Research Collaboration as “Layers of Engagement”: INKE in Year Four

Abstract

<jats:p> Many academic teams and granting agencies undergo a process of reflection at a project’s completion to understand lessons learned and develop best practice guidelines. These reviews focus on the actual research work accomplished with little discussion of the relationships and processes involved. As a result, some hard-earned lessons are forgotten or minimized. To address, the Implementing New Knowledge Environments (INKE) project provides an opportunity to explore the changing nature of collaboration over a long-term project’s life. Now at the fourth year, team members reflect on the deepening and strengthening collaboration, with layers of engagement between the various individuals and sub-research areas, which has translated into productivity and external validation of the collaboration and its work. The article concludes with recommendations for other teams.</jats:p>

Developing an Open Social Scholarship Collaboration: Lessons from INKE

“…As articulated again this year, as in other years INKE Research Group 2016, 2015), this has then led to different ways of working within an academic setting where the traditional paradigm of solo work is no longer a desired approach (Newell and Swan 2000;Hara et al 2003). A final benefit is the creation of larger networks which leads to collaboration beyond the grant itself (Katz and Martin 1997;Siemens and INKE Research Group 2014). However, all these benefits can be difficult to measure in a way that journal articles can be.…”

“INKE-cubating” Research Networks, Projects, and Partnerships: Reflections on INKE’s Fifth Year

“…As discussed in the reflection on this collaboration's fourth year (L. Siemens & INKE Research Group, 2014), INKE is now a mature and productive team project as measured by presentations, publications, prototypes, gatherings, student training, and other factors (INKE, 2012c(INKE, , 2013a(INKE, , 2013b. Further, the project is acting as an "incubator, " facilitating relationships and networks that extend research beyond this project's specific scope.…”

“…An inherent trade-off exists between individual research, where a researcher is in control of all aspects of the project, and the team's focus, where that individual may not understand all parts of the research and methodologies. As a result, collaborators must trust each other and possess a willingness to "not be in control" (R2) as well as find ways to incorporate individual research interests into the larger INKE mandate (L. Siemens & INKE Research Group, 2014). Spiller, Ball, Daniel, Dibb, Meadows, and Canhoto (2014) describe collaboration within a research context as a process of "letting go" of the individual's focus and then a "coming together" of the team.…”

“…A second type of partner is one who assists with translating research results, prototypes, and models to a nonresearch setting with non-academic outputs. Articles and conference papers may not follow from this work, which may be a drawback for those who need publication (L. Siemens & INKE Research Group, 2014). Further, these partners' involvement tends to vary in timing and effort because the particular project may not be part of their key business activities (AL3).…”

“More Hands” Means “More Ideas”: Collaboration in the Humanities

“…These individuals were asked about their experiences collaborating within the project in order to understand the nature of collaboration and the ways that it might change over a grant's long-term life, as well as the advantages and challenges associated with it. These interviews allow the researcher to explore topics more fully and deeply with probing and follow up questions [41][42][43] while participants reflect on their own experiences and emphasize those issues that are most important to them [44][45][46][47][48].…”