This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 11 October 2014, At: 10:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal for AcademicDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rija20

Avoiding compliance and resistancethrough collaboration? A Belgianteaching portfolio casePascale Woutersa, Mieke Clementb, Mariane Frenaya, HermanBuelensb & Annelies Gilisb

a UNESCO Chair for University Teaching and Learning, Universitécatholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgiumb Centre for Educational Development, Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven, Leuven, BelgiumPublished online: 28 Jan 2014.

To cite this article: Pascale Wouters, Mieke Clement, Mariane Frenay, Herman Buelens &Annelies Gilis (2014) Avoiding compliance and resistance through collaboration? A Belgianteaching portfolio case, International Journal for Academic Development, 19:1, 26-36, DOI:10.1080/1360144X.2013.848359

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.848359

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 tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand 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 Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Avoiding compliance and resistance through collaboration? ABelgian teaching portfolio case

Pascale Woutersa, Mieke Clementb, Mariane Frenaya*, Herman Buelensb andAnnelies Gilisb

aUNESCO Chair for University Teaching and Learning, Université catholique de Louvain,Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; bCentre for Educational Development, Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven, Leuven, Belgium

(Received 2 May 2012; final version received 24 June 2013)

In this paper, the authors describe the implementation process of a teachingportfolio at a Belgian university. The case is intriguing because it departssubstantially from what others have described as the typical antagonistic way inwhich academic developers interact with formal leaders. Rather than beingcaught in an edgy game of compliance and resistance, the actors presentthemselves as partners in a collaborative process throughout three consecutivephases. To interpret this process, reference is made to a collaborative frameworkfrom a social psychology perspective that could help avoid compliance andresistance.

Keywords: academic development; academic developer; collaboration;compliance; resistance

Introduction

To discuss the issue of compliance and resistance, we reflect in this article on theimplementation of a teaching portfolio as an institutional tool to honour academics’commitment to teaching at Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), a French-speaking university in Belgium. Clearly, honouring academics’ commitment toteaching using a portfolio can be motivated by various, possibly conflicting,interests. Formal leaders may be attracted to using this tool because it helps them toevaluate teaching, while academic developers may favour its implementationbecause of its power to develop teaching (Buckridge, 2008; Burnap, Kohut, & Yon,2010; Edgerton, Hutchings, & Quinlan, 2002; Seldin, 1997). As such, the imple-mentation of a teaching portfolio presents itself as a process in which complianceand resistance may predictably arise.

However, the case presented here illustrates that compliance and resistance arenot necessarily the ‘default modes’ in which academic developers are immersedwhile interacting with formal leaders. On the contrary, the analysis of this particularcase reveals that developers and leaders were engaged in a process of collaboration.

For the purpose of this study, Thomson, Perry, and Miller’s (2007) definition ofcollaboration was adopted. They conceptualize collaboration as ‘a process in whichautonomous or semi-autonomous actors interact through formal and informal

*Corresponding author. Email: mariane.frenay@uclouvain.be

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

International Journal for Academic Development, 2014Vol. 19, No. 1, 26–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.848359

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationship andways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process involv-ing shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions’ (Thomson et al., 2007,p. 25). The strength of this theory lies in the fact that it deliberately focuses on theprocess of collaboration, on what is happening ‘inside the black box.’ By using thistheory, we contribute to the discussion about the relationship between academicdevelopers and formal leaders from a social psychology perspective, rather than aneducational philosophy one.

We intend to make clear that the analysis of what is happening in the ‘blackbox’ (i.e. the process of collaboration) is relevant because it illuminates how thestakeholders in this case did not interact according to the compliance and resistancemodus one might expect. As such, this case can inspire others to avoid such antago-nistic interactions.

We will develop our argument by first presenting the case on implementing ateaching portfolio at UCL, then discussing it using the collaboration theory. In thefinal section, we reflect on how this case and our interpretation of it invite us toengage in further research to scrutinize more systematically the relationship betweencompliance and resistance on the one hand and collaboration on the other. Thisresearch could also help inform the practice of academic developers.

The teaching portfolio at UCL

The case we present is not an historical account, nor is it based on rigorousdocument analysis or systematic data collection. Rather, it is a reconstruction ofwhat happened at UCL when the teaching portfolio was introduced, based on aniterative discussion among the authors of this paper. Since both the UCL authorswere involved in the implementation process – one as an academic developer andresearcher, and the other as an academic – we could use their reflections on theprocess. Over the years, they both engaged in a series of talks with the differentstakeholders involved, namely the academics, the academic developers and the for-mal leaders (vice-presidents for teaching and for academic affairs, as well as thechair of the Education Committee). In addition, we also made use of the documentanalyses of policy notes, survey results and interview data that had been collected aspart of the first author’s PhD research on the implementation of the teachingportfolio at UCL (Wouters, 2011). Both the reflections and the PhD findings werejointly discussed by all authors. Our aim was to understand the implementation pro-cess by focusing on who was involved, what was at stake, how the stakeholdersinteracted and what the results were. This reflective exercise was highly iterative innature and we recognized that meaning, while being based on one’s frame of refer-ence, is also socially mediated through interaction (Anderson, 2008).

Our analysis revealed that three major phases can be discerned during the imple-mentation of the teaching portfolio: the initiation phase, between 2000 and 2003; theimplementation phase that started in 2004 and ended in 2007; and finally a follow-up phase which is still going on. We will structure the presentation of the caseaccordingly.

Initiation phase (2000–2003)

In 2000, an open dialogue about ways to honour academics’ commitment to teach-ing was launched. This was not surprising since UCL had already been investing

International Journal for Academic Development 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

heavily in promoting the importance of teaching. Evidence of this lies in the creationof the unit for academic development in 1995, the establishment of a fund for educa-tional innovation projects in 1997, the formulation of a university-wide vision ofteaching and learning in 1999 and the launching of the UNESCO Chair (a researchgroup) for University Teaching and Learning in 2001 (Parmentier, 2006).

In this climate, it was only natural that time and energy was devoted to an opendialogue about ways to honour academics’ commitment to teaching. This dialoguetook place within the faculties, when academic developers were working with aca-demics on their teaching, at informal gatherings of academic developers and formalleaders, and so on. As a consequence, all relevant stakeholders could express theirviews. The UCL co-authors noted academics’ assertions that they were investing alot of energy to improve their teaching at that time. Some of them also collaboratedwith academic developers to design teaching action plans in which they reflected ontheir students’ feedback and documented their efforts and development. The aca-demics regretted that they could not make their teaching efforts and developmentmore visible when applying for promotion. Both the academics and academic devel-opers believed that the teaching action plans could offer opportunities to do this.

The chair of the Education Committee (an advisory board of the AcademicCouncil consisting of academics from the different faculties, academic developersand students) remarked that some other universities used a teaching portfolio toevaluate academics’ teaching based on an account of their efforts and development.He pointed out that these evaluations were usually based on criteria linked with theuniversity-wide vision of teaching and learning. Consequently, he suggested that theCommittee should devote some time to finding out whether a teaching portfoliocould function as an adequate means of honouring academics’ commitment to teach-ing. These points of view were extensively discussed by the Education Committee.

In sum, the three important actors in this phase (the academics, the academicdevelopers, and the formal leaders) put forward the potential benefits of workingwith a teaching portfolio, both for the development and the evaluation of teaching.Even more, they succeeded in integrating their particular views on the importanceand position of teaching with the overarching idea that a teaching portfolio wouldbe useful to honour academics’ commitment to teaching at the university. Theiradvice to launch a teaching portfolio was endorsed by the Academic Council,although neither the implementation details nor who was supposed to take actionwere specified. Nevertheless, the use of the teaching portfolio, both to documentteaching development and to apply for tenure and promotion, was recommended tothe academics on the UCL website.

Implementation phase (2004–2007)

Following the recommendation of the Academic Council, the academic developerscontinued working with the academics on student feedback and their resultingteaching action plans with a renewed energy, since this work was now congruentwith the recommended portfolio. However, some academics overtly questioned theuse of the portfolio, as they were not convinced the committees for tenure andpromotion would actually pay attention to it. The teaching portfolios themselves alsoproved to be diverse in format; the content was personal and thus idiosyncratic. Thismade the developers wonder about the adequacy of their work with academics andthe subsequent documentation evaluating academics.

28 P. Wouters et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Because of the open climate at UCL, these issues were raised and discussedfreely both in the Education Committee and in informal interactions between allstakeholders. These discussions coincided with a change of the university’s manage-ment team, in which, for the first time, a vice-president for teaching was appointed.The vice-president took the academics’ needs and concerns on board and integratedthem in the work she launched towards a comprehensive teaching and learning pol-icy for the university. She approached colleagues, both academics and academicdevelopers, who had already been working on the teaching portfolio to participate inone of the task forces she created to develop a policy focused on clarifying theformat and criteria of the teaching portfolio. In its work, this task force deliberatelyset out to develop criteria for portfolio evaluation that took into account teachingdevelopment. The ambition was to align the criteria for evaluation with the univer-sity’s vision on teaching and learning, parallel to aligning the developmental workwith this vision.

As a result of this work, the teaching portfolio became one of the obligatoryelements of the academics’ application for tenure or promotion. More specifi-cally, the portfolio needed to include both an overall self-assessment and anindividual action plan. The vice-president for academic affairs communicated theportfolio criteria to the chairs of the committees for tenure and promotion.Members of these committees were also asked to pay attention, when reviewingthe portfolios, to the degree of relevance and validity of the evidence chosen bythe academics.

Follow-up (2008–present)

The stakeholders were interested in finding out how the portfolio was actually usedand agreed to make research time and money available for a PhD study by an aca-demic developer (Wouters, 2011). The study investigated institutional policies andprocedures, as well as the perceptions and use of the portfolio among both academ-ics and chairs of committees for tenure and promotion. Interviews with these com-mittees revealed that the criteria were not yet as refined as desired. The analysisproved they were too generic and not adequately adapted to the signature pedagogy(Shulman, 2005) of the different disciplines represented in the committees for tenureand promotion.

As a consequence, the chairs were invited to work with academic developers toelaborate the criteria further. The aim was to make them discipline-specific, withoutlosing their connection with the university-wide vision of teaching and learning inthe process. This current discussion is opening up new perspectives on continuingcollaboration among stakeholders. Indeed, the stakeholders involved are wonderingnow about the position of the teaching portfolio within the global academic portfolio(Seldin, Miller, & Seldin, 2010). New questions are now being posed: How do wewant to position teaching, research, and service? How do we expect our academicsto juggle these responsibilities? How can we honour academics’ commitment to allthree of these areas in a fair and transparent way while doing justice to thedevelopment they inevitably have to go through? These questions give rise to newdiscussions and interactions between the stakeholders, involving also the vice-president for academic affairs.

International Journal for Academic Development 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Getting into the black box of collaboration in the portfolio case

In order to interpret the case, we refer to the conceptualization of collaborationdeveloped by Thomson and her colleagues (2007). The authors distinguish five keydimensions of collaboration: norms, autonomy, mutual interdependence, governance,and administration. Each of these dimensions covers several process-related activi-ties we will exemplify by referring to the portfolio case. This exercise shows thatthe dimensions are a valuable, yet not a perfect, heuristic device for reading the caseand for framing the activities and the partnership engagements therein.

Within their multidimensional model of collaboration, Thomson and hercolleagues (2007) refer to norms as the denominator that keeps together processeswhich contribute to the development of trust, to the installation of modes ofreciprocity between interacting partners, and to the gradual building up of an appre-ciation of each other’s contribution and reputation. Obviously, such norms are not agiven right from the start: the underlying processes take time and commitment(Thomson & Perry, 2006). When the stakeholders have the sense that they are bothcontributing to the collaboration and do not take advantage of each other, even whenopportunities to do so arise, the complexity and fragility of the collaborativerelationship are gradually reduced. This in turn leads to long-term commitments anda sound foundation for collective action.

In the portfolio case, academic developers and formal leaders engaged in jointprojects that allowed their interaction to become less fragile, contingent, and ad hoceven before the initiation phase started in 2000. In this way, a basis was created fortrust and appreciation of each other’s contribution and positions, which were furtherdeveloped throughout the portfolio case. The jointly made decision to entrust anacademic developer with analysing the use of the portfolio in the follow-up phaseillustrates this.

In 2000, when the issue of the growing importance and position of teaching wasraised, the different stakeholders – the formal leaders, academic developers, and aca-demics – expressed their ‘self-interests’ on this issue. In the initiation phase, itbecame clear that those interests differed from one another. Academic developersapproached the portfolio as a tool to develop teaching, while the formal leadersstressed its power to evaluate teaching. Throughout the implementation of the port-folio, these self-interests remained apparent and the partners found a constructiveway to make visible the inherent tensions that came along with the fact that theirself-interests did not coincide. In this way the different stakeholders engaged in aninteraction which allowed them to experience autonomy, a dimension put forwardby Thomson et al. (2007) in their collaboration theory. They respected each other’spositions and were able to deal with the differences in a constructive, yet criticalway.

Yet this autonomy did not seem to lead to conflict. On the contrary, the differentstakeholders were capable of expressing their particular interests while exploring,gradually focusing, and eventually jointly defining a collective interest, in otherwords the idea of implementing a teaching portfolio to make it possible to honouracademics’ commitment to teaching. What made this collective interest so powerfulis the fact that it allowed each of the stakeholders to contribute to realizing theirown particular interests. Even more, under the umbrella of the collective interest tohonour academics’ commitment to teaching, the implementation of the portfoliogenerated several collective benefits throughout all three phases of the process.

30 P. Wouters et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Firstly, communication about high-quality teaching became easier and richer becausethe stakeholders had developed a shared language. This was especially the case inthe initiation phase. Secondly, the implementation of the teaching portfolio contrib-uted to the perception that the institution attaches importance to high-quality teach-ing. Put more bluntly, it became clear to everybody that academics are supposed todevelop their teaching. Thirdly, in the implementation phase when the format andcriteria of the portfolio were set, the evaluation of academics’ teaching became amore nuanced notion. It was based on the complexity of teaching and its progressiveunderstanding and development over time. Finally, the portfolio made the evaluationof academics’ teaching more systematic and transparent, especially in the follow-upphase when the stakeholders engaged in a revision of the criteria. As such the part-ners engaged in the collaboration experienced mutual beneficial interdependence(Thomson et al., 2007).

The implementation story illustrates that the governance dimension Thomsonet al. (2007) put forward is also key for collaboration. This dimension refers to thecreation of jointly made decisions about rules that will govern behaviour and rela-tionships. It results in a set of working rules about how power will be shared, whichactions are allowed or constrained, what information needs to be provided and howcosts and benefits are to be distributed so that the stakeholders can reach agreementon collaborative activities and goals through shared power arrangements (Thomsonet al., 2007). If governance is based on the primacy of the individual, collaborationbecomes impossible. Direct and unilateral actions and unrestrained decision-makingoccur.

Clearly in the portfolio case, governance was shaped in a positive way. Thestakeholders jointly decided on the rules that governed their collaboration. Througha process of participative decision-making, task forces were created and relevantstakeholders (such as the chairs of the promotion committees) were progressivelyasked to join in. At a certain point, the stakeholders acknowledged the need to col-lect data on the use of the portfolio to check and optimize its implementation. Theseacts of governance did not emanate from an authoritative structure, nor did they leadto a hierarchical division of labour. On the contrary, there was a clear willingness onthe part of the stakeholders to accept that all partners had legitimate interests. Theyshared information openly, showed respect for others’ opinions and were prepared tosubmit to collectively made decisions (Thomson & Perry, 2006).

Having an adequate governance does not automatically imply that collaborationis also enacted. Thomson et al. (2007) argue that collaboration between semi-auton-omous partners also requires an efficient administration. Administration refers to anoperating system that supports adequate communication channels and clarity of rolesand responsibilities, so that it is possible to do what it takes to achieve a goal. Anadequate administration does not equal hierarchy, standardization, or routinization.Indeed, when semi-autonomous partners collaborate, administration also includes a‘social’ aspect. It allows for particular issues to be put on the table.

In the portfolio case, administration was apparent when the coordinating vice-president transmitted the criteria to the promotion committees and asked them totake these criteria into account when judging the quality of the portfolios. By doingso, the vice-president made sure that the decisions taken by the collaborative groupwere properly implemented (in other words, by using the criteria). The existing com-munication channels also allowed for open discussion of the research results on theuse of the portfolio. As a result of this discussion, administrative action was taken to

International Journal for Academic Development 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Table

1.Cross-tabulateof

keydimensionsandphases

ofcollaboratio

n.

Norms

Autonom

yMutual

interdependence

Governance

Adm

inistration

Initiation(2000–2003)

Who:

Academics,academ

icdevelopers,Educatio

nCom

mittee

What:

How

todevelopandevaluate

academ

ics’

teaching

andto

honour

their

commitm

entto

teaching

××

××

××

××

How

:(In)form

alopen

dialogue

Result:Use

ofportfolio

recommended

Implem

entatio

n(2004–2007

)Who:

Academics,academ

icdevelopers,task

forces

ofEducatio

nCom

mittee,

chairs

ofcommitteesfortenure

andprom

otion,

VPTeaching

××

××

××

××

What:

Format

andcriteriaof

portfolio

How

:Task

forces

Result:Portfolio

oblig

ed,criteriastipulated

Follow-up(2008–present)

Who:

Academics,academ

icdevelopers,chairs

ofcommitteesfortenure

and

prom

otion,

VPTeaching,VPAcademic

Affairs

What:

Follow-upon

implem

entatio

n×

×××

××

How

:Researchproject,projectgroup(criteria)

Result:Refinementof

criteria(discipline-specific),new

questio

ns(academic

portfolio

)

×deno

tespresence

ofakeydimension

during

aph

ase.

××deno

tesprom

inence

ofakeydimension

.

32 P. Wouters et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

refine the criteria for the teaching portfolio so that they take into account thecomplexity of the academic reality. The academic developers consequently workedwith these criteria in their consultations with academics who were compiling theirportfolios. In this way, the collaborative group acted according to the governancestructure it had established. In so doing, the issue of the positioning of research,teaching, and service could be raised, and in turn functioned as an impetus for anew collaborative project.

Overall, the five key dimensions of the collaborative lens made it possible todescribe the portfolio case, capturing the different process-related activities thepartners engage in. This becomes apparent in Table 1. This table makes clear howthe key dimensions of collaboration play out in each of the consecutive phases.While all key dimensions are present throughout the process (indicate by ×), someof them come to the fore more prominently in particular phases (indicated by ××).For instance, governance was not explicitly at stake in the initiation phase of theportfolio case.

Does this case fit with the theory of collaboration?

Even though the theory of Thomson et al. (2007) proved to be a helpful heuristicdevice to capture the process-oriented activities that the collaborative partnersengage in and thus to open the ‘black box’ of collaboration; the portfolio case alsosuggests some elaborations and adjustments to the theory.

Firstly, although Thomson and Perry (2006) recognize that collaboration is aprocess that occurs over time by referring explicitly to theories that describe the col-laboration processes in terms of a continuum of stages (Gray, 1989; Himmelman,1996; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994 in Thomson & Perry, 2006), a temporal dimensionis not spelled out explicitly in their multidimensional model. The portfolio casehowever clearly shows that all five key dimensions of collaboration are not equallyprominent throughout the collaboration process. Autonomy and norms seem to becrucial in the initiation phase but not in the implementation and the follow-upphases. The reverse is true for governance and administration, while mutual interde-pendence is distinctively present throughout the whole process. In the initiationphase, the collaborative partners thus engaged in a common endeavour to elucidateand contrast their particular positions, ambitions, and values. In doing so, all part-ners moved toward a growing understanding of the significance and relevance ofmutual commitment necessary to reach the common objective (namely, honouringteaching).

Ultimately, therefore, the initiation phase is characterized by an increasingemphasis on ‘doing the right thing.’ Or, to put it another way, during the initiationphase, collaboration is imbued with a sense of ‘effectiveness.’ During thesubsequent implementation phase, however, collaboration centres around‘efficiency,’ on ‘doing things right.’ In other words, in the portfolio case, issuesregarding effectiveness (norms, autonomy, and mutual interdependence) precedeissues of efficiency (governance, administration). We hypothesize that – in general –a strong initial focus on effectiveness contributes to, and perhaps is essential for, acontinued collaborative engagement during the subsequent focus on efficiency.

Secondly, Thomson et al. do not discuss the role of formal leaders in relation tocollaboration. However, in the portfolio case the formal leaders did play a significantrole. Yet they did not do this in an authoritative way. Neither the vice-presidents nor

International Journal for Academic Development 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

the chair of the Education Committee unilaterally imposed working rules on thecollaborative group. On the contrary, they respected the open nature of the relation-ship between the stakeholders. Their contribution to the development of governancecame from their invitation to the stakeholders to keep focused on the higher goal ofthe group, namely honouring academics’ commitment to teaching. As such theyacted primarily on the mutual interdependence dimension and were capable of keep-ing this dimension ‘in the air’ throughout all of the phases of the implementationprocess.

Thirdly, autonomy clearly is a dimension that deserves further attention.Thomson et al., (together with many of their colleagues), point out that the relation-ship between autonomy and collaboration is problematic. In their research, Thomsonet al. even found a consistent negative correlation between autonomy and collabora-tion. Thus, even though autonomy seems a crucial dimension of collaboration, ahigh degree of autonomy also hampers it. Yet in the portfolio case, the stakeholderswere able to strike a positive balance between autonomy and collaboration. Obvi-ously they engaged in fruitful collaboration. Yet at the same time their autonomywas explicitly present. They managed to make the inherent tensions between theirvarious self-interests visible and to discuss them critically though constructively, alsoin view of the collective interest they defined. We hypothesize that the positivecorrelation between autonomy and collaboration may be traced back to the role theformal leaders play.

Compliance and resistance?

Up to now we have used the framework of Thomson et al. (2007) to describe theinteraction between the stakeholders engaged in the portfolio case, an interactionthat is essentially characterized by collaboration. The framework helped us under-stand the portfolio case, and the five key dimensions of collaboration were present.However, this exercise also made clear that collaboration is a complex phenomenonconsisting of five interrelated dimensions which each describe a process and whichtake time to develop. This makes collaboration in our view a fragile process. Yet theportfolio case enabled us to identify three elements that Thomson et al. do notexplicitly cover and which may help to reduce this fragility. Firstly, the stakeholderstook their time initially to focus on questions regarding the effectiveness of the port-folio before they started worrying about the efficiency of their plans. Secondly, theformal leaders did not immediately stress the importance of governance and admin-istration but rather invested their energy in sustaining the mutual interdependencedimension. Thirdly, based on the trust that could grow under these conditions andawareness of the collective interest, the stakeholders could all come to terms withthe tensions between their particular self-interests and the collective interest.

Obviously these observations need further investigation. A systematic validationof the findings of this case in other contexts could serve two purposes. First, thiskind of research would be helpful to define the exact relationship between the col-laboration theory on the one hand and the notion of compliance and resistance onthe other. One could assume that compliance and resistance can be avoided by pay-ing attention to the five dimensions of collaboration and the additional elements wewere able to pinpoint. However, collaboration remains a fragile process. Complianceand resistance lurk everywhere in relationships among university stakeholders. Inthis particular case, the collaborative partners managed to keep ‘power games’ out

34 P. Wouters et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

of their interaction. Neither the fact that their views on the portfolio differed nor themanner in which the formal leaders played, their role provoked antagonistic interac-tions. The focus on effectiveness in the initiation phase of the collaborative projectmay explain this, as it helped all partners to refrain from using power to force othersto comply with their particular interests or to determine the pace at which theymoved from one phase in the implementation process to the next. Stated in terms ofpower, we are inclined to say that the formal leaders at UCL, contrary to those inother cases on this issue, actively used the power of their positions to invite theircolleagues over and over again to collaborate. Secondly, such empirical validationcould also inform the practice of academic developers so that they can avoid compli-ance and resistance by facilitating collaboration while focusing on effectiveness,mutual interdependence, and autonomy.

AcknowledgementsThe research referred to in this paper has been made possible with the support of a grant fromthe Fonds de la recherche scientifique–FNRS, Grant no. 2.4.548.08F – FRFC/Pédagogie.

Notes on contributors

Pascale Wouters is a senior educational developer at the Centre for EducationalDevelopment (IPM) of the Université catholique de Louvain and researcher at theUNESCO Chair for University Teaching and Learning. Her research and expertise ison instructional, and organizational development, with a specific focus on policiesof training, assessment and valuing of academics’ engagement in teaching.

Mieke Clement is a senior educational developer at the Centre for EducationalDevelopment of the University of Leuven, a research-intensive university in Bel-gium. She supports faculties and (groups of) academics in achieving high-qualityteaching through curriculum and organizational development. Her research focuseson the development of higher education teachers and academic cultures.

Mariane Frenay is a professor and dean of the Faculty of Psychology and Educationat the Université catholique de Louvain. She is an active member of the UNESCOChair for University Teaching and Learning and of the interdisciplinary researchcentre on socialization, education, and training (GIRSEF). Her research focuses onteaching and learning processes in higher education and academic development.

Herman Buelens is head of the Centre for Educational Development at the Univer-sity of Leuven, where he earned his Master’s degree and PhD in psychology. Hisresearch interests include collaborative (e-)learning and educational development inthe context of research-intensive universities.

Annelies Gilis is a senior educational developer at the Centre for Educational Devel-opment of the University of Leuven. She supports faculties and (groups of) academ-ics in achieving high-quality teaching through curriculum and organizationaldevelopment. Her research focuses on the development of educational developersand change in higher education.

International Journal for Academic Development 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4

ReferencesAnderson, K. T. (2008). Intersubjectivity. In L. M. Givens (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of

qualitative research methods, Vol. 1 (pp. 467–468). London: Sage.Buckridge, M. (2008). Teaching portfolios: Their role in teaching and learning policy.

International Journal for Academic Development, 13, 117–127.Burnap, C. A., Kohut, G. F., & Yon, M. G. (2010). Teaching dossier documents: A compari-

son of importance by major stakeholders. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 10, 38–50.Edgerton, R., Hutchings, P., & Quinlan, K. M. (2002). The teaching portfolio: Capturing the

scholarship in teaching. New York, NY: American Association for Higher Education.Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Himmelman, A. (1996). On the theory and practice of transformational collaboration: From

social service to social justice. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative advantage(pp. 19–43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Parmentier, P. (2006). Cinq leviers institutionnels pour la qualité de l’enseignementuniversitaire [Five institutional levers for quality in university teaching]. In N. Rege-Colet& M. Romainville (Eds.), La pratique enseignante en mutation à l’université [Theongoing transformation of teaching practice at the university] (pp. 199–215). Brussels:De Boeck.

Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperativeinterorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19, 90–118.

Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance andpromotion/tenure decisions (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Seldin, P., Miller, J. E., & Seldin, C. A. (2010). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide toimproved performance and promotion/tenure decisions (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134, 52–59.Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public

Administration Review, 66, 20–32.Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring

collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 23–55.Wouters, P. (2011). Valoriser la mission de formation à l’université par les dossiers

d’enseignement (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Université catholique de Louvain.

36 P. Wouters et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

0:22

11

Oct

ober

201

4