Collaborating on Research Within and Across Groups
by Janet Salmons, PhD, Research Community Manager for SAGE Methodspace and author of two books on collaboration: Learning to Collaborate, Collaborating to Learn and Reframing and Rethinking Collaboration in Higher Education and Beyond with Narelle Lemon.
Collaboration is a Methodspace focus for October 2022. We are looking at the various types of collaboration that engage researchers and academic writers. When we start a collaborative research project, it is helpful to consider where our partners are coming from in regard to cultures, norms, and expectations. Most types of field work, action research, or ethnography involve accessing research sites and working closely with gatekeepers to reach participants. For other types of studies we might need to collaborate with co-researchers, co-writers, or other stakeholders to complete the project.
What is collaboration? We'll define it as: "an interactive process that engages two or more participants who work together to achieve outcomes they could not accomplish independently."
One premise for the ideas I am sharing here is that “collaboration” is not a single activity, but a series of processes with associated skills. Another premise is that advanced thinking, strategizing, and planning can improve the likelihood of success. Let's start by contrasting experiences within a group, intra-group collaboration, or across groups, inter-group collaboration. I am using the word group loosely here to describe an educational institution, organization, discipline, sector, culture, community, social class, or other assembly of people with shared characteristics.
Inter or Intra-group collaboration
With intra-group collaboration, we begin with common foundations. We know the norms and cultures of the group. We have a set of implicit assumptions about how we can and should work together, including ways to communicate, make decisions, and determine goals. We can more readily trust collaborative partners in a familiar setting.
If we operate in the same field or discipline, we have probably read the same seminal literature, know about respected theories and concepts, and frequently-used research methodologies. We can find a starting point for a new project without taking the time to develop the background for the study.
If we work in the same institution or organization, we know the leadership, management, or power structure, and who to go to for permissions or approvals. We understand the mission, purpose, and parameters that we need to work within. We most likely have access to the same kinds of communications technologies and tools. We have a common language; we know the acronyms without spelling them out. And importantly, we probably have similar ways of knowing, ways of thinking, and ways to solve problems.
When embarking on an inter-group collaboration, we need to consider differences in cultures, expectations, values, and norms. We need to think about which approaches to communication, decision-making, and problem-solving are acceptable to all collaborative partners.
We need to define the purpose for the collaborative project, set shared goals, and define expectations. We might need some time to get up to speed with a partner from another field or discipline, to gain at least a basic understanding of their ways of knowing.
We must find our common language. Even working with other English-speakers, who technically share the same language, I've found it interesting to discover that the terminology can be quite different in other organizations or disciplines. In such cases we needed to create a sort of shared glossary. When working across languages such decisions are even more complex.
The ways we use language can be different across cultures. First names or formal titles, Janet or Dr. Salmons? Self-selected pronouns are important to some people but might be unfamiliar to others. Humor is often culturally-grounded, so what seems hysterically funny to us might fall flat or be offensive to someone from another culture.
To figure out how we will come together, we have to decide how and when to communicate. For example:
To what extent should we plan for synchronous exchanges, whether face-to-face meetings, conference calls, or videoconferencing? Or do disparate time zones make synchronous exchanges impractical?
When we communicate asynchronously, when should we expect a response? Should an email be acknowledged within an hour, a day, or what?
Do all partners have broadband, do any partners have limitations on the kinds of technologies to use? For example, some university or school computers don't allow videoconferencing tools that rely on a download in order to access them, or have limitations on the kinds of shared folders or collaborative tools they can use outside their firewalls.
As a basic rule of thumb, assume that the greater the differentiation between groups represented by collaborative partners, the more time will be needed to plan and prepare. This post describes some of the points to think about from the outset, in order to avoid confusion or discord that derail a collaborative project. When all partners feel comfortable with the process, they can focus on the substance of the work at hand. When common expectations are set, they can begin to build the trust that helps make collaboration not only productive, but also fun!
More Methodspace Posts about Collaboration
Learning while doing: collaborating on a book about collaboration.