Collaboration for research: a description of models, benefits, and challenges
Mark
Olofson
University
of Vermont
____________________________________________
As
a first year Ph.D. student, I have had the opportunity to be exposed to many
different domains of academia. Not only am I taking a number of classes, but I
am also working as an educational research assistant. I previously had little
formal research experience, outside of that which was in the context of
coursework. Along with the new work came numerous existing structures and
opportunities for collaboration. Given that this is a new area for me I chose
to use this project to investigate the structures, benefits, and challenges of
collaboration around conducting academic research at the university level. To
proceed, I decided to focus on pieces written by practicing professionals,
while also conducting a short interview with an experienced researcher and
collaborator. This helped to temper and personalize some of the findings from
the literature. The models, benefits, and challenges that I found will help me
not only with my further work in this course, but also in my professional
practice as I continue to grow as a researcher and collaborator.
Research Collaboration
Models
of collaboration at universities can be conceptualized as being either
horizontal or vertical (Mann, Meyer, & Carney, 2012). A horizontal model is when
team members are at approximately the same level in a professional hierarchy.
These may take the form of faculty teams within a department,
cross-disciplinary projects, or collaboration among students. This is
contrasted with a more vertical model, which consists of researchers from
different hierarchical levels working together, such as faculty-student
collaboration or beginning faculty teaming with experienced members in a
department. These categories seem to exist not as mutually exclusive, but
rather as points on a continuum. Whereas an undergraduate working with a full
professor together on a project would constitute a strongly vertical
collaboration, professionals at different but similar places in a university
hierarchy could be viewed as a blend of the two extremes. Many of the benefits
of collaboration around research may be present in either model, but some are
more frequently found in one or the other.
Drawn
broadly, academic research benefits from collaboration in that the inclusion of
more people leads to a more well-rounded and holistic perspective (Bakas, Farran, & Williams, 2006). Different individuals have
different expertise to bring to the project (Bishop, 2014). Individuals also have
different networks of contacts, so by working as a collaborative team, the
access to potential holders of knowledge is greatly increased (Talja, 2002). This external collaboration
can be very beneficial, as it can increase connections to individual holders of
knowledge and resources exponentially. Enlarged networks are found to be
beneficial in many models as well as different stages of research collaboration
(Katerndahl, 2012).
Horizontal Collaboration
Horizontal
models of collaboration yield many specific advantages. A stable team working
in one conceptual area can produce many diverse products, from journal articles
to textbooks to policy documents (O’Connor & Marshall, 2010). With many different professionals
working around the same project, there are opportunities for individuals or
subgroups within that community to disseminate findings in many different ways.
An increase in publications and presentations is certainly a practical return,
but collaborative teams enhance the culture of a department or institution as
well. There is an increased sense of community, a decrease in personal
isolation, and a focus on scholarship that may not have previously been present
(Hampton-Farmer et al., 2013). Horizontal collaboration can
allow individuals to learn about and utilize others’ different areas of
expertise, instead of depending upon different levels of expertise in the same
area (Bishop, 2014). Whereas isolated researchers
lose the opportunity to learn from others, and may even end up doing duplicate
work, collaboration within an institution can minimize these possibilities (Cohen, Luekens, & McCorkle, 2011).
There
can certainly be challenges to horizontal collaboration as well. Clear and open
communication is vital in order to keep a research team on track (Mann et al., 2012). However, this may not always
be possible. Although technology can help with communication challenges, it can
be very difficult to get all team members to use the same systems (Böhm, Klas, & Hemmje, 2014). Personal but compatible
systems of communication and information sharing are more likely to foster ease
of communication rather than a prescribed system or scheme. Another possible
issue is related to the politics of credit and authorship. If all the people on
the team are in the same department, they may be working towards the same
professional goals and aspiring to the same finite number of positions. This
has the potential to create a political conflict (Bishop, 2014). There is also the challenge of individuals holding
different levels of commitment to a project or topic. Even if one finds the
work interesting, has a history of collaborating well with the team members,
and understands the importance of the topic, it can be difficult to engage with
and prioritize work on a project if a researcher does not truly feel deeply
about it. These different levels of inspiration can hinder success and make
forward progress on the project very difficult (Bishop, 2014).
Horizontal
collaborative teams progress through stages just as any working group. Katerndahl (2012) identifies a three phase
model of development. The initial development phase is characterized by an
increase in centralization and collaboration but a low level of internal
connectedness. Following this opening period, there is a maintenance phase
where collaboration in the team goes through cycles of increased and decreased
connectedness. These cycles can be effected by demand for publications,
personnel changes in the department, and changes in university policy. Finally,
the group enters a second development phase, where internal cohesion increases
and is solidified, while external collaboration increases as well. Collaborative
groups can also be viewed as passing through the four stages identified by
Wheelan (2013), staring with dependency and
inclusion, moving towards counterdependency and fight, reaching a trusting
phase, and finally emerging as a well-working high performing team that can
deal with conflict.
There
are a number of different models of horizontal collaboration. Larger research
teams may break down into smaller sub-units to take on individual projects or
papers (Ritchie & Rigano, 2007). Hampton-Farmer et al. (2013) described a writing group
structure, with weekly meetings run by a facilitator where more independent
researchers came together, shared resources, set goals, and reviewed each
others’ work. One interesting model explained by Dr. Penny Bishop (2014) was a
parallel structure, where she and a colleague worked at different research
sites using the same methods, and collaborated on analysis and writing. This
setup was ultimately successful.
Vertical Collaboration
Vertical
collaboration is not unique to the university setting, but that context does
provide many possibilities for these types of partnerships. Those with further
and alternate experiences can greatly help individuals new to the field. The
specific benefits are numerous. Everyone involved with the project gets a “step
up,” no matter what their level (Mann et al., 2012). Beginning researchers get
help with conducting the academic research process (Ritchie & Rigano, 2007). Motivation, productivity,
and access to resources can all show an increase (Mann et al., 2012).
Lei & Chuang (2009) identify many benefits
specific to the advisor / doctorate student collaboration model. The student
receives experienced advice, personal network connections, and help maneuvering
the political aspects of the institution and process. They also learn how to
take a project from inception to publication, they get to know useful
techniques related to the field, and their collaboration skills increase. The
student’s work has the opportunity to make a larger impact as well, since it is
tied to someone with experience in the field.
There
are a number of benefits for the advisor as well. They are able to pay forward
the benefits they received as a student (Ritchie & Rigano, 2007). Bishop (2014) spoke of how
fulfilling it is to help other people launch their own careers, as well as the
intellectual challenge that comes with the role. The advisor is also able to benefit from the
division of labor that comes with having a student researching and reporting
back specifically in their field (Lei & Chuang, 2009).
There
are some challenges that come specifically with vertical collaboration. Clear
and open communication may be a challenge, due to a power differential, be it
real or perceived (Mann et al., 2012). The interpersonal dynamic
may be awkward, and it can take time to figure out how the relationship works (Bishop, 2014). The student may end up doing
more work for less credit, and indeed may not be seen as a true research
collaborator (Lei & Chuang, 2009). Alternately, the person with
more experience may be seen only as an expert, and not as a true collaborator (Bishop, 2014). Finally, conflict may arise
around issues of authorship. Different doctoral advisors have different attitudes
and policies around who should be listed as the first author on
student-collaborated work. These differences may arise from their experience,
but may also result from institutional policies (Musoba, 2008). Further complicating matters
in the educational domain, the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
uses ambiguous language regarding student authorship: “A student is usually [emphasis added] listed as
principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially
derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.” (“AERA Code of Ethics,” 2011, p. 154). The recommendation, although
generally adhered to, is not universally applied (Musoba, 2008).
As
with many challenges with collaboration, clear communication can help to
minimize potential problems. Mann et al. (2012) suggest developing an action
plan from the beginning of the project, with timelines, due dates, and clearly
defined responsibilities. Bishop (2014) encourages thoughtful and sensitive
interactions to help build confidence. Regarding
authorship, the AERA suggests that “[e]ducation researchers specify the
criteria for making [authorship] determinations at the outset of the writing
process.” (“AERA Code of Ethics,” 2011, p. 154).
Personal Implications
Regarding
the larger benefits to me of this work, identifying these models helps me in my
professional life. Already I have collaborated in a number of different ways,
and can personally connect with some of the benefits and challenges
acknowledged here. Being able to name these issues should allow me to put into
place some of the recommendations to overcome them. Further, it was useful to think
about future possibilities of my own work, and how I may wish to collaborate in
the future. Whereas there still do remain some independent scholars, in my
experience the concept of collaboration in research is highly regarded, and
seems to be the norm. Engaging with different models of research collaboration,
at various points along the horizontal – vertical continuum, certainly seems to
be in my future.
References
AERA Code of Ethics: American Educational
Research Association Approved by the AERA Council February 2011. (2011). Educational
Researcher, 40(3), 145–156. doi:10.3102/0013189X11410403
Bakas, T.,
Farran, C. J., & Williams, L. S. (2006). Writing with a collaborative team.
Rehabilitation Nursing, 31(5), 222–224.
Bishop, P.
(2014, March 12). Interview.
Böhm, T.,
Klas, C.-P., & Hemmje, M. (2014). Collaborative Information Seeking in
Professional Work-Settings: A Study of Equipment Utilization. Datenbank-Spektrum,
14(1), 29–38. doi:10.1007/s13222-014-0145-2
Cohen, S.
S., Luekens, C., & McCorkle, R. (2011). Lessons Learned in Research,
Collaboration, and Dissemination in a National Institute of Nursing
Research-Funded Research Center. Journal of Professional Nursing, 27(3),
153–160. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2010.10.009
Hampton-Farmer,
C., Laverick, E., Denecker, C., Tulley, C. E., Diederich, N., & Wilgus, A.
(2013). Growing a Faculty Writing Group on a Traditionally Teaching-Focused
Campus: A Model for Faculty Development. The Journal of Faculty Development,
27(1), 56–62.
Katerndahl,
D. (2012). Evolution of the research collaboration network in a productive
department: Evolution of research collaboration network. Journal of
Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(1), 195–201.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01791.x
Lei, S.
A., & Chuang, N.-K. (2009). Research Collaboration and Publication During
Graduate Studies: Evaluating Benefits and Costs from Students’ Perspectives. College
Student Journal, 43(4), 1163–1168.
Mann, M.
B., Meyer, J. A., & Carney, R. N. (2012). Collaborating for Publication:
Suggestions for Those in the Early Childhood Profession. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 41(1), 39–44. doi:10.1007/s10643-012-0517-x
Musoba, G.
D. (2008). Writing across Power Lines: Authorship in Scholarly Collaborations. New
Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 22, 60–67.
O’Connor,
J., & Marshall, J. (2010). From Collaboration to Publication. The
Physics Teacher, 48(6), 408. doi:10.1119/1.3479723
Ritchie,
S. M., & Rigano, D. L. (2007). Solidarity through collaborative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(2), 129–150.
Talja, S.
(2002). Information sharing in academic communities: Types and levels of
collaboration in information seeking and use. New Review of Information
Behavior Research, 3(1), 143–159.
Wheelan,
S. A. (2013). Creating effective teams: a guide for members and leaders
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
No comments:
Post a Comment