The good
Non-traditional research outputs (like our co-created storybooks based on lived and living experience narratives) are a way for our team, partners and volunteers to potentially make a difference to children and their families. We are passionate about improving children’s lives. We also want to create a platform for lived experience narratives to be heard and potentially have an impact on policy makers and those who make decisions that impact these families.
The bad
While they look simple, the downside of these non-traditional research outputs (NTROs) is that they are far more time-consuming than peer-reviewed journal articles. In fact, we could probably write 5-7 journal articles for every storybook we co-create. There are so many jobs to do, including:
- immersion in the literature about the topic and themes
- gathering and accessing lived and living experience narratives
- immersion in, and analysis of the lived and living experience narratives
- categorising common experiences, less common experiences and individual experiences
- creating themes to be explored in the narrative
- co-creating the narrative by blending these narratives
- character development and deciding on the strengths of characters and their connections
- ensuring the audience will understand the concepts and that both children and adults will find the storybook engaging
- drafting the initial narrative
- editing, refining, seeking feedback from stakeholders and redrafting the narrative over many iterations (usually about 15)
- decisions about the portrayal of the characters with the graphic artist
- researching and writing our research pages
- blocking of the scenes with the graphic artist
- refining ideas and drafts based on the artwork over many iterations (usually about 15)
- seeking feedback from the public and from partners
- refining ideas and drafts based on the artwork over many iterations with the team and the graphic artist (usually 10 times)
- liaison with funders and stakeholders to get forewords
- liaison with libraries and companies to secure DOIs and ISBNs
- final proofing (about 5 rounds)
- dissemination
And the challenging
While we want to recognise all our contributors, we also want to ensure those who contribute more are recognised for their dedication and contribution.
Authorship for peer reviewed articles is guided by CRediT Taxonomy. As yet, there seems to be little guidance for NTROs. So, for our storybook project, here are the layers we use.
- Anonymous feedback: Our stakeholders and those with lived and living experience contribute to our NTROs by test driving them and commenting on our drafts. We acknowledge these contributions by integrating their feedback and through providing relevant quotes about the book in our NTROs, news-based media articles, social media posts, and peer reviewed journal articles.
- Partner contribution: Support with cash or in-kind funding is recognised with the mention of a logo in our partner page toward the end of the book.
- Research pages contribution: Support with research pages as authors and editing is recognised with authorship at the start of the page with the heading ‘What the research says’.
- Storybook contribution: Some editing, story conceptualisation, phrases, character development will be recognised in the back pages under ‘Additional Contributions’. These contributors will have a simple, 1-2 sentence bio added to their name under ‘Contributors’.
- Storybook authors: Full authoring, major editing, story conceptualisation, character development, illustration guidance, proofing, analysing and responding to feedback, decision making, dissemination and other roles listed in the bullet point list above. These contributors will be recognised as storybook authors because their role and contribution are complex and require a commitment over an extended period of time.
The leader of each book will decide which category of contribution each person belongs to.
All contributions improve the book as a whole and we need all types to have the most impact for children and families.