Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Quest
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
QUEST, 2005, 57, 300-314
2005 National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education
Faculty members mindful of the ticking tenure and promotion clock seek ways
to balance the competing and sometimes overwhelming demands of research,
teaching, and service. One way to balance these demands is to find opportunities
for collaboration with colleagues, especially in the area of research. There are
several compelling reasons to pursue joint research projects with colleagues;
however, there are also difficulties inherent in the collaboration process. This
article will discuss the benefits and challenges of working on collaborative
research projects with colleagues from the same discipline as well as across
disciplines. As members of a team actively involved in several research projects
and presentations, we use our own experiences to discuss effective strategies
of collaboration.
300
COLLABORATION 301
such as health care (Krueger, Nelson, & Wolanin, 1978; Pinto, Pinto, & Prescott,
1993), technology (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Hansen, 1995; Magjuka & Baldwin,
1991; Martz, Vogel, & Nunamker, 1992; Schrage, 1990), the humanities (Inman,
Reed & Sands, 2004), research and development (Meehan, Wiersma, & Riffle,
2002), police and military (Brewer, Wilson, & Beck, 1994; Eden, 1990), education
(Adams & Hamm, 1990; Gance, 1998; Lantner, 2003; Leslie, 2002; ODonnell,
DuRussel, & Derry, 1997), and sport and physical activity (Butki & Andersen,
1994; Knoppers, 1989; Lutz & Ransdell, 2003). Both small and large-scale
organizations are increasingly using teams to accomplish the varied tasks and
work of the organization (Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004; Stewart, Manz, &
Sims, 1999; Sundstrom, 1990). Working with others is an essential skill in todays
business world. As a consequence, organizations are actively seeking job candidates
who possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed to function in many
different types of teams (Chen et al., 2004; Stevens & Campion, 1994).
Perhaps what is most surprising is that the very same concepts and processes
of leadership and teamwork we strive to develop in our students and classrooms
are the challenges we face when working on collaborative projects with colleagues.
These challenges may be attributed to the fact that as academicians, most of our
educational experiences have been solitary pursuits. Beginning with the dissertation
process and continuing through tenure, we are accustomed to working individually
and holding ourselves accountable. Yet, working on collaborative research projects
can give us the opportunity to experience both the advantages and challenges
inherent in the collaboration process. Further, reflecting on this process can benefit
us as educators and provide us with insights concerning the challenges faced by
students as they work on team projects.
The purpose of this article is to develop an operational definition of
collaboration, mindful of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary teamwork
possibilities. We also aim to present strategies for effective collaboration from the
perspective of faculty members involved in research teams while also pointing
out the difficulties inherent in most collaborative work. As we have seen, a
well-developed collegial network can enhance continued productivity . . . by
providing resources, division of labor, networks for sharing ideas, and social
support . . . (Knoppers, 1989, p. 160), but these positive outcomes do not occur
without negotiation and effective leadership.
Our discussion begins with an overview of the literature related to research
on teams in an organizational context as well as the sociology of the collaborative
research process in higher education. We then discuss the importance of creating
a research plan when working on collaborative research projects so that tasks and
responsibilities are negotiated and clearly understood by the members of the team.
302 DAPRANO ET AL.
We assess intra and interdisciplinary teams and how these different approaches
impact the collaborative process. We evaluate the impact of internal and external
environmental contexts on individual researchers and thus the team. In addition, we
explain potential obstacles to the integrative process and how our research team has
attempted to deal with these obstacles. In our conclusion, we detail the individual
and team benefits of collaboration. Throughout this article, we use examples from
our own experiences as a relatively large research team to illustrate the concepts
of team and collaboration.
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
The Literature
As we work with colleagues on research projects, we have come to find our
knowledge base in organizational behavior, and the sociology of education has aided
in our understanding of and ability to work effectively in a team context. Also,
we have found that there is considerable overlap between these two disciplines
in terms of approaches to teams and the collaborative process. For these reasons,
we have chosen to focus on those two strands of literature as they relate to our
situations as researchers.
Organizational Behavior
In the organizational behavior literature, the terms team and group are
used interchangeably, with some authors referring to teams as reflecting a more
integrated group (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In general though, a team can be
defined as this:
A collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks,
who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and
who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in
one or more larger social systems (for example, business unit
or the corporation), and who manage their relationships across
organizational boundaries. (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 241)
A review of the literature also indicates teams can be characterized as work,
parallel, project, and management teams. Employees working in these teams need to
have both interpersonal (i.e., conflict resolution, collaborative problem solving, and
communication) and self-management (i.e., goal setting, performance management,
planning and task management) KSAs (Stevens & Campion, 1994) to succeed.
Collaborative processes within a team context consist of dynamic, interwoven,
and disciplined exchanges of knowledge and information, participative decision
making, and cocreated solutions to emerging problems. This process rests on a
culture of shared responsibility, authority, and accountability for results (Beyerlein,
Freedman, McGee, & Moran, 2003). In our experience, we have found that the
process is impacted by the creation of an agreed upon research plan, team dynamics,
environmental factors, and the integrative process whereby we negotiate issues of
status, gender, and leadership.
There are several benefits of using collaborative teams in research and more
complex projects (Endersby, 1996; Katz & Martin, 1997; Hoegl & Gemeunden,
2001). Indeed, Endersby (1996) asserts, the advancement of science requires
COLLABORATION 303
shared knowledge (p. 390). These benefits can be categorized as individual (how
the researchers benefit) and team outcomes (how the quality and quantity of the
project increases). Each member of the team can learn a set of research skills and
competencies from others through collaborative problem solving processes. They
also develop a deeper understanding of the cultural and philosophical backgrounds
of diverse team members thereby allowing for the creation of a cohesive team
identity. Second, teams generate quality project outcomes (quality papers and
presentations) by using each members strengths and expertise. In addition, each
team member benefits individually by becoming more productive as a researcher
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
Sociology of Education
Although there are many benefits to teamwork and the collaborative
process, members of a research team must confront the complexities of working
collaboratively to generate an outcome that satisfies all members of the team. Gance
to the other end of the spectrum where the possibility for the transformation
of boundariesa restructuring of knowledge, not just an avenue to build better
bridges for problem solving [occurs] (p. 2). However, to progress to this level
of collaboration, an understanding of the research plan, team dynamics, the
organizational context, and integrative process must exist. The next several sections
discuss these four elements of collaboration using examples from our experiences
as a large evolving research team.
Selecting a Topic
Selecting a research topic can occur in a variety of ways based on the expertise
and interests of the members of the group.
Most studies originate when a person notices a gap in the
literature, becomes puzzled by something associated with his
or her job, or becomes interested in explaining or testing a
proposition suggested by some theory. Although one person may
first propose the study, collaborators often take the germinal idea
and develop it to the point that a feasible research study emerges.
(Winston, 1985, p. 516)
Since the various members of our research team have different areas of
expertise, we have been able to select topics that are generally of interest and
relevant to all members of the group. These topics have coalesced around the issues
faced by new tenure track faculty such as searching for a tenure track position,
COLLABORATION 305
Setting a Timeline
Setting a timeline becomes an important issue when dealing with a large
number of individuals and when the members of the team do not work in close
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
proximity. Our research team is large (8-10 people), fluctuates from project to
project, is based on individual members work and family situations, and until
recently, no two members worked at the same institution. A timeline serves to keep
the team focused on the project and allows members the flexibility to set aside time
to work on the project as their individual schedules permit. In addition, the timeline
should include the assignment of accountability so that various responsibilities are
clearly spelled out in advance.
One of the most challenging aspects of working on a research team, particularly
when members are located across the country, is depending on others to complete
their work so that the project as a whole can move forward. This issue has been most
challenging with our research team because several team members work at teaching
intensive universities. In these institutions, faculty members responsibilities include
teaching 3-4 classes per semester, which often means teaching every day of the
week, and extensive undergraduate advising responsibilities requiring additional
time outside of the classroom. However, it should also be noted that collaborative
projects greatly benefit faculty at teaching intensive universities. The workload in
collaborative projects is distributed among several individuals and a presentation
and/or publication still results unlike what would be a more time consuming
taskpresenting or publishing alone.
In addition, since all but one member of our research team is an untenured
faculty member, the various demands on our time because of teaching loads, research
expectations, and committee assignments can sometimes seem overwhelming.
Further, all of us are attempting to balance family and work responsibilities. All
of our team members are married or partnered, and several members have recently
begun families.
As with most academics, we feel the challenge to stay on schedule with our
projects. In terms of our project team, we initially decided to submit a symposium
proposal to a professional conference. There was a flurry of work to be done in
November when the proposal was submitted and then again several months before
the actual conference. Much of the ensuing work was accomplished through e-mail
and a few phone calls as each member worked independently on his/her respective
portion of the presentation. Our second attempt to work together resulted in a few
unanticipated difficulties with timelines as we have tried to move from merely
presenting our ideas in a symposium format to fleshing the presentation out into a
publishable article. Since there is no enforced deadline for finishing the article
like there is for a conference presentation, this article was completed just before
the next conference and during the time we were preparing for our third conference
presentation.
306 DAPRANO ET AL.
Internal Factors
The impact of internal organizational factors on a research team that includes
members from multiple universities focuses on institutional mission (research or
teaching), management (institutional leadership), resources (availability of grant
dollars, graduate assistants, release time), systems processes (expectations and
rewards regarding teaching, research, service), and structure (state or private
308 DAPRANO ET AL.
External Factors
External organizational factors also play a role in impacting project or multi-
institutional research teams. The external environment includes economic, societal,
and technological factors affecting universities and colleges across the country.
Many universities are facing budget decreases due to . . . state budget shortfalls,
increasing enrollments, the escalating costs of health insurance and utilities, and
lower returns on endowments (Meline, 2003, p. A12). Decreased university
funding from the state and federal government generally impacts the research
efforts of faculty members by decreasing money available for research projects (e.g.,
decreased availability of internal grant money and in-kind services) and travel to
professional conferences. Economic factors have impacted our collaborative efforts,
especially regarding travel to conferences where the entire group has submitted a
presentation, and all members are therefore expected to attend.
In more general terms, societal expectations have also increased as taxpayers
and politicians are increasingly demanding greater accountability for how dollars
are spent in both public and private institutions of higher education. These demands
have led to greater competition for research grants and the stricter administration of
grant dollars. Finally, the rate of technological change impacts universities and the
research process as new computer programs have allowed researchers to employ
emerging methods of conducting research such as online surveys and focus groups
(Burton & Bruening, 2003).
but in a social context (p. 159). Her empirical investigation of authorship of sport-
related publications yielded results indicating that while men and women published
similar numbers of articles, men tended to publish collaboratively more often than
do women. Additionally, when women were members of mixed gender collaborative
publishing efforts, they were less likely to be lead author (Knoppers, 1989). By
being aware of the gendered implications of collaborative work, groups can better
merge the perspectives, knowledge, and skills of diverse partners (Weiss et al.,
2002, p. 684) to create synergy.
Our team membership, when examined by gender, is skewed slightly toward
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
a higher female representation (5 women and 4 men for this document). We have
made an effort to rotate responsibilities for our products, both presentations and
manuscripts, between genders conscious of the gendered division of labor. We have
found that men and women can work together in effective teams that are productive,
maintain positive intragroup relationships, and adapt to differing perspectives in
ways that improve effectiveness (ODonnell et al., 1997, p. 5).
Leadership
In addition to the influence of gender and status of team members on the
integrative process, leadership plays a significant role. Weiss et al. (2002) proposed
a model of factors that lead to partnership synergy. This model can be adapted to
our collaborative team and the challenges we have faced in creating a synergistic
relationship. First, we share leadership from project to project based on the expertise
of the individuals in the team, but overall leadership remains with the common
advisor we share from our doctoral program. Administration and management is
handled through a division of labor on all projects with deference to individual
areas of expertise as well as a concern for efficiency in understanding of others
workloads and timing of deadlines in order to eliminate wasted time. We rely on
our non-financial resources such as knowledge-based capital and our individual
and collective networks.
Fortunately for our team, we have the benefit of coming from the same
doctoral program working under the same advisor. While integrating our ideas and
means to achieve results from those ideas is never a simple task, the understanding
we have of each others styles and the leadership we gain from our mentor make
the integrative process flow more smoothly. Where others might have difficulties
negotiating collaboration and executive control (Gance, 1998, p. 4), our mentor
provides the structure by assuming executive control should we need to call on
her for guidance. However, she also allows the collaborative group of her former
students to take the lead in the hands-on preparation of presentation and manuscripts.
We are a work team empowered to produce while at the same time being aware
that we have a resource in our mentor should we struggle with the direction of our
collaborative efforts or need intercession in order to solve any disagreements in
that direction.
That is not to say that the team does not face Weiss et al.s (2002) challenges
with partner involvement. We do engage with diverse members as we select leaders
for each project as well as plan the concepts to be examined in future projects,
however we do think and work differently. Periodically we have to remind ourselves
of the benefits of that intellectual and operational diversity as we attempt to foster
310 DAPRANO ET AL.
Conclusion
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
Make use of the various technologies that are now available to assist with
the collaboration process, especially e-mail, conference calling, and applications
such as Quickplace, a collaboration tool that provides researchers the opportunity
to post documents on-line for review and editing by other team members. Finally,
provide an opportunity for team members to assess and renegotiate the collaborative
process if the collaboration is ongoing such as is the case with our particular project
team. Table 1 summarizes these suggestions regarding collaborative research in a
list of the necessary components and potential benefits of collaboration from our
research teams perspective.
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
When done effectively, the collaborative process can enhance both the
researcher and the research. The researcher benefits from the support provided by
other team members, a better understanding of diverse perspectives, and an increased
set of skills learned from other members. Perhaps more importantly, the utilization
of diverse and specialized talents maximizes the researchers effectiveness resulting
in stronger research with the potential to contribute more to the field.
References
Adams, D.M., & Hamm, M.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and
collaboration across the curriculum. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Ancona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-
665.
Anderson, R.S., & Puckett, J.B. (2003). Assessing students problem-solving assignments.
New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 95, 81-87.
Beckett, J., & Grant, N.K. (2003). Guiding students toward solutions in field experiences.
New Directions for Teaching & Learning, 95, 67-72.
Bennett, N., & Kidwell, R.E., Jr. (2001). The provision of effort in self-designing work
groups: The case of collaborative research. Small Group Research, 32, 727-744.
Beyerlein, M.M., Freedman, S., McGee, C., & Moran, L. (2003). Beyond teams: Building
the collaborative organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Brewer, N., Wilson, C., & Beck, K. (1994). Supervisory behavior and team performance
amongst police patrol sergeants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67, 69-79.
Burton, L., & Bruening, J. (2003). Methodology and technology intersect in the on-line
focus group. Quest, 55, 315-327.
Butki, B., & Andersen, M. (1994). Mentoring in sport psychology: Students perceptions
of training in publication and presentation guidelines. The Sport Psychologist, 8,
143-148.
Chen, G., Donahue, L.M., & Klimoski, R.J. (2004). Training undergraduates to work in
organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 27-40.
Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
Crase, D., & Rosato, F. (1992). Single versus multiple authorship in professional journals.
JOPERD, 63(7) 28-31.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches.
Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Eden, D. (1990). Pygmalion without interpersonal contrast effects: Whole groups gain from
raising manager expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 394-398.
COLLABORATION 313
Endersby, J.W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship
and publication credit, 77, 375-392.
Fowler, Jr., A.R., Bushardt, S.C., & Brooking, S.A. (1985). An analysis of the authorship
in management-oriented journals: The relationship between school status, article
type, publication outlet, and author academic position. The Journal of Business
Communication, 22(3), 25-36.
Gance, L. (1998). Understanding interdisciplinary teamwork: Challenges for research and
practice. National Institute for Science Education Workshop Report. Available at
http://www.edrs.com/members/sp.cfm?AN=ED472764
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
Hansen, C.J. (1995). Writing the project team: Authority and intertextuality in a corporate
setting. The Journal of Business Communication, 32, 103-122.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative
projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12,
435-449.
Hung, W., Bailey, J.H., Jonassen, D.H. (2003). Exploring the tensions of problem-based
learning: Insights from research. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95,
13-23.
Inman, J., Reed, C., & Sands, P. (2004). Electronic collaboration in the humanities: Issues
and options. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Katz, J.S., & Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26,
1-18.
Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance
organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Knoppers, A. (1989). Productivity and collaborative patterns of physical educators. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 159-164.
Kronley, R. & Handley, C. (2001). Framing the field: Professional development
in context. Finance Project. Available at http://www.edrs.com/members/
sp.cfm?AN=ED472667
Knowlton, D. & Sharp, D. (2003). Problem-based learning in the information age. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krueger, J., Nelson, A., & Wolanin, M. (1978). Nursing research: Development, collaboration,
and utilization. Germantown, MD: Aspen Systems Corp.
Lantner, M. (2003). Exploring teacher efficacy: Teachers perceptions of the influence of
collaboration and empowerment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Connecticut.
Leslie, D.W. (2002, November). Thinking big: The state of scholarship on higher education.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Sacramento, CA.
Lussier, R.N., & Kimball, D. (2004). Sport management: Principles, applications, skill
development. Mason, OH: Southwestern.
Lutz, R., & Ransdell, L. (2003). Preparing future faculty: Contributions to the job search
and life as a junior faculty member. Quest, 55, 62-71.
Magjuka, R.J., & Baldwin, T.T. (1991). Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects
of design and administration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 793-812.
Martz, W.B., Jr., Vogel, R.R., & Nunamker, J.F., Jr. (1992). Electronic meeting systems:
Results from the field. Decision Support Systems, 8, 141-158.
Meehan, M.L., Wiersma, W., & Riffle, M.J.S. (2002). Collaborative partnerships between
educational organizations: Extent of independence-interdependence and satisfaction
with collaboration. (Report No. BBB35660). Charleston, WV: AEL, Inc.
314 DAPRANO ET AL.
Meline, M. (2003, December 19). Tuition: Rising expenses will lead to higher prices.
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A12.
ODonnell, A., DuRussel, L., & Derry, S. (1997). Cognitive processes in interdisciplinary
groups: Problems and possibilities. Research monograph. Madison, WI: National
Institute for Science Education.
Olafson, G. (1995). Sport management research: Ordered change. Journal of Sport
Management, 9, 338-345.
Paulus, P., & Nijstad, B. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014
Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., & Prescott, J.E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project
team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, 1281-1297.
Robinson, D. & Balkwell, J. (1995). Density, transivity, and diffuse status in task-oriented
groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 241-254.
Robinson, D. & Smith-Lovin, L. (1992). Selective interaction as a strategy for identity
maintenance: An affect-control model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 12-28.
Rudney, G. & Guillaume, A. (2003). Maximum mentoring: An action guide for teacher
trainers and cooperating teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Schrage, M. (1990). Shared minds: New technologies of collaboration. New York: Random
House.
Slack, T. (1991). Sport management: Some thoughts on future directions. Journal of Sport
Management, 5, 95-99.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport
management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97-105.
Sjolander, S. (1985). Long-term and short-term interdisciplinary work: Difficulties, pitfalls,
and built-in failures. In L. Levin & I. Lind (Eds.), Interdisciplinary revisited (pp. 85-
101). Stockholm, Sweden: OECD/CERI, SNUBC, Linkoping University.
Stewart, G.L., Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P., Jr. (1999). Teamwork and group dynamics. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for
teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management,
20, 503-530.
Sundstrom, E. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist,
45, 120-33.
Thompson-Klein, J. (1990). Interdisciplinary. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Weiss, E., Anderson, R., & Lasker, R. (2002). Making the most of collaboration: Exploring
the relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. Health
Education & Behavior, 29, 683-698.
Weiss, R. (2003). Designing problems to promote higher-order thinking. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 95, 25-31.
Winston, R. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research
publications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 515-518.