This past summer, an opportunity arose to submit a paper to our university’s kiyo (in-house journal). I had meant to do this for years, so I decided to go for it so that I could introduce a new research project I had just begun. Although the six-week deadline was tight, I felt motivated: It was a guaranteed publication and would help me wrap my head around the many facets of our project. My colleagues were supportive but quite busy, so I knew I would have to work hard to make it easy for them to contribute where possible. One helped by providing high-level theoretical input while the other improved the text’s clarity and flow. I handled most of the writing duties, but I made sure that both colleagues had opportunities to weigh in and make their voices heard, especially in the Discussion section. Ultimately, despite everyone’s busy schedules, their contributions exceeded my expectations. The paper turned out much better than if I had written it alone. As I submitted it, I reflected on how relatively smoothly the process went, especially compared to other, more challenging collaborations I have experienced. Years of experience and hard-earned lessons had gone into this moment. It then occurred to me: Why not share some of what I have learned about collaborative writing in this column?
As a long-term Japan-based educator, I believe that working well with co-authors on writing projects is a fundamental skill for academic and professional success. Publishing is essential to career growth, and collaboration allows us to combine our strengths, producing work that is greater than the sum of its parts. Some real-world benefits include workload sharing (Mulligan & Garofalo, 2011), diverse perspectives (Yeo & Lewis, 2019), and increased productivity and higher acceptance rates (Ductor, 2015). However, collaborative writing can also be a stressful process. I have experienced my share of frustrations, such as interpersonal conflicts and disagreements (Huggett et al, 2011), unclear roles and responsibilities (Harvey et al., 2022), and ill-conceived or poorly designed workflows (Lingard, 2021)—all of which can quickly turn a promising collaboration into an exhausting process. Although collaboration is often viewed as a way to ease the workload, poorly managed efforts can make it even more taxing than working alone. It is not a process to take lightly.
My goal for this column is to help you avoid common collaboration pitfalls by integrating insights from the literature with some hard-won advice from my own experience. The topic of collaborative writing is broad, so I will aim to cover a few key areas, such as how to assemble a strong team, clarify leadership, develop a suitable workflow, and use technology to facilitate communication and production. I hope this discussion helps you reflect on your past collaborative efforts and think creatively about how you can improve the way you write with others.
Choose the Right People to Work With
A successful collaboration starts with choosing the right people. Look for colleagues whose skills complement your own and who share your overall goals, as diverse perspectives and expertise can lead to more robust and innovative outcomes (Way With Words, n.d.). Achieving this requires being honest with yourself about your strengths and where you may need support. For example, I enjoy staying organized, feel comfortable with technology, and can communicate professionally and promptly. Iam also confident in my teaching ability. However, I struggle with research design and complex statistical analysis, and my theoretical knowledge in certain areas of ELT is limited. When I embarked on the kiyo paper this summer, I was grateful to have colleagues with expertise in these areas. Each member brought complimentary skills to the project, which made for a strong team.
How about you? What strengths and perspectives do you bring to a team? As you join or assemble one, take time to reflect on what you can contribute and how your efforts will align with others. It can help to discuss research goals and expectations early on to ensure alignment and address any potential issues before the project gets underway (Yeo & Lewis, 2019). While working with friends might seem appealing due to built-in trust and rapport, it can complicate things. Mixing personal and professional relationships can introduce challenges that are easier to avoid in more formal collaborations (Harvey et al., 2022).
Who Will Drive the Bus?
A key to successful collaboration is determining which team member will serve as the lead author, or “drive the bus” as my colleagues and I like to say. Ideally, this decision is made at your project’s outset (Harvey et al., 2022). Without clear leadership, it is much more difficult to reach your full potential as a team (Yeo & Lewis, 2019). I learned this lesson the hard way on one particular project. My colleague and I never addressed the question of leadership, and in hindsight, I believe this was a major reason the project failed. We spent over two years working together, subtly asserting control, debating differing opinions, and making compromises—all of which resulted in an outcome that was less than satisfying. It felt like there were two drivers pulling the wheel in different directions, and ultimately, we ended up in the ditch, figuratively speaking.
To avoid a frustrating outcome, it is much more productive to discuss leadership roles openly and honestly from the start (Gani et al., 2021). Sometimes, the decision is straightforward, such as when the most senior or accomplished member naturally takes the lead. The role could also fall to someone who is motivated and available enough to do the job. In my kiyo paper project this summer, the lead author position happened to go to the person (me) with the most time to dedicate to the work. There is no one best way to determine who takes the wheel. The decision often emerges organically, shaped by the personalities, motivations, and availability of the team members involved.
For those of you considering a leadership role, it would help to understand some of the duties and expectations that come with having your name listed first, such as project management, drafting the initial manuscript, clarifying roles and contributions of team members, overseeing production through multiple drafts, facilitating communication, and putting out any fires of disagreement amongst your team (Huggett et al., 2011). Lead authors also liaise between the team and the target journal’s editors by managing submissions, responding to reviewer comments, and handling revisions. Itss all a lot of work and a big responsibility. Since good leadership can be the difference between publication and rejection, it is not a role to take on lightly. If you are early in your career, I would recommend gaining experience by working under more seasoned colleagues before stepping into this responsibility yourself—it can be a much less stressful way to prepare for the lead author role.
Clarify a Suitable Writing Workflow
An important early discussion in any project is how the paper will actually get written. Spending time upfront to determine who will do what and when can streamline the entire writing process. Lingard (2021) outlines five common group writing strategies, summarized in Table 1, along with their pros, cons, and best use cases.
As you review these options, reflect on your past collaborations and which strategies you employed. How well did they work? If you are new to collaborative writing, which approach appeals to you most, and why? Personally, I tend to prefer the all-for-one approach for its straight-forward efficiency. When someone takes the lead on a first draft, it gives the rest of the team a foundation to build on, lightens the workload, and maintains a consistent voice throughout. I have used other strategies, and they can work well too, but their success often depends on the makeup of the group. In the long run, experimenting with different strategies is valuable—you will gain the skills and flexibility to collaborate effectively in any situation. However, when you are just starting out, it can help to use whatever approach you are most comfortable with. Seeing these options laid out can help you think more intentionally about how to structure your writing process. This list is not exhaustive, and there is flexibility within each one. While no strategy is perfect—there are always trade-offs involved—the good news is that careful planning and timely communication can help mitigate any drawbacks, much like how oil keeps a car’s engine running smoothly. Reflecting on the following questions (Lingard, 2021) can help you be more purposeful and explicit about your workflow, allowing your team to leverage everyone’s strengths and increase the chance of success:
Which writing strategy is best suited to our team?
Are we choosing this strategy intentionally or by habit?
Do we explicitly discuss our workflow, or do we unconsciously fall into old patterns?
Are we using our strategy as efficiently as possible?
Are we leveraging technology to support our efforts effectively?
Leverage Technology
When it comes to technology, the final point I want to emphasize is the importance of selecting the right tools to support project management early on. With rapid advancements in internet-based applications, collaborative word processors, and communication platforms, there is no shortage of options—sometimes to the point of distraction. New tools emerge constantly, and as we get older, mastering them can become more challenging.
When evaluating any tool, one key consideration is how essential it really is. While flashy features can be enticing—especially in this new age of generative AI—it is important to stay focused on what you truly need. For a writing project conducted remotely, you will absolutely need software that supports real-time collaborative writing and data management, such as those provided by Google (i.e., Docs, Sheets, Slides, and Forms). The capability to simultaneously write and edit documents is so popular that traditional word processors such as MS Word (Windows), Pages (macOS), and OpenOffice (Linux/Open Source), have begun offering similar features at perhaps a notch below Google’s level. These types of tools enable teams to track changes, manage versions, make comments, correct grammar, and build tables and figures—all essential for a smooth workflow.
Another essential component of successful collaboration is communication—without it, nothing moves forward. You will need a reliable way to meet online, with platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, or MS Teams, being popular options. Many of us became familiar with these tools during the pandemic, and the skills we developed then can now be applied to group projects. In addition to meetings, you will need an efficient way to manage communication between sessions. Setting up a private group chat on an app, such as WhatsApp, Google Chat, Slack, MS Teams, or Discord, can be helpful. If you already use some of these apps for personal communication, consider using a different one exclusively for work-related projects. That is the approach I take with WhatsApp: I reserve it for project communication, but I use Line and Messages for personal needs. This helps me stay organized. For each project, you can set up a dedicated thread and invite only the relevant team members, keeping discussions private and focused.
Beyond core apps for writing and communicating, there are many nice-to-have tools you can consider on an as-needed basis. These can help with specific tasks and enhance your workflow. For example, if scheduling meetings is a challenge, try a free service like Doodle to poll members’ availability and identify the best meeting time. For support during the brainstorming phase, a mind-mapping tool, such as MindMeister, would allow your team to generate ideas freely and flexibly. Another tool I have found immensely useful is Fathom—a free service that records online meetings, creates transcripts, and uses AI to generate summaries. During the meeting, you can tag key discussions, creating direct shareable links to those moments. This ensures you capture inspiration when it strikes and makes it easy to keep absent team members up to date or revisit previous ideas. Fathom has proven its worth for me time and again. Finally, if you prefer an all-in-one solution, consider a project management platform like Basecamp (which JALT currently uses), Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Slack, or Asana. These platforms combine multiple features into a single hub, which may be easier than managing a patchwork of smaller tools.
To sum up, evaluate technology for your project carefully and thoughtfully. Choose only what you truly need and try not to get swept away by flashy features. That said, keep an open mind to new possibilities, and stay flexible if you need to use tools you are not entirely sold on. Entering a collaboration with rigid demands (e.g., “I’ll use this, but not that) can create friction. For example, on my kiyo project, we had to find common ground, since each of us preferred different platforms (Windows, MacOS, Linux). By choosing tools we could all work with, we avoided unnecessary complications. Since you will nott always get to use your preferred tools, try to remain open to learning new ones. This sort of flexibility and accommodation can be a valuable contribution to your team’s success. In the end, it is important to choose tools that enhance your collaboration, that all members are comfortable with using (Huggett et al., 2011).
Final Thoughts
Collaborative writing is a large and nuanced topic. Although the space in this column is limited, I have done my best to highlight a few essential points. These include the importance of choosing reliable collaborators, establishing clear leadership and roles, thoughtfully designing your production workflow, and leveraging appropriate technologies. You may have noticed a recurring theme: the value of addressing these considerations early—before the writing begins. Reflecting on my career, I can say that doing so would have saved me mountains of stress and unnecessary struggle. Whether you are just starting out or are well into your career, I hope these ideas have provided some useful insights. Mastering collaboration takes time, but with the right approach, it can be a rewarding journey. Whether you take on the role of lead author or supporting contributor, I encourage you to embrace collaboration thoughtfully for both personal and professional growth. With careful preparation, it can become an enjoyable part of your career.
References
Ductor, L. (2015). Does co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 77(3), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12070
Gani, S., Kohl, L., Baalbaki, R., Bianchi, F., Ruuskanen, T. M., Siira, O.-P., Paasonen, P., & Vehkamäki, H. (2021). Clear, transparent, and timely communication for fair authorship decisions: A practical guide. Geoscience Communication, 4(4), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-507-2021
Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, A., Regmi, P. R., Ireland, J., Rijal, A., & van Teijlingen, E. (2022). Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complications in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing. Health Prospect, 21(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v21i1.39320
Huggett, K. N., Gusic, M. E., Greenberg, R., & Ketterer, J. M. (2011). Twelve tips for conducting collaborative research in medical education. Medical Teacher, 33(9), 713–718. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.547956
Lingard, L. (2021). Collaborative writing: Strategies and activities for writing productively together. Perspectives on Medical Education, 10(3), 163–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00668-7
Mulligan, C., & Garofalo, R. (2011). A collaborative writing approach: Methodology and student assessment. The Language Teacher, 35(3), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT35.3
Way With Words. (n.d.). 10 key steps to secure effective academic research collaboration. https://waywithwords.net/resource/steps-academic-research-collaboration
Yeo, M., & Lewis, M. (2019). Co-authoring in action: Practice, problems and possibilities. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2019.120739
