Writing Is a Team Sport

• In Event: Fairmont Roundtable Session Nine
  In Roundtable Session: Transdisciplinary Team Research: Co-Constructing Partnerships and Strategies to Explore Professions Education Research Problems (Table 19)

Abstract

The objective of this presentation is to explore the intersection of collaborative writing literature and our team’s experiences. Transdisciplinary researchers integrate language to ensure that the publication is understandable across fields (O’Sullivan et al., 2010), an essential collaborative skill in an academic environment that requires interprofessional practice and multisite research (Ramani et al., 2021). Collaborative writing (CW) relies on coordination and communication of diverse ideas to accomplish key writing tasks such as planning, drafting, revising, and submission (Gimenez & Thondlana, 2012) and to produce a cohesive message written in one voice (Lowry et al., 2004). CW requires negotiation around logistical, emotional, and cognitive processes; still, through conflicts arising from the negotiations, personal writing skills and the final written products are improved (Ens et al., 2011).

Using reflective inquiry, we examined practices suggested in the literature and our personal experiences in collaborative writing. Reflecting on overall experiences in conceptualizing, designing, and conducting research collaboratively and the production of association writing, we offer an experience-informed point of view which can be considered and adapted by similarly situated teams of scholars.

CW can be a democratizing agent in the academy, particularly for marginalized groups (Sandberg & Ibarra Rojas, 2021). In this CW experience, which included members who identify as women, women of color, and international scholars, we embraced these democratic notions. Each team member shared decisions about project direction and conducted self-evaluation to determine authorship and fully engaged in honest conversations which propelled us forward. CW writers should be involved in thinking about the text, not only in writing it (Sandberg & Ibarra Rojas, 2021). In our case, all members were involved from the inception of the idea and team leaders made space for each member to substantially contribute, to concept development and writing segments of final products. Assigned roles in the team clarified responsibilities (Yilmaz et al., 2022). The team leader initiated meetings, drafted agendas, shared recordings, and managed deadlines. The editor identified gaps and errors when drafting the IRB, instrument, and manuscript products.

Despite its benefits, CW can be time consuming, and present challenges in finding the unified voice of a text (Sandberg & Ibarra Rojas, 2021). Many team members on this project struggled with time demands; however, these challenges were typically expressed and met with empathy by other members. In most cases where one team member needed to adjust their workload, another team member fulfilled the need.

To facilitate CW, we implemented recommended strategies (Yimaz et al., 2022). Our team met monthly virtually to brainstorm, decide, and assign responsibilities. OneNote and OneDrive were used to collaborate. The team did not collectively use one citation manager, but an individual author used one to organize and prepare citations, and another author performed a final check for accuracy of references.

This presentation will provide an overview of CW literature, and the results of the CW process from this project. Participants will depart with strategies to engage in CW.

Authors

• Amanda K. Burbage, Eastern Virginia Medical School
  Presenting Author

• Joni Tornwall, The Ohio State University
  Presenting Author

• Christina M. Cestone, University of Maryland - Baltimore
  Presenting Author