{"id":3382,"date":"2012-07-17T04:57:58","date_gmt":"2012-07-17T08:57:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/meetcontent.com\/?p=3382"},"modified":"2017-04-20T00:18:54","modified_gmt":"2017-04-20T04:18:54","slug":"managing-content-workflow-for-faculty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/meetcontent.com\/blog\/managing-content-workflow-for-faculty\/","title":{"rendered":"Managing Content Workflow for Faculty"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Faculty\"
We need to approach faculty as partners in publication.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

You\u2019ve done it! You\u2019ve captured the intricacies and practical applications of Professor Mumblemore\u2019s groundbreaking work on glottochronology (or electrophysiology, or perhaps paleoentomology) in crisp, engaging, easy to comprehend prose (or a minute-thirty of video, if you prefer). Good work! All that\u2019s left is to get his A-OK and we can get this puppy published.<\/p>\n

Wait\u2026 what\u2019s this? Professor Mumblemore returned your piece with notes\u2014lots of notes. Quotes stripped of human inflection, copy sodden with indecipherable jargon, and requests to add various journal citations, peer research, disclaimers and footnotes. <\/p>\n

Oy. Head, meet desk. Face, meet palm. Content, meet conundrum.<\/p>\n

A Constant Challenge<\/h2>\n

Whether its for print or web, higher ed communications professionals have long faced challenges in getting content reviewed by faculty without it coming back as something more befitting a peer-reviewed academic journal than the alumni magazine or the research page on the website. <\/p>\n

\n
The best end product is going to be one that meets our standards while providing a faithful account of theirs, but we\u2019re only going to get there if we work together. <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Professors aren\u2019t the only ones whose responsibility it is to share knowledge and expertise\u2014it\u2019s ours, too. It\u2019s our job to help faculty and administrators understand what we need and why when it comes to content, not only so we get what we need, but so they understand the importance and buy into the process. <\/p>\n

The best end product is going to be one that meets our standards while providing a faithful account of theirs, but we\u2019re only going to get there if we work together.<\/p>\n

Getting to \u2018Yes\u2019\u2014for Approved Content<\/h2>\n

So, how can we foster mutual understanding and get Professor Mumblemore to see the light? I propose the following process. (No, it\u2019s not yet peer-reviewed, but I hope you\u2019ll share your addendums and suggestions in the comments.)<\/p>\n

1. Create and share an editorial workflow. <\/h3>\n

In our own shops, we need to nail down our expectations and process around faculty review for content. Do we just need faculty OK, or do we need review from a department chair or dean\u2014maybe for certain departments and schools, but not others? If so, what are the criteria? Do certain schools have extra layers of approvals (or prickly deans) that we need to account for in our schedule? How many days turnaround will we give them? <\/p>\n

From there, we need to make sure that our supervisors (and their supervisors, if necessary), buy into this plan and will back us up if it is called into question (perhaps by said prickly dean). It should also be documented and shared with all relevant staff.<\/p>\n

2. Build faculty relationships.<\/h3>\n

Faculty members need to know us\u2014we can\u2019t be strangers only calling when we need something. If we have beats where we own responsibility for coverage of certain departments, we should seek opportunities to establish a rapport even when we don\u2019t need a quote, interview or review. Good relationships can make for smoother editorial transactions when needs inevitably arise.<\/p>\n

3. Proactively educate faculty on content planning, content strategy, and editorial style.<\/h3>\n

In addition to building relationships, we should show up regularly at faculty meetings to explain the value of the work we do\u2014not abstractly, but with concrete examples (with both anecdotal and analytical support) showing how the right relationship between a communications professional and a faculty member resulted in a successful pitch, or effective content. We need to more deliberately make the case for how our work ultimately helps them, and to do that, we need to share specifics (though you might get the OK in advance from the professor whose success story you hope to share).<\/p>\n

4. Define and communicate roles, responsibilities, and expectations.<\/h3>\n

When you\u2019re setting up your interview with the faculty member, give them a sense of how the editorial process works. Let them know by approximately when you plan to have the content complete, how long you will give them for review (noting that the review is to ensure accuracy and correct any errors, not for rewrites) and when you plan to publish the content. If the professor will not be available during your suggested review window, establish new dates and agree upon them.<\/p>\n

5. Conduct interviews with backup and follow-up.<\/h3>\n

During the interview, take notes and record audio (being sure to let the professor know they are being recorded). The audio will be great for creating a transcript, but it also gives you backup in case a professor asserts that he or she never said such a thing.<\/p>\n

After the interview, before you start writing, call them and ask for clarification on anything where you\u2019re unclear, such as the meaning of certain quotes or the explanation of a technical process. Make sure you have the correct spelling for any terminology or proper names.<\/p>\n

6. Submit content for review and communicate expectations\u2014again.<\/h3>\n

Now it\u2019s time to send the content out for review. Once again, remind the professor of the review window, the publication date, and the fact that all you\u2019re looking for are corrections and clarifications. You might add that feedback beyond the facts will be considered\u2014I\u2019ve definitely gotten some edits back from faculty that significantly improved the piece\u2014but will be included only at your discretion (or the discretion of the final editor to review the piece, if it is someone other than you).<\/p>\n

It\u2019s also important to state that if you don\u2019t hear back within the agreed-upon timeframe\u2014even after a reminder email if you\u2019ve not heard anything halfway through the review window\u2014that you assume the content is good to go. Your deadlines and calendars are meaningful, so assert their value.<\/p>\n

7. Push back (if necessary).<\/h3>\n

Hopefully, after all of this, you\u2019re well on your way to publishing your content. If not, and you receive content that has been riddled with jargon and other bloat, be prepared to push back. <\/p>\n

\n
The most important part is achieving understanding, both so faculty get what we\u2019re trying to accomplish, and we can see where their concerns lie. <\/div>\n<\/div>\n

This can be the hardest part, because some faculty members may be stubborn, or there may be sensitivities around how to handle them. Or, if you\u2019re like me, confrontation just isn\u2019t your bag. But remember\u2014we want faculty to be partners in this process, not adversaries. Sure, we\u2019ve developed criteria around what works and why, but that\u2019s only half of it. The most important part is achieving understanding, both so faculty get what we\u2019re trying to accomplish, and we can see where their concerns lie.<\/p>\n

Contrary to what we might fear, there aren\u2019t that many ogres out there\u2014there are probably as many faculty ogres as there are content ogres!\u2014so generally speaking, a reasonable approach and a willingness to listen can win the day.<\/p>\n

If you need to push back:<\/p>\n