Missing the Mark: A New Form of Honorary Authorship Motivated by Desires for Inclusion
As scientific teams in academia have become increasingly large, interdisciplinary, and diverse, more attention has been paid to honorary authorship (i.e., giving authorship to those not making a significant contribution). Our study examined whether honorary authorship occurs because of the desire to include all or many team members. Interviews with project principal investigators (n = 6) and early-career project members (n = 6) from 6 interdisciplinary environmental science research teams revealed that principal investigators frequently employed inclusion-motivated honorary authorship but that this practice had some negative impacts on early-career team members with less power and status, thereby undermining true inclusion of those from underrepresented groups. We believe our findings are of import not only for environmental scientists, but also for scholars who are interested in issues of authorship decision-making regardless of disciplinary affiliation.
KeywordsHonorary authorship Inclusion Power and status Interdisciplinary research Research teams Environmental science
Portions of this research were conducted while authors Isis Settles and Sheila Brassel were at Michigan State University. This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant SES-1449466 awarded to Kevin C. Elliott (PI), Kendra Spence Cheruvelil, Georgina M. Montgomery, Isis H. Settles, and Patricia A. Soranno; a National Science Foundation grant EF-1065786 to Patricia A. Soranno and Kendra Spence Cheruvelil; and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project no. 176820 to Patricia A. Soranno. We thank Claire Gonyo for her assistance in designing the interview protocol and conducting the interviews and Kristen Mills for her assistance with coding the interviews. We thank NiCole Buchanan and Ann Austin for their comments on an earlier draft.
- Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014). Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: The importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1890/130001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elliott, K. C., Settles, I. H., Montgomery, G. M., Brassel, S., Cheruvelil, K. S., & Soranno, P. A. (2016). Honorary authorship practices in environmental science teams: Structural and cultural causes and solutions. Accountability in Research, 24, 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1251320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 941–982). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Leca, I., & Vrânceanu, C. A. (2014). Multicultural teams: Moving from diversity to inclusion. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 2, 361–368.Google Scholar
- McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015 (NSF Special Report No. 15–311). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
- Sarsons, H. (2015). Gender differences in recognition for group work . Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Smith, D. G. (2015). Diversity's promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1458–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar