This presentation was given for the defense of my doctoral dissertation in Higher Education Administration at Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, OH.
A Case Study of Collaborative Relationships Between Faculty and Student Affairs Professionals
1.
2. Examine the collaborative relationships of
faculty and student affairs professionals co-
teaching to help students learn.
Specific focus on
› individuals in collaboration
› how these relationships develop and function
Those designing collaborative partnerships
or in collaborative partnerships may use the
results of the study to better their
interactions to make the most of their
experiences.
3. For partnerships promoting student learning between faculty
and student affairs professionals:
How did their relationships develop and function?
How did their collaboration develop and function?
What was the interplay between collaboration and
relationship?
What did they experience by being in this partnership?
How did their collaboration affect student learning?
4. Relationships
› Research suggests that those in higher education are likely
to base collaboration on relationships over other reasons.
Vygotskian
› The Vygotskian framework considers the individual by
herself or himself, in interaction with another person, and in
interaction with history and culture and how all these
factors work together.
› The process of relationships is important in the Vygotskian
framework, not just the effects of collaboration.
› A Vygotskian framework demonstrates that individuals in
collaboration behave differently than individuals working
alone. Their interaction in and of itself—the relationship—is
of vital importance.
5. Constructivist Collective Case Study
Two Levels: Site & Participant Pairs
Criteria:
› Both Site (S) & Participant Pairs (PP) Focused on
Student Learning
› Both S & PP Collaborative
› PP = Student Affairs Prof. & Faculty Member
Three Semi-Structured Interviews: 1 Individual, 1
pair, 1 individual
6. Constructivist Collective Case Study
Two Levels: Site & Participant Pairs
Criteria:
› Both Site (S) & Participant Pairs (PP) Focused on
Student Learning
› Both S & PP Collaborative
› PP = Student Affairs Prof. & Faculty Member
Three Semi-Structured Interviews: 1 Individual, 1
pair, 1 individual
7. Demographic Participant Information
Category Number
Age 30 years old – 39 years old 3
40 years old – 49 years old 2
50 years old – 59 years old 2
60 years old – 69 years old 1
Gender Male 3
Female 5
Race/Ethnicity White/Caucasian 4
European American 1
African American 3
Prior Experience Teaching BGSU 1000 Yes 3
No 5
Years teaching/working at BGSU 1 year – 9 years 4
10 years – 19 years 3
20 years – 29 years 1
Years teaching/working in higher 1 year – 9 years 3
education 10 years – 19 years 1
20 years – 29 years 2
30 years – 39 years 2
12. Intentionality in building relationships and
collaboration
Foster discussion in collaborations
Make common goals clear
Roles may or may not be important
Adds to documentation about
collaboration
13. Other kinds of collaborative
relationships between faculty and
student affairs professionals
More clearly defined instructor roles
A follow-up examination
Vygotskian theory, co-teaching
literature, and other relevant
educational research
14. Prior relationships, commonalities (in
values, goals, background experiences,
and personality styles), developing
comfort and trust, were important to
good collaboration
Roles are influential, though not
necessarily in expected ways
Effective collaboration needs
intentionality and support
Relationships impact collaboration and
collaboration impacts relationships
Notas do Editor
Relationship happens when “two individuals create a set of shared experiences and understandings that are unique to them” (Schrage, 1995). Partnership and collaboration can be understood as types of relationships. Partnership is a formalized relationship (McKimm, Millard, & Held, 2008; Schrage, 1995). McKimm, Millard, and Held (2008) stated that partnership was a formalized “agreement between individuals or organizations to work together within the bounds of the agreement” (pp. 34-35). Collaboration is instead a purposive relationship (McKimm, et al., 2008; Schrage, 1995).Partnership describes an official working association wherein individuals benefit separately; collaboration describes a process of developing a common understanding to produce an outcome beneficial to the individuals separately and together. One term is about the structure, the other is about the process.
In considering a framework to study, I was especially interested in the relationships between the two partners in collaboration. Those who work in higher education may be more motivated by people than goals, management, or rewards (Birnbaum, 1988). Kezar (2005) created a model that demonstrated assessment, learning, and relationships were important to the process of collaboration. She found, however, that those in higher education were more likely to base collaboration on “well-developed relationships” (p. 856) than learning.
Will revisit the point of Student Affairs Professional & Faculty Member
Site = BGSU, BGSU 1000 – briefly explain
Points to note: Although only four pairs, a fairly broad range of characteristics
While my research questions guided the study, my participants did not talk about relationships and collaboration separately. Instead, there was a clearer distinction between the way relationships and collaboration developed and the way they functioned, so my findings are presented in that way. Prior Relationships: Two of the four pairs had prior relationships. Both these pairs believed that having a prior relationship benefited the development of their collaboration and relationship. Of the two other pairs, one believed that it influenced the development and one did not. Commonalties: All partners described that having commonalities influenced the development of their relationships and collaboration. Those commonalities that seemed most influential were common values, having a comon goal and having common background experiences and personality styles. Comfort and Trust: Both prior relationships and commonalities led to developing comfort and trust between partners. This comfort and trust helped participants develop relationship and further their collaboration.
In terms of how their relationships and collaboration functioned, there were three primary themes. Kinds: Participants said they their partnerships functioned in specific ways: collegially, as mentor-mentee, as family, and as friends. Roles: Roles were particularly interesting in this study. When I first set out to recruit participant pairs, I was seeking partnerships of one faculty member and one student affairs professional. As it turns out, not a single participant fit neatly into these roles. Those in the “instructor of record” – or faculty – role, were also administrators, or had backgrounds in student affairs, or were actually student affairs or academic affairs administrators with PhDs in the faculty position. Student Affairs instructors may have had backgrounds in academic affairs, or even said they identified more with faculty than with student affairs, or had PhDs and could be in the faculty role. While this may or may not have influenced the results (it IS possible that the results would have been the same), I believe there was likely an influence. So it is important to know this as we move forward in the discussion. So, participants described having “indistinct” roles. The faculty member may have discussed transitional issues or may have focused on applied knowledge, the student affairs professional may have taught the theme or content. All participants described these indistinct roles and all pairs but one said this benefited the functioning of their relationship and collaboration. Roles were also situational – in the day to day participants filled in where needed. It was also important for some participants to have equal power in their roles. Communication influenced how relationships and collaboration functioned. Most pairs had an initial discussion and then worked off of assumptions throughout the rest of their time together. And there was overlap and compartmentalization in discussion. Some pairs only talked about BGSU 1000 items in the classroom or in designated work times and their personal relationship outside of the classroom. For others they talked about their personal and professional relationship in both areas.
In considering the interplay between collaboration and relationship, participants discussed the importance of time. Participants noted that more time for their collaboration improved their relationship and more time with their relationship improved their collaboration. Simply put, relationships impacted collaboration and collaborations impacted relationshipsParticipants also described being able to do more together than they would have been able to do individually. Moreover, participants described improvements in their individual work based on their work together.
Of the four pairs studies, one pair had what they described as a difficult collaboration. In terms of the development of their collaboration and relationship, while most pairs discussed how having a prior relationship, or commonalities (including values, goals, and backgrounds/styles) and comfort/trust, this pair did not. In terms of fuctionality, time together did not improve their collaboration or relationship. They believed that not having a good collaboration affected their relationship and not having a good relationship affected their collaboration. Moreover, one of the participants in that pair suggested he would have been able to achieve more by himself than in partnership. Their case serves as a negative case study in many ways, in that what those characteristics that benefited the more successful collaboration were not existent in that collaboration.