Research Collaborations: Reflection and the Creation of Thought Communities
Regina Garza Mitchell, Pamela Eddy, Brigitte Bechtold
Session Objectives:
1. To examine research conducted to date regarding faculty research collaborations.
2. To investigate the role of critical reflection within faculty research teams.
3. To examine how the creation of thought communities may be fostered and to discuss how
this group functionality aids research.
4. To share best practices in research regarding faculty collaborations.
Background
Colleges and universities are pushing for collaborations and partnerships as a means to increase
efficiency and address external demands, resulting in expansion of current faculty roles. From an
institutional perspective, collaborations are viewed as a means of enhancing productivity as
opposed to a mechanism for generating new knowledge. Collaborations occur when there is a
need to produce a product (Creamer, 2005), but they also provide opportunities for
transformative learning and the construction of new knowledge. Current faculty reward
structures for promotion and tenure, however, often do not value collaborative research, placing
higher importance on solo efforts (Austin & Baldwin, 1991; Creamer, 2005). Understanding
more about how faculty members approach collaborations from a learning perspective is
important, especially if these forms of collaborations may in fact detract from single authored
scholarship or be viewed negatively by promotion and tenure committees. The research reported
out in this roundtable concerns an interdisciplinary faculty research team that initially convened
to conduct research around issues of gender but discovered that the development of a thought
community to explore the intentional construction of knowledge in a group setting took on equal
importance. This roundtable will explore the role of critical reflection within this faculty
collaboration and discuss best practices, team and individual outcomes, and institutional issues
for consideration to foster such communities of inquiry.
Starting Questions:
Before we begin, we would first like to have participants answer two questions:
1. What are your conceptions of research and collaboration?
2. Please share your experiences working in research collaborations, including disciplinary
differences, status differentials, and role assignments.
Research Findings*:
Our research produced two main findings:
*
Findings reported here are culled from a larger article (Hinck, Garza Mitchell, Williamson,
Eddy, & Bechtold, 2009). http://tljournal.aero.und.edu/index.php/tljournal/article/view/192/54
Finding #1: Group Space—A Multifaceted Construct
The research team deliberately cultivated relationships, and over time a unique group
space developed where ideas flowed freely and members became energized and enthused.
As trust was built among members, the group space also provided personal and
professional support as well. Group meetings became a place where members could talk,
think, and share. Ideas for personal and group research were conceptualized and
expanded upon. Elements that contributed to the group space included:
 Relationship building
 Trust
 Crossing boundaries/spanning bridges
 Team tensions
o Hierarchies
o Time
o Other barriers to successful collaboration
Finding #2: Redefining Intellectual Community
After the first year of working together, the group individually and collectively reflected
on our experiences to date. That was the starting point for rethinking the meaning of
intellectual community. In forming a group identity, we purposefully discussed how past
collaborations had functioned and critically questioned our assumptions about how
collaborations were expected to work and how we thought that they should work. These
discussions caused us to recognize a shift to a thinking community (John-Steiner, 2000)
as opposed to merely another research group.
Critical Reflection and Collaboration
This model illustrates the processes we went through in creating a thought community. It is
important to note that there are notable differences between developing a thought community
and merely collaborating on research. While both endeavors have value, developing a thought
community requires much more intentionality and has longer lasting rewards.
Group: Review of the model and discussion prompts:

In what ways can faculty research teams be supported? Departmentally?
Institutionally? Disciplinary Professions?

How can faculty seek out research collaborations that work?

What is the role of collaborative research in tenure and promotion decisions?

What contributes to sustaining faculty collaborations?
The collective thinking at the roundtable will be compiled and shared with participants after the
conference as a means to continue the conversation and advance research on faculty research
collaborations.
References
Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of
scholarship and teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC:
George Washington University.
Creamer, E. G. (2005). Promoting the effective evaluation of collaboratively produced
scholarship: A call to action. In E. G. Creamer & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing faculty
learning through interdisciplinary collaboration. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning, (102), (pp. 85-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hinck, S. S., Garza Mitchell, R.L., Williamson, P., Eddy, P.L., & Bechtold, B.B. (2009,
Summer). Reflection and research: Forming the perfect FIT. Teaching & Learning:
Journal of Natural Inquiry & Reflective Practice, 23(3), 120-133.
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Recommended Reading
Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of
scholarship and teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Washington, DC:
George Washington University.
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creamer, E. G. (2005a). Promoting the effective evaluation of collaboratively produced
scholarship: A call to action. In E. G. Creamer & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing faculty
learning through interdisciplinary collaboration. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning, (102), (pp. 85-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creamer, E. G. (2005b). Insight from multiple disciplinary angles: A case study of an
interdisciplinary research team. In E. G. Creamer & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing
faculty learning through interdisciplinary collaboration. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning, (102), (pp. 37-44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creamer, E. G. (2004). Assessing outcomes of long-term research collaboration. The Canadian
Journal of Higher Education, 34, 27-46.
Damrosch, D. (2000). Meetings of the mind. Princeton University Press.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2006). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s
strategic imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Faculty work as learning: Insights from theories of cognition. In E. G.
Creamer & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing faculty learning through interdisciplinary
collaboration. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, (102), (pp. 13-21). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lattuca, L. R., & Creamer, E. G. (Eds.). (2005). Learning as professional practice. In E. G.
Creamer & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Advancing faculty learning through interdisciplinary
collaboration. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, (102), (pp. 3-11). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Milam, P. (2005). The power of reflection in the research process. School Library Media
Activities Monthly, 21(6), 26-29.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York : Oxford University Press.
Stevens, D. D., & Cooper, J. E. (2002). Reflecting on your journey: How to keep a
professional/personal journal. In J. E. Cooper & D. D. Stevens Tenure in the sacred
grove: Issues and strategies for women and minority faculty (pp. 203-224). Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.