have clearly stated the contribution of others to your thesis . (I have included the relevant parts of that declaration from my university below this answer.)

Subject to those conditions, in theory , you can state how others helped you in any way you like! In practice, your thesis examiners will expect your thesis to follow the usual pattern of theses they have examined before. If you read previous theses from your university, you will probably find that:

Collaborators who have worked on material throughout the whole thesis are thanked in an initial Acknowledgements chapter;
Collaborators who have worked on material for one specific chapter are thanked in an Acknowledgements section at the end of that particular chapter.

The thanks can include affiliations (for example, "I am deeply grateful to Professor Frodo Baggins of Shire University for his experimental assistance in observing the melting conditions of cursed golden tori"). That will usually be enough. Logos often will not be included in the thesis . (Having said that, collaborator logos are often included in the slides for oral presentations).

Remember, the thesis is your work , as your declaration of originality will state. You should be proud of it as your work, and your collaborators would not want to overshadow that achievement.

At my university, any thesis will reproduce the "declaration by author" which includes these statements:

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole ... The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my higher degree by research candidature ...

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged thesis collaboration formatting affiliation ..

Featured on Meta
Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

SF novel where the story, or part of it, is narrated by two linked brains taking turns
GPLv3 obligations
What might cause these striations in this solder joint?
What is the lesson of the Book of Iyov for the "average" person
C - mini string lib
Home water pressure higher than city water pressure?
Rate of change of surface area is acting weird
Four out puzzle: Get rid of a six digit number in 4 moves
Passive Construction - Standard Form vs. Non-Standard Form
Should I Inform My PhD Program About Not Completing My Master's Degree Due to Personal Challenges?
How should I respond to a former student from my old institution asking for a reference?
80 or 90ies Anime, something about a submarine and apocalypse?
bash script quoting frustration
What Christian ideas are found in the New Testament that are not found in the Old Testament?
python stats.spearmanr and R cor.test(method='spearman') don't return the same p-value?
Who said "If you don't do politics, politics will do you"?
Fitting 10 pieces of pizza in a box
How to raise a vector to powers contained in a vector, change the list into a product, and do this for all the lines of a matrix, efficiently?
Postdoc supervisor has stopped helping
Sun rise on Venus from East or West (North as North Eclliptic Pole)
In the US, can I buy iPhone and Android phones and claim them as expense?
Unperturbed Green's Function for an electron in an empty band
Is there anything that stops the majority shareholder(s) from destroying company value?
How can I address my colleague communicating with us via chatGPT?

Writing Together: Collaborative Work

First Online: 21 November 2023

Cite this chapter

Mary Renck Jalongo 3

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Education ((SPTE))

405 Accesses

Finding a suitable writing partner and working with a successful writing team can be one of the most satisfying ways of generating a publishable manuscript. Conversely, when collaborative writing arrangements and agreements falter or fail, they can be exceptionally troublesome. This chapter is designed to help authors maximize the benefits of collaborative writing and minimize the mistakes. Writing relationships built by academic co-authors are complex and should not be entered into lightly. Rather, each project undertaken requires thoughtful consideration of the unique contribution that every contributor will make. A common mistake of beginners is to invite someone affable, equally inexperienced, and like-minded to be a co-author in hopes that it will expedite matters, make writing more pleasurable, and offer uncritical acceptance. This approach runs contrary to research and practice on collaborative writing. Evidently, collaboration is more often successful when inexperienced writers partner with more experienced authors, co-contributors have unique perspectives/complementary strengths, and team members critically evaluate one another’s work. Furthermore, while a “divide and conquer” strategy with writing has intuitive appeal, assembling various pieces is insufficient. The finished product still needs to have a consistent tone and voice, and this can require an additional investment of time during editing. Even more difficult are situations when co-authors fail to meet deadlines, produce something unusable, or expect more credit than deserved. Throughout this chapter, we argue that collaborative writing is both an interprofessional and an interpersonal relationship. As such, it merits careful selection of co-authors, thoughtful planning, ongoing communication, and skillful editing of the final, published version of a manuscript.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Collaborating in Writing: Crossing the Threshold

Academic Growth Through Collaborative Writing

Writing Collaboratively in Medical Education

Abrams, Z. (2022, October 12). Student mental health is in crisis. Campuses are rethinking their approach. Monitor , 53 (7) (apa.org).

Google Scholar

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2023). Background facts on contingent faculty positions.

American Council on Education. (2023). American college presidents study. American College President Study (acenet.edu).

American Psychological Association (APA). (2022, May). Publication practices and responsible authorship (apa.org).

Applebee, D. C. (2017, September). The soft skills college students need to succeed now and in the future. Psychology Student Network , (apa.org).

Axelrod, R. B., Cooper, C. R., Carillo, E. C., & Cleaves, W. T. (2021). The St. Martin’s guide to writing (13th ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Badenhorst, C., Mcleod, H., Vaandering, D., Li, X., Joy, R., Penney, S. C., Pickett, S., & Hesson, J. (2016). The journey between there and here: Stories of a faculty writing group. Canadian Journal of Education, 39 , 1–26.

Baggs, J. G. (2008). Editorial: Issues and rules for authors concerning authorship versus acknowledgements, dual publication, self-plagiarism, and salami publishing. Research in Nursing and Health, 31 (4), 295–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20280

Article Google Scholar

Barbosa, M. W., & Ferreira-Lopes, L. (2021). Emerging trends in telecollaboration and virtual exchange: A bibliometric study. Educational Review . https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1907314

Bingham-Risher, R., & Armstrong, J. (2019). Faculty writing studio: A place to write. In N. Simons & A. Singh (Eds.), Critical collaborative communities: Academic writing partnerships, groups, and retreats (pp. 66–77). Brill.

Chapter Google Scholar

Centers for Disease Control. (2005). Authorship policy (cdc.gov).

Chisholm, R. M. (1990). Coping with the problems of collaborative writing. Writing Across the Curriculum , 11 , 90–108. chisholm.pdf (colostate.edu).

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE flowcharts and infographics—Ghost, guest, or gift authorship in a submitted manuscript—English. Ghost, guest or gift authorship suspected in paper (publicationethics.org).

Compose.ly (2020, March 30). The top 7 online collaborative writing tools. The Top 7 Online Collaborative Writing Tools|Compose.ly.

Da Silva, J. A. T., & Dobranszki, J. (2016). Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: Ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 , 1457–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3

de Caux, B. C., Pretorius, L., & Macaulay, L. (Eds.). (2022). Research and teaching in a pandemic world: The challenges of establishing academic identities during times of crisis. Springer.

Diversi, M., Gale, K., Moreira, C., & Wyatt, J. (2020). Writing with : Collaborative writing as hope and resistance. International Review of Qualitative Research, 14 (2), 302–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940844720978761

Editors of Nature. (2015). Why interdisciplinary research matters. Nature , 525 , 305. https://doi.org/10.1038/525305a

Eise, J. (2019, January 28). Herding experts and polishing text. Nature Careers. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07814-y

Encyclopedia.com. (2018, May 9). Folkore and mythology. Damocles, sword of. Sword Of Damocles|Encyclopedia.com.

Errecaborde, K. M., Macy, K. W., Pekol, A., Perez, S., O’Brien, M. K., Allen, I., Contadini, F., Lee, J. Y., Mumford, E., Bender, J. B., & Pelican, K. (2019). Factors that enable effective one health collaborations: A scoping review of the literature. PLoS ONE, 14 (12), e0224660. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224660

Fidelity Investments and The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2021, February 25). Fidelity investments and the chronicle of higher education study: More than half of college and university faculty consider leaving teaching, citing burnout caused by pandemic.

Gadlin, H., & Jessar, K. (2001). Preempting discord: Prenuptial agreements for scientists. ORI: The Office of Research Integrity . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Preempting Discord: Prenuptial Agreements for Scientists.

Gale, K., Speedy, J., & Wyatt, J. (2014). Collaborative writing as inquiry . Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Germano, W. (2021). On revision: The only writing that counts . University of Chicago Press.

Book Google Scholar

Gomez-Ferri, J., Gonzalez-Alcaide, G., & Lopis-Goig, R. (2019). Measuring dissatisfaction with co-authorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception. Journal of Informetrics , 13 (4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100980

Greenbaum, A. (2002). Emancipatory movements in composition: The rhetoric of possibility . SUNY Press.

Haghani, M., Abbasi, A., Zwack, C. C., Shahhoseini, Z., & Haslam, N. (2022). Trends of research productivity across author gender and research fields: A multidisciplinary and multi-country observational study. PLoS ONE . https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271998

Healey, M., & Matthews, K. E. (2017). Learning together through international collaborative writing groups. Teaching and Learning Inquiry , 5 (1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.5.1.2

Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107 , 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x

Holgate, S. A. (2012, July 20). How to collaborate. Science Careers . AAAS.

Hyer, M. C., Landau, J. L., & Workman, J. L. (2021). Recovering from burnout and budget cuts by cultivating writing communities. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning , 12 , 149–168. openjournal.lib.miamioh.edu/index.php/jctl/article/download/213/115/ (Valdosta State)

Jalongo, M. R. (2002). Writing for publication: A practical guide for educators. Christopher-Gordon.

Jensen, J. (2017). Write no matter what: Advice for academics . University of Chicago Press.

Kerr, C. (2011, September). Quoted in D. W. Burr. Is university parking a common grievance? Parking Today | Articles—Is University Parking a Common Grievance? (parkingtodaymedia.com).

Kohrt, B. A., Upadhaya, N., Luitel, N. P., Maharjan, S. M., Kaiser, B. N., MacFarlane, E. K., & Khan, N. (2014). Authorship in global mental health research: Recommendations for collaborative approaches to writing and publishing . Levy Library Press.

Kramer, L. (2023, February 15). How to write collaboratively. Write well with others: A guide to collaborative writing | Grammarly.

Lam, C. K. C., Hoang, C. H., Lau, R. W. K., de Caux, B. C., Chen, Y., Tan, O. O., et al. (2017). Experiential learning in doctoral training programmes: Fostering personal epistemology through collaboration. Studies in Continuing Education, 41 (1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1482863

Lingard, L. (2021). Collaborative writing: Strategies and activities for writing productively together. Perspectives on Medical Education, 10 , 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00668-7

Lowry, P. B., Curtis, A., & Lowry, M. R. (2004). Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice. International Journal of Business Communication, 41 (1), 66–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943603259363

Mallapaty, S. (2018, January 30). Paper authorship goes hyper. Nature Porfolio . Paper authorship goes hyper | News | Nature Index

Manny, K., & Levitas, J. (2023). Academic integrity policies. Academic Integrity | Policy & Examples | Study.com.

Marr, B. (2022, September 12). Top 16 essential soft skills for the future of work. Top 16 essential soft skills for the future of work (forbes.com).

Matthews, K. E., Marquis, B., & Healey, M. (2016). International collaborative writing groups as communities of practice. In J. McDonald, & A. Cater-Steel (Eds.), Implementing communities of practice in higher education (pp. 597–617). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2866-3_26

McMurtrie, B. (2020, November 5). The pandemic is dragging on. professors are burning out. Overwhelmed and undersupported, instructors see no end in sight. The Chronicle of Higher Education. mi-ace_mentoring_mondays_12.14.20.pdf (gvsu.edu).

McNutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., & Verma, I. M. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publications. PNAS Newsletter, 115 (11), 2558–2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115

Nairn, K., Cameron, J., Anakin, M., Juntrasook, A., Wass, R., Sligo, J. et al. (2014). Negotiating the challenge of collaborative writing: Learning from one writing group’s mutiny 596–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.973383

Nancarrow, S. A., Booth, A., Ariss, S., Smith, T., Enderby, P., & Roots, A. (2013). Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work. Human Resources for Health, 11 (1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-11-19

National Science Foundation. (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018 . S&E Indicators 2018 | NSF—National Science Foundation.

Nature Portfolio. (2023). Authorship. Nature Porfolio .

Ness, V., Duffy, K., McCallum, J., & Price, L. (2014). Getting published: Reflections of a collaborative writing group. Nurse Education Today , 34 (1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2013.03.019

Nevin, A. I., Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. (2011). Working with co-authors. In T. Rocco & T. Hatcher (Eds.), Teaching and writing for scholarly publication: A guide for faculty & graduate students (pp. 272–329). Jossey-Bass.

Pahl, K., Steadman-Jones, R., & Vasudevan, L. (2023). Collaborative research in theory and practice: The poetics of letting go . Bristol University Press.

Parish, A. J., Boyack, K. W. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Dynamics of co-authorship and productivity across different fields of scientific research. PLoS One , e0189742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189742

Perkel, J. M. (2020). Synchronized editing: The future of collaborative writing. Nature, 580 , 154–155. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00916-6

Pololi, L., & Knight, S. (2005). Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: A new paradigm? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20 (9), 866–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.05007.x

Rasmussen, L., Williams, C. E., Hausfeld, M. M., Banks, G., & Davis, B. C. (2020). Authorship policies at US doctoral universities: A review and recommendations for future policies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26 (6), 3393–3413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00273-7

Reardon, D. (2019). Conclusion: Protecting and promoting higher education’s greatest resource. In A. G. Welch, J. H. Bolin & D. Reardon (Eds.). Mid-career faculty: Trends, barriers, and possibilities (pp. 217–221). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004408180_012

Remein, C. D., Childs, E., Beard, J., Demers, L. B., Benjamin, E. J., & Wingerter, S. L. (2022). Getting started: A pilot introductory narrative writing session for interprofessional faculty in academic health sciences. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 13 , 265–274. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S350246

Ribeiro, L. C., Rapini, M. S., Silva, L. A., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2018). Growth patterns of the network of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 114 , 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2573-x

Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quarterly, 75 (4), 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569912460400

Rodas, E. L., Columbo, L., Calle, M. D., & Cordero, G. (2021). Looking at faculty writing groups from within: Some insights for their sustainability and future implementations. International Journal for Academic Development . https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2021.1976189

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36 (5), 555–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134

Schwartz, J. P. (2011). Silence is not golden: Making collaborations work. The Office of Research Integrity . Silence is not Golden: Making Collaborations Work | ORI—The Office of Research Integrity (hhs.gov).

Scott III, R. H. (2022, November 16). Ensuring ethics and integrity in co-authorship. Ensuring Ethics and Integrity in Co-Authorship | AACSB.

Smith, L., Hande, K., & Kennedy, B. B. (2020). Mentoring nursing faculty: An inclusive scholarship support group. Nurse Educator, 45 (4), 185–186. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000000736

Springer Nature. (2019). https://files.springernature.com/getResource/Collaboration%20in%20Research%20report.pdf

Strawser, M. G. (2019). Maintaining an active scholarly agenda and creating a culture of teaching and learning scholarship. Journal of Faculty Development, 33 (3), 117–120.

Tusting, K., McCulloch, S., Bhatt, I., Hamilton, M., & Barton, D. (2019). Academics writing: The dynamics of knowledge creation. Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429197994

University of Nebraska, Office of Graduate Studies. (2023). Best practices for collaborating on research. Graduate Connections. Best Practices for Collaborating on Research | Graduate Connections | Nebraska (unl.edu).

University of Virginia (2023). Online ethics center for engineering and science. Topics: Authorship | Online Ethics.

Vanderbilt Center for Teaching (2023). Collaborative writing. Collaborative Writing | Center for Teaching | Vanderbilt University.

Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110 , 1633–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2230-9

Woolston, C. (2002, April 1). When a mentor becomes a thief. Chronicle of Higher Education, When a Mentor Becomes a Thief (chronicle.com).

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316 (5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Xia, P., Yangwei, X., Zequan, X., & Li, Y. (2022, in press). Exploring librarians' intentions to collaborate in research: A model integrating the theory of planned behavior and social exchange theory. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science , https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221104259

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Emerita, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, USA

Mary Renck Jalongo

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Renck Jalongo .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Emerita, Indiana, PA, USA

Teaching & Learning, Policy & Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD, USA

Olivia N. Saracho

Applications of Technology

Tech Tool: Using Googledocs to Collaborate How To Collaborate in Google Docs (zapier.com).

Springer Nature Resource: Check out medical researcher Lingard’s (2021). Practical advice on collaborative writing teams Collaborative writing: Strategies and activities for writing productively together | SpringerLink.

Online Video: Using technology for collaboration in writing provides a quick overview of not only how to use email for collaborative communications but also how to navigate document tracking systems (such as Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature or Adobe Acrobat) as well as web-based collaboration systems (wikis, Google Docs). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJlJCwmnV8M .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Jalongo, M.R. (2023). Writing Together: Collaborative Work. In: Renck Jalongo, M., Saracho, O.N. (eds) Scholarly Writing. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39516-1_14

Published : 21 November 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-39515-4

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-39516-1

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Harvard University Graduate School of Design

Harvard Library
Research Guides
Harvard Graduate School of Design - Frances Loeb Library

Write and Cite

Theses and Dissertations
Academic Integrity
Using Sources and AI
Academic Writing
From Research to Writing
GSD Writing Services
Grants and Fellowships
Reading, Notetaking, and Time Management

What is a thesis?

What is a dissertation, getting started, staying on track.

A thesis is a long-term project that you work on over the course of a semester or a year. Theses have a very wide variety of styles and content, so we encourage you to look at prior examples and work closely with faculty to develop yours.

Before you begin, make sure that you are familiar with the dissertation genre—what it is for and what it looks like.

Generally speaking, a dissertation’s purpose is to prove that you have the expertise necessary to fulfill your doctoral-degree requirements by showing depth of knowledge and independent thinking.

The form of a dissertation may vary by discipline. Be sure to follow the specific guidelines of your department.

PhD This site directs candidates to the GSAS website about dissertations , with links to checklists, planning, formatting, acknowledgments, submission, and publishing options. There is also a link to guidelines for the prospectus . Consult with your committee chair about specific requirements and standards for your dissertation.
DDES This document covers planning, patent filing, submission guidelines, publishing options, formatting guidelines, sample pages, citation guidelines, and a list of common errors to avoid. There is also a link to guidelines for the prospectus .
Scholarly Pursuits (GSAS) This searchable booklet from Harvard GSAS is a comprehensive guide to writing dissertations, dissertation-fellowship applications, academic journal articles, and academic job documents.

Finding an original topic can be a daunting and overwhelming task. These key concepts can help you focus and save time.

Finding a topic for your thesis or dissertation should start with a research question that excites or at least interests you. A rigorous, engaging, and original project will require continuous curiosity about your topic, about your own thoughts on the topic, and about what other scholars have said on your topic. Avoid getting boxed in by thinking you know what you want to say from the beginning; let your research and your writing evolve as you explore and fine-tune your focus through constant questioning and exploration.

Get a sense of the broader picture before you narrow your focus and attempt to frame an argument. Read, skim, and otherwise familiarize yourself with what other scholars have done in areas related to your proposed topic. Briefly explore topics tangentially related to yours to broaden your perspective and increase your chance of finding a unique angle to pursue.

Critical Reading

Critical reading is the opposite of passive reading. Instead of merely reading for information to absorb, critical reading also involves careful, sustained thinking about what you are reading. This process may include analyzing the author’s motives and assumptions, asking what might be left out of the discussion, considering what you agree with or disagree with in the author’s statements and why you agree or disagree, and exploring connections or contradictions between scholarly arguments. Here is a resource to help hone your critical-reading skills:

http://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/criticalread.pdf

Conversation

Your thesis or dissertation will incorporate some ideas from other scholars whose work you researched. By reading critically and following your curiosity, you will develop your own ideas and claims, and these contributions are the core of your project. You will also acknowledge the work of scholars who came before you, and you must accurately and fairly attribute this work and define your place within the larger discussion. Make sure that you know how to quote, summarize, paraphrase , integrate , and cite secondary sources to avoid plagiarism and to show the depth and breadth of your knowledge.

A thesis is a long-term, large project that involves both research and writing; it is easy to lose focus, motivation, and momentum. Here are suggestions for achieving the result you want in the time you have.

The dissertation is probably the largest project you have undertaken, and a lot of the work is self-directed. The project can feel daunting or even overwhelming unless you break it down into manageable pieces and create a timeline for completing each smaller task. Be realistic but also challenge yourself, and be forgiving of yourself if you miss a self-imposed deadline here and there.

Your program will also have specific deadlines for different requirements, including establishing a committee, submitting a prospectus, completing the dissertation, defending the dissertation, and submitting your work. Consult your department’s website for these dates and incorporate them into the timeline for your work.

Accountability

Sometimes self-imposed deadlines do not feel urgent unless there is accountability to someone beyond yourself. To increase your motivation to complete tasks on schedule, set dates with your committee chair to submit pre-determined pieces of a chapter. You can also arrange with a fellow doctoral student to check on each other’s progress. Research and writing can be lonely, so it is also nice to share that journey with someone and support each other through the process.

Common Pitfalls

The most common challenges for students writing a dissertation are writer’s block, information-overload, and the compulsion to keep researching forever.

There are many strategies for avoiding writer’s block, such as freewriting, outlining, taking a walk, starting in the middle, and creating an ideal work environment for your particular learning style. Pay attention to what helps you and try different things until you find what works.

Efficient researching techniques are essential to avoiding information-overload. Here are a couple of resources about strategies for finding sources and quickly obtaining essential information from them.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/writing_in_literature_detailed_discussion/reading_criticism.html

https://students.dartmouth.edu/academic-skills/learning-resources/learning-strategies/reading-techniques

Finally, remember that there is always more to learn and your dissertation cannot incorporate everything. Follow your curiosity but also set limits on the scope of your work. It helps to create a folder entitled “future projects” for topics and sources that interest you but that do not fit neatly into the dissertation. Also remember that future scholars will build off of your work, so leave something for them to do.

Browsing through theses and dissertations of the past can help to get a sense of your options and gain inspiration but be careful to use current guidelines and refer to your committee instead of relying on these examples for form or formatting.

DASH Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard.

HOLLIS Harvard Library’s catalog provides access to ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global .

MIT Architecture has a list of their graduates’ dissertations and theses.

Rhode Island School of Design has a list of their graduates’ dissertations and theses.

University of South Florida has a list of their graduates’ dissertations and theses.

Harvard GSD has a list of projects, including theses and professors’ research.

<< Previous: Reading, Notetaking, and Time Management
Next: Publishing >>
Last Updated: Aug 20, 2024 4:05 PM
URL: https://guides.library.harvard.edu/gsd/write

Harvard University Digital Accessibility Policy

Crash of an Ilyushin II-18V in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk

Russia Travel Blog | All about Russia in English

About our blog
RussiaTrek.org

Sidebar →

Architecture
Entertainment
RussiaTrek.org News

Leave a tip to support us
Support RussiaTrek.org via Boosty
Support RussiaTrek.org via Hipolink
Travel Guide to Ukraine
Comments RSS

← Sidebar

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk – the view from above

No comments · Posted by Sergei Rzhevsky in Cities , Travel

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk is a city with a population of about 200 thousand people located in the southeastern part of Sakhalin Island in the Far East of Russia , the capital of Sakhalin Oblast .

It is the sixth largest city in the Russian Far East, in which Russian and Japanese cultures are closely intertwined. Here you can often see old Japanese buildings and monuments. The distance from Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk to Moscow , if flying by plane, is 6,640 km and 9,280 km (by car). Photos by: Slava Stepanov .

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 1

Victory Square – one of the main squares of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 2

Cathedral of the Nativity.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 4

About one third of the total population of Sakhalin Island lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 5

Lenin Square.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 6

Sakhalin Regional Museum of Local Lore housed in a Japanese building constructed in the Imperial Crown Style in 1937. This is the only such building on Sakhalin and throughout Russia.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 8

The climate in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk is quite mild, there are no severe frosts in winter, and heat in summer. The coldest month is January with an average temperature of about minus 12 degrees Celsius. The warmest month is August (plus 17 degrees Celsius). Clear and dry weather sets in early September – the best time to visit Sakhalin.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 10

House of Government of Sakhalin Oblast.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 11

“Chekhov Center” – the only drama theater in Sakhalin Oblast.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 12

Sakhalin residents often call the rest of Russia “the mainland.” You can get out of the island by plane, ferry, or other water transport.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 14

Park named after Yuri Gagarin.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 15

Roman Catholic Church “Parish of St. James”. In addition to divine services, organ and violin concerts are held here.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 16

Museum of Railway Technology.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 17

Church of the Resurrection.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 18

Stadium “Cosmos” in Gagarin Park.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 19

Stele “Cities of the Sakhalin Region”.

Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, Sakhalin Oblast, Russia, photo 21

Tags: Sakhalin oblast · Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk city

You might also like:

Columnar Landscape of Cape Stolbchaty on Kunashir Island

Tomsk – the view from above

Russia and Alaska Among the Best Winter Cruises and Destinations >>

No comments yet.

COMMENTS

PDF The Future of Collaborative Dissertation Writing in The Academy
P: 970-491-0922 E: [email protected] THE FUTURE OF COLLABORATIVE DISSERTATION WRITING IN THE ACADEMY ABSTRACT Academic research and writing is complex work requiring hands-on experience and step-by-step from experts in the fiel
May I include results from a collaboration in my PhD thesis?
12 It is completely normal to include in your thesis work that was done in collaboration. Almost every PhD thesis in STEM subjects includes at least some collaborative work, simply because your PhD itself is a collaboration between you and your advisor.
Including Published, Co-authored, or Collaborative Material in a Thesis
Workday Student Support Graduate students can find "how to" guides and support information on our Workday support page. Note: The information below applies to any co-authored or collaborative work, whether published or not.
Constructing 'Doable' Dissertations in Collaborative Research
Individualisation is achieved by temporally, qualitatively and formally distinguishing dissertations from work on collective publications. I discuss how these processes shape the roles of students and advisors, and the content and value of dissertations in collaborative research.
Exploring and Supporting Today's Collaborative Writing
In my dissertation work, I have conducted an in-depth interview study of collaborative writing practices of a broad user population (30 participants), including college students, faculty, industrial engineers and researchers, managers, consultants, accountants, and lawyers.
Students co-creating dissertations with community organisations
At the Community Research Initiative, we support you to consider doing your dissertation in collaboration with a small-to-medium sized non-profit organisation. We think your dissertation can go further than just you and your grade at the end of the year. By collaborating, you are making knowledge more democratic by including the views and ...
Writing Together: Collaborative Work
Her dissertation adviser later published an article on that study with the former student's work credited not as a co-author, but in the acknowledge-ments section.
Yours, Mine, Ours: Some Best Practices for Authors Writing
Introduction The authors of this article focus on the best practices we learned through our experiences in scholarly writing, with a specific focus on the collaborative writing process. For the sake of this paper, we define collaborative writing as a collective process of creating a scholarly work for distribution, either through formal (e.g., peer-review) or informal (e.g., white paper ...
Preparing Ed.D. Students to Conduct Group Dissertations
The closed cohort model and the sustained structure of collaborative work through dissertation completion appear to address both efficient progress toward degree completion and the realities of collaborative professional practice.
Writing collaborative publications during your PhD
Writing collaborative publications during your PhD This guest post is by Kylie Budge, a PhD student in art/design education at the University of Melbourne in Australia. She is on the editorial team of the theteachingtomtom, in her role at RMIT University as a Learning and Teaching Advisor
Perspectives on Collaborative Scholarship
Her latest collaborative project, the Meaningful Writing Project with Anne Geller and Neal Lerner, continues her career-long commitment to collaboration, which began in her dissertation, and First Person2 (2001) with Kami Day.
Exploring and Supporting Today's Collaborative Writing
This dissertation work contributes both a visualization system and the novel research approach of using these visualizations to study collaborative writing. This work also reveals various features and practices that people use to write collaboratively.
How can I state my collaborations in my thesis?
1. At almost any university, your thesis will include an "author declaration" stating that the thesis is your original work, and that you have clearly stated the contribution of others to your thesis. (I have included the relevant parts of that declaration from my university below this answer.) Subject to those conditions, in theory, you can ...
Impacts of collaborative learning on student engagement
The purpose of the study conducted in this paper was to see if small collaborative group. work impacts student engagement. Student engagement is a huge component to learning and has. shown a correlation to higher academic achievements in those students who are more engaged.
Writing Together: Collaborative Work
Abstract Finding a suitable writing partner and working with a successful writing team can be one of the most satisfying ways of generating a publishable manuscript. Conversely, when collaborative writing arrangements and agreements falter or fail, they can be exceptionally troublesome. This chapter is designed to help authors maximize the benefits of collaborative writing and minimize the ...
Research Guides: Write and Cite: Theses and Dissertations
A thesis is a long-term, large project that involves both research and writing; it is easy to lose focus, motivation, and momentum. Here are suggestions for achieving the result you want in the time you have. The dissertation is probably the largest project you have undertaken, and a lot of the work is self-directed.
Exploring the Impact of Teacher Collaboration on Teacher Learning and
Teacher collaboration is professional learning opportunities based on [the] experience of teachers. Teachers come together and share unique skills and knowledge to help build teacher and student's learning potential. Together we take part in planning, developing our disciplines, and implementing lessons to students.
PDF Collaborative Work Environments: Development and Sustainability
This dissertation examines how elementary principals develop collaborative work environments. Specifically, it explores how principals understand collaborative work, examines the strategies principals employ to encourage such an environment, the supports principals use
PDF Collaborative Group Work in An Online Learning Environment: a ...
COLLABORATIVE GROUP WORK IN AN ONLINE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: A DESIGN RESEARCH STUDY by EUNJUNG OH (Under the Direction of Thomas C. Reeves) ABSTRACT This dissertation focused on improving the design of online learning environments for adult learners who need and want to continue their professional development. For such a design
Crash of an Ilyushin II-18V in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
The crew started the approach to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk by night and heavy rain falls. On short final, the captain realized he was well above the glide so he decided to increase the rate of descent. The airplane struck the runway surface nose first at a speed of 230 km/h and with a positive acceleration of 2,8 g. It bounced then landed a second time with an acceleration of 3,8 g. Upon impact, the ...
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk ( Russian: Ю́жно-Сахали́нск, IPA: [ˈjuʐnə səxɐˈlʲinsk] ⓘ, lit.'South Sakhalin city') is a city and the administrative center of Sakhalin Oblast, Russia. It is located on Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East, north of Japan. [ 10 ] Gas and oil extraction as well as processing are amongst the main industries on the island. It was called Vladimirovka ...
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk ( Russian : Ю́жно-Сахали́нск, IPA: [ˈjuʐnə səxɐˈlʲinsk] ( listen), literally "South Sakhalin City") is a city on Sakhalin island. It is also the administrative center of Sakhalin Oblast, Russia. It is in the Far East part of Russia. It is north of Japan. [ 11 ]
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk is a city with a population of about 200 thousand people located in the southeastern part of Sakhalin Island in the Far East of Russia, the capital of Sakhalin Oblast. It is the sixth largest city in the Russian Far East, in which Russian and Japanese cultures are closely intertwined. Here you can often see old Japanese ...