Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda

What is Collaborative Research?

From Katz & Martin (1997):

“… the working together of researchers to achieve the common goal of producing new… knowledge.”

Levels of Collaboration

Discipline

Institutional

Individual

Individual

• Communication – styles, dispersed teams

• Individual priorities – salience

• Personality

• Experience/Knowledge

• Career goals

Institutional

• Scheduling

• Organizational priorities (strategic goals)

• Resources (personnel, $, course/workload)

• Culture

Discipline

• Norms (co-authorship, ownership, etc.)

• Methods

• Standards (What is “good” research?)

• Tools (software)

Increasing Level of Institutionalization/Networking

BurgeoningResearch

Topic

NascentNetwork

KnowledgeValue

Collective

StableResearch

FieldDiscipline

Corley et al. (2006)

AIM Alliance Research Collaboration Goals

• To provide a model of cost-effective, comparative, and replicable research for the field

• To agree upon a common methodology, conduct each state’s component concurrently, and disseminate the results jointly

AIM Alliance Research Collaboration

• The first collaborative research project identified was on giving and volunteering because:– Research on G&V was conducted by the

three centers– Timing of survey in the Spring

AIM Alliance Process of Collaboration

• Unlike other regional studies, these analyses shared a common research protocol:– Used COPPS as the core survey questions– Common method for data cleaning– Common method for weighting processes– Common approach to empirical analyses– Common rules for identifying outliers– Collected data over the same timeframe (Summer

2007)

AIM Alliance Process of Collaboration

• Other shared personnel to facilitate comparability and collaboration:– Used the same telephone survey

subcontractor in all three states (MCIC)– Used the same team to analyze and write up

the results for the joint project (IU)– Used one team to negotiate and monitor all

subcontracts (IU)

Methodological Considerations for IU

• Maintain the integrity and comparability of the regional studies by using COPPS.– Center on Philanthropy has invested over $5

million in developing, testing, and implementing COPPS in several national and regional studies

Methodological Considerations for IU

• Maintain the integrity and comparability of the regional studies by using appropriate econometric techniques that take into consideration the censoring or truncation inherent in giving and volunteering research (probit and tobit regressions)

Methodological Considerations for ASU

• Data that are consistent with previous studies • Usefulness for local nonprofit community• Over-sampling of Hispanic community for a

better understanding of Hispanic giving and volunteering

Methodological Considerations for GVSU

• Data that are consistent with previous studies• Comparability between both the state of Michigan

and the county• Inconsistencies in the methodology (i.e. the

birthday rule) between this study and previous studies

• Over-sampling of Hispanic and African American community (needed for local partners)

• Inclusion of informal giving questions

Points of Collaboration

• Individual Collaboration– Styles/Personality– Experience and Knowledge

• Institutional Collaboration– Research Expertise – Efficient use of resources and personnel

• Alliance Collaboration– Overall coordination and responsibility– Common goals and expectations

Barriers to Collaboration

• Collaboration takes time and money• Collaboration requires compromises• Collaboration necessitates more communication• Accountability is different in a collaboration• Decision-making inherently is more complex and

therefore more time-consuming

Barriers to Collaboration

• Necessitates balancing individual and institutional goals vs. those of the collaboration– Individual goals may not be consistent– Institutional goals may not be consistent

• Sharing credit and costs are inherently more complex

• Perceptions of fairness may not be uniform• Timelines are extended

Outcomes

• Valid and highly reliable survey• Larger sample that allows for more stratified

analysis • Regional giving data comparison as a contribution

to the field• Ability to compare with COPPS dataset• Knowledge transfer among the partner universities

The Future of Research Collaboration

• At least two more papers from the collaborative research will be presented at ARNOVA 2008– Informal Giving– Volunteering

• Hope that others will collaborate on comparable regional studies of giving and volunteering