![Page 1: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda
![Page 2: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What is Collaborative Research?
From Katz & Martin (1997):
“… the working together of researchers to achieve the common goal of producing new… knowledge.”
![Page 3: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Levels of Collaboration
Discipline
Institutional
Individual
![Page 4: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Individual
• Communication – styles, dispersed teams
• Individual priorities – salience
• Personality
• Experience/Knowledge
• Career goals
![Page 5: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Institutional
• Scheduling
• Organizational priorities (strategic goals)
• Resources (personnel, $, course/workload)
• Culture
![Page 6: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Discipline
• Norms (co-authorship, ownership, etc.)
• Methods
• Standards (What is “good” research?)
• Tools (software)
![Page 7: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Increasing Level of Institutionalization/Networking
BurgeoningResearch
Topic
NascentNetwork
KnowledgeValue
Collective
StableResearch
FieldDiscipline
Corley et al. (2006)
![Page 8: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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)
![Page 11: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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)
![Page 12: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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
![Page 13: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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)
![Page 14: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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
![Page 15: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda](https://reader031.vdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022032800/56649d3a5503460f94a152a1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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