Collaboration Across the

University (and Beyond)

5 4 TH A N N U A L A D E A D E A N ’ S C O N F E R E N C E
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 11,2012
 Collaboration Across the University (& Beyond)

Presenters (in order of presentation)

 Ann M. Boyle, D.M.D., M.A.
 Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Southern Illinois University
 Pamela Zarkowski, M.P.H., J.D.
 Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
University of Detroit Mercy
 Judith E.N. Albino, Ph.D.
 President Emerita
University of Colorado
 Academy for Academic Leadership Senior Consultant
 Today’s Agenda

 1:30 Review of literature on academic collaboration;

review of survey findings, are you trying
to collaborate? (Ann)
 2:15 Model for developing collaborations (Pam)
 2:45 Case discussions using the model (Judith)
five working groups…
 3:30 Applying the model to your institution (Pam)
working in pairs…
 4:15 Concluding Comments (Ann, Pam and Judith)
 4:30 Adjourn
 Today’s Objectives

By the end of the session you will…

 Learn the factors that contribute to, and confound,

effective collaboration
 Learn a strategy for facilitating change/collaboration
within or outside of the institution
 Practice using the strategy to solve case scenarios
 Use the strategy to plan for your own collaboration
 Literature Review

Common Collaborations in Higher Education

Research

Education

Community Outreach/
Governmental Agencies

Private enterprise
 Literature Review

 Collaboration logistics: from close by to far away…

 Different departments/disciplines within a school/college

 Between schools/colleges in the same institution
 Between schools/colleges across institutions regionally
 Between schools/colleges across institutions nationally
 Between schools/colleges across institutions internationally

“ having multiple universities involved in a research collaboration

complicates coordination and reduces outcomes for the project”,
Cummings and Kiesler
 Literature Review

 There has been a steady rise in between-school

collaborations since 1975, measured by publication
authorship, (Jones, et. al)
 Most notable increase
in collaboration is in Science and
Engineering rising, from less than 10%
to almost 33%
 Average distance between collaborators has hardly
changed…750 miles in 1975, 800 miles in 2005
 Literature review

 Allen’s rule of thumb (1977): coworkers should be no more than 30

meters apart, beyond which collaboration effectiveness
declines…technology may improve this…

“The results suggest that although emerging

communication technologies have radically
transformed the style and scope of collaboration
around the world, physical proximity continues to
play a critical role in predicting the impact of scientific
research” Lee, et. al. (measured by # of citations)

 Institutional missions and cultures may not be compatible

“collaborative research which bridges administrative units appears to be more

problematic than that which bridges disciplines”, O’Sullivan, et. al.
 Possible Benefits of Collaboration

 Improve efficiency, eliminate duplication

 Save money
 Maximize limited resources
 Access specialized knowledge or skills
 Access specialized equipment, software
 Enhance curricula and program quality
 Increased potential for outside grants
 Access to academic offerings by students in distant locations
 Increased opportunities for faculty development
 Improve patient care
 Potential Challenges of Collaboration

 Institutional differences in mission, vision, values

 Differences in institutional governance, systems and culture
 Structural differences in P&T, teaching loads, compensation
 Rivalry between institutions
 Loss of institutional identity and autonomy
 Increased complexity of communication
 Unanticipated costs in technology infrastructure and personnel
 Differing tuition and fees
 Accreditation issues
 Logistics: travel, space and time
“…the amount of time needed for collaboration
is grossly underestimated and time is usually
a scarce resource for educators”, Wasonga, et al
The Devil is in the Details…before you begin

 Clarify purpose and goals

of collaboration in advance
 Clearly discuss motivations
and expectations
 Clarify roles, responsibilities for participants
 For research, establish data management agreements
 Create a communication plan and process
 Define the expected outcomes and measures
 Identify and recruit the best participants
 Details…before you begin

 Create a reward structure: monetary and P&T

 Establish clear descriptions of respective financial,
human & resource contributions from participants
 Assure appropriate technology is in place
 Create process for negotiating differences
 “Must Haves” for Successful Collaboration

 Top-level administrative support

 Realistic expectations
 Sufficient financial resources
 Professional respect
 Communication, Communication, Communication

“Through effective communication,

agendas can be generated, understood
and clarified, especially at the beginning
of collaborative process”, Wasonga, et al
 Study on “value” of collaborative education

 Study compared perceptions of administrators,

faculty members and students after 10 years of
educational collaboration (Hayes, et. al.)
 Four campuses, same University system
 Faculty responses differed
significantly from students,
administrators on 2 items:
 Far less aware of the collaboration
 Did not feel they benefitted from the collaboration
 Faculty responses

“The suggestions are supposed to go in the box”

Survey Responses-Collaborative Efforts

Is your dental school involved with developing

collaborative efforts
25

20

15
Yes No
21
10 17 16

2 1 2
0
within your school or college within your university outside of your university
 Survey Responses-Collaborating Parties

Responses:
• Divisions/departments within institution
• Schools of Dental Medicine
• Schools of Nursing, Pharmacy, Medicine, Social
Work and Public Health
• Professional Colleges and Universities
• Hospital and Community Health Centers
• Faculty Practice/Pre-doctoral Clinics
• Bioengineering / Biomedical Researchers
Survey Responses-Purpose of Collaboration

Responses:
• Interprofessional Education (n=8)
• Research (n=4)
• Curriculum Development (n=3)
• Program Development (n=3)
• Outreach Programs (n=2)
• Faculty Development (n=1)
Survey Responses-Purpose of Collaboration

Responses:
• Interprofessional Education (n=8)
• Research (n=4)
• Curriculum Development (n=3)
• Program Development (n=3)
• Outreach Programs (n=2)
• Faculty Development (n=1)
Survey Responses-Assessment of Outcomes

Responses:
• Successful / beneficial (n=10)
• In Process / Favorable (n=7)
• Reexamine Need for Collaboration (n=2)
• Significant Partnership (n=1)
• Grant Funding Initiated (n=1)
Survey Responses-Obstacles to Collaboration

What are the biggest obstacles to collaboration?

Technology issues 13.6%

Distance/logistical issues 45.5%

Cost of collaboration 31.8%

Unclear goals or purpose 13.6%

Lack of incentives (no rewards for collaboration) 40.9%

Schedule conflicts/time constraints 68.2%

Resistance from leaders/administrators 9.1%

Resistance from faculty 13.6%

Resistance from students 4.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Thank you…any questions?

NEXT:

REFRAMING
A STRATEGY FOR FACILITATING
CHANGE/COLLABORATION WITHIN OR
OUTSIDE OF THE INSTITUTION