On the solo author academic trope (or why the myth of the superior solo author just needs to go away).
I was recently asked if you needed to be a solo author to be successful.
It's an interesting question.
Not so long ago, a senior faculty member targeted a barrage of academic invective at me because I had never solo-authored a paper.
The overly wrought faculty member emailed that I was not a scholar & that I was not capable of evaluating or conducting fundamental research. (note that I paraphrase).
The exchange evoked three thoughts.
First, I've never considered solo authorship a goal.
Collaboration is as natural as breathing air - it's just what I do.
If I like working on teams, why would I do otherwise?
So the old guy's barrage felt like it came from outer space.
Second, I've never considered solo authorship necessary to establish scholarly worth.
I certainly respect people who write alone. It's a different personality & style of work than mine.
But is it better? or necessary?
I don't think so.
I can't imagine a more miserable task than sitting in a room with my thoughts & never discussing them with a co-author.
I felt for the sour old guy, he's missed a lot of fun.
Third, solo-authored papers have no more scholarly worth than collaborative papers.
Note: this may be the most controversial statement of all my LinkedIn posts.
Why?
Because while publishing a solo-authored paper is difficult, it does not mean that the ideas are better than those found in a collaborative paper.
I've read some pretty bad solo papers. (No, I will not name names; but, there is this old guy out there …).
So what is my position on solo authorship? Other than being triggered?
Valuing solo over co-authorship is an academic trope, a tired cliche, used by privileged faculty to assert superiority or to denigrate others.
The idea that anyone is an actual solo author is nonsense.
Solo-authored papers grow out of ecosystems - of students that help professors, colleagues that provide feedback, colleges that provide resources, & universities that offer lab space or other support to sustain teams.
I'm unconvinced that anyone lives the trope of sitting in a cave, having a helper do no more than bring coffee, & writing a paper in isolation.
The trope is dishonest & needs to go away.
And yet, the trope persists.
So what to do?
First, read papers. Evaluate the ideas. Not the number of authors.
Second, let people find their style of work. Some people work alone, others in small teams, others more broadly. All styles are ok.
Third, stop pushing young people to write solo-authored papers. It's not natural for digital natives. They have collaboration in their DNA.
Finally, create a rubric for what counts if you are worried about who did what.
Young faculty should not have to worry about unclear tropes - give them clear rules - they are bright & will exceed your expectations.
We will have built a better academe when we value contributions.
Comments