This article was downloaded by: [SDSU San Diego State University]

On: 28 December 2014, At: 05:58

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Quest
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uqst20

Collaboration in Sport Research: A

Case From the Field
a b
Corinne M. Daprano , Jennifer E. Bruening , Donna L.
c d e
Pastore , T. Christopher Greenwell , Marlene A. Dixon ,
f g h
Yong Jae Ko , Jeremy S. Jordan , Sonja K. Lilienthal &
i
Brian A. Turner
a
University of Dayton, Department of Health and Sport
Science , Dayton , OH , 45469-1210 E-mail:
b
Kinesiology Dept , University of Connecticut
c
School of Physical Activity of Ed. Services at The Ohio State
University
d
Dept. of Health & Sport Sciences , University of Louisville
e
Dept. of Kinesiology & Health Ed. , University of Texas
f
Dept. of Ed. Leadership & Counseling Psychology ,
Washington State University
g
School of Education at the University of Miami
h
Dept. of Human Perf , San Jose State University
i
School of Physical Activity & Ed. Serv , The Ohio State
University
Published online: 20 Apr 2012.

To cite this article: Corinne M. Daprano , Jennifer E. Bruening , Donna L. Pastore , T.

Christopher Greenwell , Marlene A. Dixon , Yong Jae Ko , Jeremy S. Jordan , Sonja K. Lilienthal
& Brian A. Turner (2005) Collaboration in Sport Research: A Case From the Field, Quest, 57:3,
300-314, DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2005.10491859

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2005.10491859

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

Collaboration in Sport Research:

A Case From the Field
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

Corinne M. Daprano, Jennifer E. Bruening,

Donna L. Pastore, T. Christopher Greenwell,
Marlene A. Dixon, Yong Jae Ko, Jeremy S. Jordan,
Sonja K. Lilienthal, and Brian A. Turner

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.

Scholars addressing the concepts of teaching and learning in higher education

believe students must not only learn the theories and concepts of their discipline but
also develop leadership, teamwork, and critical thinking skills (Anderson & Puckett,
2003; Beckett & Grant, 2003; Hung, Bailey, & Jonassen, 2003; Knowlton & Sharp,
2003; Rudney & Guillaume, 2003; Weiss, 2003). The importance of these skills is
highlighted in the sport and physical activity related fields. In these fields, students
are preparing to enter professions emphasizing both the theoretical understanding
and practical application of classroom learning and research to daily interactions

Corinne M. Daprano is with the University of Dayton, Department of Health and

Sport Science, Dayton, OH 45469-1210. E-mail: corinne.daprano@notes.udayton.edu.
Jennifer E. Bruening is with the Kinesiology Dept. at the University of Connecticut. Donna
L. Pastore is with the School of Physical Activity of Ed. Services at The Ohio State University.
T. Christopher Greenwell is with the Dept. of Health & Sport Sciences at the University of
Louisville. Marlene A. Dixon is with the Dept. of Kinesiology & Health Ed. at the University
of Texas. Yong Jae Ko is with the Dept. of Ed. Leadership & Counseling Psychology at
Washington State University. Jeremy S. Jordan is with the School of Education at the
University of Miami. Sonja K. Lilienthal is with the Dept. of Human Perf. at San Jose State
University. Brian A. Turner is with the School of Physical Activity & Ed. Serv. at The Ohio
State University.

300
 COLLABORATION 301

with people, groups of people, and organizations. A perfunctory examination of

the most recent sport and physical activity conferences across North America
reveals that many of the teaching and learning presentations emphasized some
type of teamwork experience (North American Society for Sport Management,
NASSM; American Alliance for Health Physical Education Recreation and Dance,
AAPHERD; National Association for Sport and Physical Education, NASPE; and
National Recreation and Parks Association, NRPA).
In fact, we know from the organizational behavior literature that the adoption
of a teamwork approach in management extends across many different industries
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

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

(e.g., number of papers published, efficiency in manuscript production).

An illustration of the linkage between the collaborative process and successful
project outcomes is depicted in a theoretical model developed and tested by Hoegl
and Gemuenden (2001). These researchers conducted a study of the relationship
between Teamwork Quality (TWQ) and the success of innovative projects in 145
German software teams. Their model focuses on one process component, teamwork
quality, and two outcome components, team performance and personal success.
After assessing the results of their study, Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001) concluded
that team performance and personal success were positively related to teamwork
quality. In fact, the researchers believe that as tasks get more innovative, TWQ
becomes increasingly important to team performance (p. 446). Figure 1 depicts
the research collaboration we have been discussing in this section and exemplifies
how our research team has approached this collaborative process using a systems
(i.e., input, transformative process, outcome) approach.

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

Figure 1 Research collaboration using a systems approach.

 304 DAPRANO ET AL.

(1998) conveys the complexity inherent in collaboration in her explanation of the

levels or ranges of definitions for the process. Collaboration can be the simple
communication of ideas where individual expertise is utilized and evaluated on a
solitary basis to situations where responsibilities are shared equally by all in a
full partnership (Gance, 1998, p. 2).
Somewhere in the middle of those two extremes collaboration denotes
integration of ideas and understanding around a core problem (p. 2). Outcomes
of collaboration can include simply dividing tasks among members of a team so
as to attempt to more efficiently produce results or aid in the research workload,
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

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.

The Research Plan

Academic research teams most closely resemble self-designed work groups
in their structure. Self-designed work groups cooperatively determine their
membership, manage their own activities, perform their own tasks, and develop their
own norms to guide decision making (Bennett & Kidwell, 2001, p. 727). Effective
groups establish goals and determine how those goals will be accomplished by
determining the action steps or tasks to achieve those goals. For example, our goal
has been to collaboratively research and present a symposium on a particular topic
at a professional conference each year. In order to achieve this goal (and those
related to other types of research projects) there are several similar action steps that
must be undertaken. These steps include (a) selecting a research topic, (b) setting
a timeline, and (c) assigning tasks to specific members of the group.

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

negotiating the employment contract, balancing teaching, research and service,

and finding a mentor. Often, though, topic selection can be an opportunity to build
an alternative research line and to branch off from previous work or the mutual
interest of one or more members of the group.

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.

Task Assignment and Accountability

Finally, in a self-designed work team such as ours, tasks are assigned on the
basis of interest, area of expertise or strength, and with attention to issues of fairness
so that tasks are distributed in an equitable manner. In fact, since we operate from
a model of shared leadership, members of the team volunteer for specific tasks.
Further, since our team is large, there are generally several members working
together on a particular task. These teams within the larger team contribute another
layer to the dynamics and can lead to additional coordination issues. A discussion
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

of the challenges of team dynamics in intra and interdisciplinary research projects

follows in the next several sections.

The Team: Intradisciplinary

Team dynamics can be obstacles to both intra and interdisciplinary research
among faculty members and as well as in collaborative efforts with students. Power
imbalances and stereotypes about other team members roles (Gance, 1998) can
make collaboration difficult (e.g., gendered or cultural stereotypes about intelligence
or leadership ability/style). Effective groups work on a challenging task that
requires all members to contribute skill (ODonnell et al., 1997, p. 4), but true
collaboration occurs when participants are equal in power and when interchange
among group members is characterized by mutuality (ODonnell et al., 1997,
p. 5). However, in the real world where does this really occur? We must remind
ourselves that group interaction [is] based on the social and cultural forces that
shape it (Kronley & Handley, 2001, p. 24).
As a relatively large collaborative team, we have negotiated a shared sense
of responsibility with a different pair of researchers taking the lead on each project.
If power is equal among team members, a stalemate can result, so instead we have
found it more productive to distribute power among the members, but not necessarily
equally at all times. So, in effect, we have collaborated within our collaborations
in order to divide the workload fairly, enable everyone to take a leadership role
over the course of several projects, and provide everyone an opportunity to tap
his/her area of expertise while exposing the rest of the group further to that area
at the same time. We framed our research team to reflect maintenance of group
identity as well as a developing identity (Robinson & Balkwell, 1995; Robinson
& Smith-Lovin, 1992) as we move forward with new projects.

The Team: Interdisciplinary

In addition to seeking ways to collaborate on intradisciplinary projects,
several of us have pursued interdisciplinary research projects with colleagues at
our respective institutions. In maintaining a respect for other faculty and their work,
it is important to pursue collaborations and seek expertise outside [ones] own
discipline (Lutz & Ransdell, 2003, p. 68) as some have expressed the sentiment
that interdisciplinary collegiality is the spice of life (Lutz & Ransdell, 2003,
p. 68). As faculty in sport, we have been encouraged to forge relationships with
faculty in other disciplines and to become familiar with the literature of other
disciplines (Olafson, 1995; Slack, 1991; Slack, 1996) in an effort to broaden our
 COLLABORATION 307

domain of operations (Slack, 1996, p. 98). Many of us have natural relationships

with the disciplines of education or business based on where our departments are
housed within our institutions. We also have links through our research with faculty
members in departments of psychology, sociology, communications, and gender
studies, to name a few.
Literature supports that interdisciplinary research is difficult because of
disciplinary and methodological pecking orders that can incite territory battles
(Gance, 1998). However, the trend in research has been toward collaborative
projects and multiple-authored articles (Knoppers, 1989, p. 160). In research on the
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

challenges and processes involved in working in interdisciplinary teams, Sjolander

(1985) identifies ten stages of development: (a) group members allegiance to their
own discipline, (b) regarding those from other disciplines with lower status or value
in the collaborative process, (c) abstract discussion rather than concrete plans for
progress so as to avoid disagreement, (d) definition sickness (Thompson-Klein,
1990, p. 71) or the process of constructing a common language among group
members, (e) progress in discussions but still a lack of conceptual and actual
movement toward results, (f) more attempts at a common language, (g) group comes
to the realization that a common language is impossible and abandons that charge,
(h) group members begin to understand other disciplinary perspectives but feel like
traitors to their own disciplines (ODonnell et al., 1997, p. 22), (i) growth of the
group as members continue to understand the other disciplines further, (j) real
discussion takes place (ODonnell et al., 1997, p. 22). It is important to note that
teams do not always progress through these ten stages in a linear fashion and may
even skip or become stuck in one stage.

The Organizational Context

Not only do we face challenges working within and outside of our own
discipline but also challenges because we are employed in different organizational
contexts. Team performance is impacted by factors within and external to the
organization. Thus, organizational context includes the internal as well as
external environment of an organization (Lussier & Kimball, 2004). Most of the
organizational behavior research on team effectiveness focuses on teams embedded
in organizational settings (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Consequently, organizational
context refers to internal and external factors that impact a group at the organizational
level. Thus, for the purposes of this discussion, the internal environment we are
referring to is the home institution where each of the researchers is employed.
The external environment is mentioned only in the context of factors that may be
relevant in more general terms to universities rather than external factors impacting
specific institutions.

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.

institution). This setting or internal organizational context impacts the members

of our group in a variety of ways. The various members of our research team are
employed in universities that have as their missions a predominantly research
or teaching intensive focus. We have previously discussed the different teaching
expectations for faculty employed in research versus those in teaching intensive
institutions. In addition, members employed in research intensive universities often
have greater access to resources that can be applied to research projects such as grant
money, graduate assistants, and release time. This increased emphasis on research
in turn means that faculty members employed by research intensive universities
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

face greater expectations related to the production and dissemination of research

(Fowler, Bushardt, & Brooking, 1985).

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).

The Integrative Process

Status and Gender
Collaboration is viewed as a means to increase individual and organizational
productivity, and rightly so, however collaborative processes often break down
(Weiss, Anderson, & Lasker, 2002, p. 684). Integrating individual members into a
collaborative team can be a daunting process. Sociologists address the level to which
power, prestige, and status affect who talks in small groups and who influences final
decisions or conclusions (ODonnell et al., 1997, p. 3-4). Individuals perceived
roles and actual roles in teams could be a function of a lack of power or voice based
on their gender and also status within the team.
Women in particular are subject to a lack of status in academic collaboration.
Knoppers (1989) suggested that scholarly activity does not . . . occur in a vacuum,
 COLLABORATION 309

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.

a positive and creative environment with attention to the diverse perspectives

our members bring with them. Although we have passed through the stage of
recruiting essential members, we do deal with keeping those members motivated.
As projects vary in the level of interest they hold for each individual member and
those members other academic commitments fluctuate over time, we sometimes
struggle to meet deadlines and follow prescribed timelines.

Conclusion
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

When we initially began collaborating as students in the same doctoral

program, our aim was to share our experiences with others in similar situations
that might not have had the benefit of a large group of peers at the same institution.
Through the progression from student to new faculty, we have grown to recognize
the potential for synergy. The extension of our level of collaboration from the initial
division of workload, to collective problem solving, to a restructuring of knowledge
continues with each new project we undertake.
We realize that collaborative research brings with it many benefits; it is
the path of maximum advantage (Schrage, 1990, p. 34). When compared
to independent research, we stand to gain better quality, more publications, a
division of labor using the strengths of all team members, added motivation with
the encouragement of team members to complete tasks, and the idea-generating
power of a social matrix (Schrage, 1990, p. 40) group as opposed to an individual.
It must be noted that collaborative research should be balanced with individual
research (Crase & Rosato, 1992) as one moves toward tenure, but collaborative
work is encouraged and evaluated highly. In fact, some scholars have taken it as
far as to say nothing new that is really interesting comes without collaboration
(Schrage, 1990, p. 36).
However, we do realize the difficulties inherent in team projects. We are
challenged by our tasks (presentations and manuscripts) due to both work and non-
work demands and expectations that compete for our time. We are also challenged
by our team members being located at multiple universities and having varying
areas of expertise (i.e., being both intradisciplinary yet interdisciplinary at the same
time). Additionally, the organizational contexts of research and teaching institutions
complicate the collaborative process as we simultaneously try to balance our team
projects with the tenure process. And lastly, the integrative process presents issues
of social status, gender, and the division of labor and leadership.
As we look toward the goal of shared creation (Schrage, 1990. p. 40), we
recognize that collaborating in a professional setting can be intense, demanding,
frustrating (Schrage, 1990, p. 43). Beyerlein et al. (2003) suggests that maximizing
the benefits of using the collaborative process can be accomplished by developing
a collaborative culture. This collaborative culture includes the following:

Trust and respect in everyday interactions

Egalitarian attitudes among members at all ranks
Power based on expertise and accountability
Shared leadership where all members take initiative
Valuing of diverse perspectives
Commitment to the success of other members, rather than just ones own
 COLLABORATION 311

Valuing of truth and truth telling

Commitment to continuous improvement of the whole group
Active learning
Personal responsibility

While establishing such a collaborative culture remains our goal, we also

recognize that the dynamics of our team continue to change based on the project
and availability of different team members because of other commitments.
Collaboration has been both a trying and a rewarding experience for us, but
Downloaded by [SDSU San Diego State University] at 05:58 28 December 2014

we have chosen to follow the path of collaboration as opposed to pursuing the

avenue of the lone genius (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003, p. 3), understanding some of
the social and team interactions that inhibit success and learning the others as we
progress. Our challenge is to continue embracing our differences rather than view
them as a deterrent. Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous activity that is
the result of a continued [emphasis added] attempt to construct and maintain a
shared conception of a problem (Dillenbourg, 1999, p.18), and we choose to persist
in our quest with the realization that the benefits of collaboration far outweigh its
drawbacks.
As we conclude this discussion of the collaborative process, we leave
the reader with several suggestions for engaging in collaboration research with
colleagues and students. Set clear expectations for collaboration prior to the onset
of the project. Knowing the interests and expertise of members of the team can set
these expectations. In addition, everyone on the team should agree on the goals
and outcomes of the project. Although shared leadership allows each member of
the team to assume accountability and leadership for various aspects of the project,
particularly ongoing research initiatives, one person should assume the role of
project captain assuring that members adhere to the teams timeline for project
completion.

Table 1 Elements of Successful Collaborations

Necessary components Potential benefits to researcher(s)

Recruit essential members Enhanced productivity through a

Determine leadership and negotiate
distribution of power
Establish group goals (topic,
timeline, tasks)
Communication with members on
campus and/or at other institutions
Inter and intradisciplinary agreement
on terminology, theory, and methods
Maintain member motivation
division of labor
Professional and social support
Network for idea sharing
Better quality work by using members
strengths
Deeper understanding of diverse
backgrounds and diverse ideas
Increased set of research skills as
learned from members
 312 DAPRANO ET AL.

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.