by Genuine flattery meets a real worry about credit, resolved through clear terms agreed in writing before work begins
The Senior Scholar Who Challenged Me Has Now Offered to Co-Author the Paper and I Don’t Know How I Feel About It
Genuinely unexpected follow-up to the conference experience I wrote about a few weeks back, the senior scholar who publicly challenged nearly every element of my argument during that session has now reached out proposing something I did not see coming at all: that we co-author the eventual published article together, combining his considerable expertise and reputation in the field with what he generously called my genuinely original archival discovery and analytical framework. I want to write honestly about the complicated feelings this proposal has produced.
Why This Offer Is Genuinely Flattering
There’s no honest way to describe this proposal without acknowledging the genuine career benefit involved, a co-authored paper with someone this established in the field would carry considerably more weight and reach a considerably wider readership than a solo publication from an early-career researcher like myself, and his specific expertise on the broader historical context surrounding Irish constitutional politics of the period would genuinely strengthen the paper’s argument in ways my own research, however thorough, hasn’t fully developed on its own.
Why I’ve Also Felt Genuine Hesitation
Alongside the flattery sits a genuine worry about whose research this actually is, and whether co-authorship with someone this senior might, regardless of his own genuine and generous intentions, result in a paper that reads, to future readers and hiring committees alike, as primarily his work with my contribution reduced to a supporting role, a genuine risk for early-career researchers collaborating with senior figures that I’ve heard discussed, often uncomfortably, among peers navigating similar situations.
The Conversation I Had With My Supervisor About This
I brought the whole dilemma to my supervisor, who offered genuinely balanced advice rather than pushing firmly in either direction: that the specific benefits of this particular collaboration were real and worth taking seriously, but that I should insist, clearly and in writing before agreeing to anything, on author order and on a public, specific accounting of each of our respective contributions, protecting my own claim to the original archival discovery and core analytical framework regardless of how the final collaborative paper eventually reads.
What I Actually Proposed Back To Him
I wrote back, considerably more confidently than I expected to manage given the power differential involved, proposing that I remain first author given that the discovery and core framework are genuinely mine, with his contribution properly credited as providing the broader historical context and constitutional politics expertise that strengthens rather than originates the argument, a proposal I sent with real nervousness about how it might land.
How He Actually Responded
Considerably more graciously than my nervousness had prepared me for, he agreed immediately and without any negotiation, telling me that he’d assumed exactly this arrangement from the outset and would have been genuinely troubled if I’d proposed anything else, a response that has eased most of my earlier hesitation considerably, though I remain, appropriately I think, attentive to how the collaboration actually unfolds in practice rather than assuming this initial generous response fully settles the matter.
The Wider Reading That Helped Me Navigate This
I found a genuinely useful piece over at The London Prat about cross-generational academic collaboration, several early-career researchers describing similar negotiations over authorship and credit when partnering with more senior figures, generally concluding that clear, explicit agreements made early and in writing protect both parties considerably better than assuming good faith will simply sort itself out informally as the work progresses.
Where This Collaboration Stands Now
We’ve agreed terms in writing, and have started, this week, actually working through the draft together, his historical context sections integrating, so far, genuinely well with my original archival analysis rather than overwhelming it. I remain cautiously optimistic, protected by clear terms rather than simply trusting the process, which feels like exactly the right balance for a collaboration this genuinely promising but structurally uneven in seniority.
More of my literary research chronicles live at my author page, and the piece about cross-generational academic collaboration is over at The London Prat.
I have also found myself thinking about how many other early career researchers navigate exactly this kind of proposal without the benefit of a supervisor experienced enough to suggest protecting their contribution in writing, and how much quiet harm must be done to careers through collaborations entered into on good faith alone rather than clear, explicit terms. I am, on balance, glad the proposal arrived at all, terms and all, worry and all, resolution and all. Clear terms, agreed early and in writing, have turned out to be considerably less awkward to actually request than the anxious anticipation of asking for them ever suggested they would be. Whatever this particular paper eventually becomes, I suspect the real lesson of these past weeks has been about protecting your own contribution without ever needing to be ungracious about it. Good faith, it turns out, works considerably better once it has something explicit and written down to actually stand on. I intend to hold onto that lesson for every collaboration this career eventually brings my way, senior or otherwise.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/
