The use of instructional video is increasing across all disciplines and levels of education. Although video has a number of distinct advantages for course delivery and student learning, it can also be time-consuming and resource-intensive to produce, which imposes a burden on busy faculty. With video poised to play a larger role in medical education, we need strategies for streamlining video production and ensuring that the video we produce is of lasting value. This article draws on learning research and best practices in educational technology, along with the author’s experience in online education and video production. It offers 12 practical tips for reducing the initial time investment in video production and creating video that can be reused long into the future. These tips can help faculty and departments create high-quality instructional video while using their time and resources more wisely.

Introduction: Human-centered design (HCD) training offers the potential to improve both team processes and products. However, the use of HCD to improve the quality of team science is a relatively recent application, and its benefits and challenges have not been rigorously evaluated. We conducted a qualitative study with health sciences researchers trained in HCD methods. We aimed to determine how researchers applied HCD methods and perceived the benefits and barriers to using HCD on research teams. Methods: We conducted 1-hour, semi-structured interviews with trainees from three training cohorts. Interviews focused on perceptions of the training, subsequent uses of HCD, barriers and facilitators, and perceptions of the utility of HCD to science teams. Data analysis was conducted using Braun and Clarke’s process for thematic analysis. Results: We interviewed nine faculty and nine staff trained in HCD methods and identified four themes encompassing HCD use, benefits, challenges, and tensions between HCD approaches and academic culture. Conclusions: Trainees found HCD relevant to research teams for stakeholder engagement, research design, project planning, meeting facilitation, and team management. They also described benefits of HCD in five distinct areas: creativity, egalitarianism, structure, efficiency, and visibility. Our data suggest that HCD has the potential to help researchers work more inclusively and collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams and generate more innovative and impactful science. The application of HCD methods is not without challenges; however, we believe these challenges can be overcome with institutional investment.

Drawing on narrative theory, we propose a scenario-based approach to conducting discussions among junior and senior faculty about issues affecting job satisfaction. This study reports how discussions of fictional scenarios (based on data drawn from 123 faculty interviews) prompt open dialogue, foster greater consciousness, empathy, and empowerment among faculty, and guide positive institutional responses.

Authorship can be a source of tension on research teams, in academic/industry collaborations, and between mentors/mentees. Authorship misconduct is prevalent among biomedical researchers, and disputes about authorship can generate tensions that have the potential to disrupt professional relationships and damage careers. Early-career researchers may experience particular challenges navigating authorship both because of inexperience and power differentials; in effect, they lack the language and confidence to have these conversations and may feel unwilling to challenge the status quo. The authors implemented an Authorship Agreement for use when collaborating on a manuscript and hypothesized that using this agreement would reduce authorship tensions and speed time to manuscript submission by helping early-career investigators manage authorship conversations more effectively. The authors surveyed trainees (n = 65) on the prevalence of authorship-related tensions and compared the results from the first survey in 2017 to the final survey in 2020. The decrease in tensions around meeting deadlines was significant (z = 2.59, p = 0.010). The authors believe the effect of an Authorship Agreement on authorship-related tensions has not previously been investigated. This work extends what is known about the prevalence of commonly cited authorship tensions, and provides evidence of the effectiveness of steps that can be taken to alleviate them.