Herding Cats- Reflections on Collaborative Research Projects

8/4/2019 Herding Cats- Reflections on Collaborative Research Projects

1/18

1

Herding Cats: Reflections on Collaborative Research ProjectsKarsten Jonsen, IMD

Christina Butler, Kingston University

Rian Drogendijk, Uppsala University

Jakob Lauring, Aarhus University

Jon E. Lervik, Norwegian School of Management

Kristiina Makela, Hanken School of Economics

Cecilia Pahlberg, Uppsala University

Markus Vodosek, German Graduate School of Management and Law

Lena Zander, Uppsala University

When you put good people together with a good process, good things come out. You don't need to haveobjectives."

Bjrn Z. EkelundManaging Director, Certified Psychologist, MBA

Human Factors AS

This paper explores issues of collaboration and knowledge generation in a large academic author teamthrough the reflexive lenses of three cases.There is amble evidence from a variety of scientific fields, that diverse perspectives and backgrounds have thepotential to produce excellent results. Yet, potential gains from diversity may easily be neutralized by processlosses (Stahl et al., 2010). The value-in-diversity (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991) / process loss duality applies toacademic author teams as much as any other diverse setting. It can namely be argued that academics(scientists) are independent, autonomous thinkers (e.g. Busse & Mansfield, 1984) that cannot easily be

managed (Mintzberg, 1998; Stephan & Levin, 1992) or therefore, that large academic author teams resemblean exercise of herding cats (Hellawell and Hancock, 2001)1. This is, however, in stark contrast to the averagenumber of authors of academic articles which has increased steadily over the past decade (Ellis & Zhan, 2011;

1this metaphor is used when the complex situation for academic middle managers is discussed and it is noted that Morethan one of our middle managers used the familiar metaphor of herding cats for the management of academics. One Deanargued that at the end of the day he had to take some decisions where no consensus had been possible that could onlybe done after a lengthy process of consultation and discussion had taken place (p. 191).


2/18

2

Straub & Anderson, 2010; Walsh, 2010), suggesting that an academic author team is not an oxymoron andworth studying in its own right.

As academic writers we often study how others work instead of how we work ourselves. A group of scholarsmeeting in Uppsala (November, 2010) asked [ourselves] how we can bring our own process of researchcollaboration to paper so that other scholars can learn from our experiences. Since we are using our own workas the object for our inquiry and since we are "natives" in the processes under investigation, we can perhapsclaim a better understanding than external observers would have been able to achieve.

In order to understand our own process, we must be open-minded and accept our subjectivity. To compensatefor our biases, we have to be transparent and account for them. The self-inspection methodology of"autoethnography" is defined as "the generation of theoretically relevant descriptions of a group to which onebelongs based on a structured analysis of one's own experience and the experiences of others from one'sgroup" (Karra and Phillips, 2011: 547). This methodology has been used in a variety of contexts where thesubjective experience of the researcher has proved to successfully induce theory development, includingstudies of minority groups, education, and arts (Scherdin, 2007) and international research teams (Karra andPhillips, 2011). Tartas and Mirza (2007) study their own participation in a European R&D project and focus onhow collaboration evolves and new knowledge is constructed. In particular, tensions and negotiations arediscussed. Further, yet different, inspiration comes from Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons and Niessen (2006). Inthis article, the issue of international collaboration and diversity is discussed and it is concluded thatdiversity should neither be seen as an obstacle for understanding, nor be presupposed as a resource for

meaning generation. Rather, diversity should be actively worked on by group members in collaboration,starting by perceiving each other as real others and receiving arguments initially as not understood.

Central to our concern for collaborative writing processes is Teagarden et als (1995) reflection on making senseof findings. These authors consider the core issue to be the alignment of different perspectives and startingpoints in terms of the right research approach and methods. They conclude that it is important to reachconsensus on using multiple methods surveys and exemplary case studies to produce the best study (p.1279). Methodologists generally agree that triangulation the cross-examination between multipleinvestigators, forms of data, or theoretical perspectives promotes a more informed understanding of thephenomenon and increases the validity and reliability of findings (Birkinshaw, 2004; Hurmerinta-Peltomki &Nummela, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). However, we learn little how this objective can be achieved, andthe question we strive to answer in this text is: how can we bring our own process of research collaboration topaper so that other scholars can learn from our experiences?

A guiding principle for this paper is rooted in a position of philosophical pragmatism (e.g. Howe, 1988) whichfavors methodological appropriateness, as advocated by Patton (1990) and reflects the epistemological stancebehind much mixed methods research (see Tashakkori A and Teddlie, 2003). Finally, the making of the presentarticle here follows some of the same procedures and principles as we seek to describe. We aim to walk thetalk in our attempt to suggest a coherent and pragmatic procedure for academic collaboration and writing.Furthermore, it enables us to reflect and transmit our own process.

The paper is structured as follows. We first review previous research about conducting collaborative researchprojects. We then introduce our notion of reflexive collaborative research. In the subsequent section, lessonsfrom the field will help us structure and exemplify typical steps in collaborative writing processes. We willalso discuss in more detail what can be learned from these examples by contrasting them. The paper concludes

with reflections on theoretical and practical implications.

Patterns of Collaborative WritingWe see increasing collaboration between several experts each bringing their personal expertise to the table(Gibbons, 1994). Collaborative writing requires that a group of researchers is able to draw upon, combine, andintegrate the respective expertise of each of its members. Furthermore, collaborators need to be able toreconcile their different working styles and individual differences (Adams & Thornton, 1986; Blyler & Thralls,1994; Ede & Lunsford, 1983).


3/18

3

There is a clear trend towards co-authorship of articles and books as mentioned earlier (see also Beaver &Rosen, 1979a; DuFrene, & Nelson, 1990; Mendenhall, Oddou, & Franck, 1984; Newman, 2004; Petry & Kerr,1982). This trend has at least eight interrelated reasons: (1) the pressure to publish more articles for tenure andpromotion purposes (Adams & Thornton, 1986), (2) a decrease in time that an individual researcher can devoteto writing because of teaching and administrative demands (Belanger & Brockman, 1994; Bloomfeld &Chandler, 1984), (3) increased visibility as part of an author team that includes elite researchers (Beaver &Rosen, 1979b), (4) a more fulfilling and intellectually stimulating research experience (Belanger & Brockman,1994), (5) expectations of colleagues to receive co-authorship for their feedback on paper drafts, (6)requirements for higher-quality papers in an environment of increasing competition for journal space, and (7)

the need to compensate for higher rejection rates of journals with a larger number of submissions (Barnett,Ault, & Kaserman, 1988).

The eighth and, perhaps, primary reason for writing collaborations among researchers, is the cumulativegrowth of scientific knowledge. It is increasingly difficult for individuals to keep up with the frontier ofknowledge across the various knowledge domains required for a given project, such as different sub-specializations of a field and across a range of scientific methods.

An International Context to Patterns of Collaborative Research ProjectsIn the field of international management and international business, authors face the challenges of doingrigorous research across several cultural contexts where no individual researcher can be an insider in allcultures (Adler, 1984; Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991). In international management and international businessresearch we see cross-cultural consortia of researchers as one mode of collaboration to facilitate high qualityresearch across different contexts (Easterby-Smith & Malina, 1999; House et al., 2004; Von Glinow, Drost, &Teagarden, 2002). International collaborative writing thus requires even higher capabilities as complexity isadded inherently.

Teagarden et al (1995) and Easterby-Smith and Malina (1999) take stock of experiences with cross-nationalresearch consortia. They both agree that different phases of a research project raise different challenges. Basedon their experience with an HRM best practice research consortium involving researchers from 18 countries,Teagarden et al. identified four successive phases in the life of a research consortium: (1) forming the researchconsortium, (2) generating questions and constructing a survey, (3) doing the research, and (4) making sense offindings. Although these authors do not explicitly go into the writing phase, many of their relational issuescover various aspects of creating a community of participants and managing the inclusion and involvement of

a diverse group of people in terms of national backgrounds, research skills, and seniority. Measures takenincluded developing clear ground rules such as authorship and data ownership guidelines. Trust wasdeveloped most rapidly through working sessions in which each member could see each others abilities andwork together to resolve challenges (p. 1271). Another relational issue which was important for constructivecollaboration was a shared vision in terms of overall outcomes of the research.

Easterby-Smith and Malina (1999) can offer additional insights when it comes to the latter stages ofinterpreting findings and writing up research. They provide reflections on a contrasting study of cross-culturalcollaborative research, an idiographic interview based research collaboration between Chinese and Britishacademics on firm level decision-making and HR practices in the two countries. During the design and initialexecution of the study, they report how time pressure and a desire for consensus reduced focus on exploringpotential differences in methodological orientations or ontological orientations, or more fundamentally if there

were different views about what constitutes valid research (p. 83). In the several stages of the fieldwork UKand Chinese researchers experienced they were interested in collecting different pieces of data (perceptionsversus factual information), and focused on differences and similarities respectively when comparing cases Ashared vision was difficult to achieve with different views of knowledge and how to interpret it, but throughworking together respective research teams started to understand and appreciate each others initialperspectives (p. 81). Given that research is often grounded in axiomatic knowledge and assumptions, and attimes entails incommensurable philosophical positions, it is no easy task to create alignment or shared vision.Overall, the challenge of creating a shared vision and appreciate differences in world views or views of whatconstitutes good, interesting, valid research may require considerable observation and dialogue to surface.


4/18

4

Easterby-Smith and Malina build on the insight that the potential for convergence between previouslydistinct perspectives makes the case for a more reflexive approach during an ongoing research collaboration(and not only afterwards, in an after action review). They contend that past experience of doing research inone culture does not make one equipped to make sense of events in a different culture as insiders would.Through working together and observing each other in action, the respective research teams not only builttrust, but also came to understand and appreciate different approaches to doing research and, by extension,developed a more reflected view of ones own research practice which may have been taken for granted.Although many of these insights only crystallized and were formulated in the aftermath of the actual project,the authors suggest that a conscious adoption of dialogue would have created space in which to exchange

expectations, assumptions and feelings as the project progressed (p. 84).

Reflexive Collaborative Research: The Individual, the Group, and the FieldCollaborative research draws on the combination of individual group members varying academic skills andsubjectivities in interpreting the field and acquired research results. A collaborative research process includesseveral different social processes including 1) division of labor, 2) psychological support, and 3) theconstruction of meaning through intra-group dialogue (cf. Antal & Richeb, 2009). If a collaborative researchproject aims simply at dividing work tasks among single individuals, the purpose may be purely to economizethe resources of different researchers. Specific competences of specific researchers are employed to differentparts of the research process such as research design, data collection, data analysis, and writing. Seniorresearchers may undertake tasks that require experience while junior researchers may engage in tasks that are

more labor intensive. In such a project, the collaborative influence and interaction may only impact resourceconsumption and may not change the final product of the research. The main task of this type of researchcollaboration is the organizing of the division of labor. Ede and Lunsford (1990) surveyed 1,400 members ofseven professional associations such as The American Consulting Engineers Counsel and The Modern LanguageAssociation and identified seven patterns of how collaborators divided up their work (see Table 1).

Table 1: Patterns of Collaborative WritingPattern of Collaborative Writing Percentage of Respondents Who

Indicated That They Used thePattern Often or Very Often

1. Team or group plans and outlines.

Each member drafts a part. Team orgroup compiles the parts and revises thewhole.

22%

2. Team or group plans and outlines.One member writes the entire draft.Team or group revises.

26%

3. One member plans and writes draft.Group or team revises.

31%

4. One person plans and writes draft.This draft is submitted to one or more

persons who revise the draft withoutconsulting the writer of the first draft.

10%

5. Team or group plans and writes draft.This draft is submitted to one or morepersons who revise the draft withoutconsulting the writers of the first draft.

3%

6. One member assigns writing tasks.Each member carries out individual

21%


5/18

5

tasks. One member compiles the partsand revises the whole.

7. One person dictates. Another persontranscribes and revises.

8%

Source: Ede & Lunsford (1990: 49).

The above table suggests that two factors determine collaboration patterns: how team members organize their

participation in the project (sequentially or in parallel), whether team members work independently orinterdependently and the stage of the project (planning, draft writing, and revising and submitting). It hasbeen suggested that teams benefit from variety, for instance of cultural variety, in generating creativity (Stahlet al., 2010). In about half of the collaborations described, the planning or idea generation stage is done ininterdependent teams, while in the other half single persons are responsible for the first idea and organizationof the collaboration. In these patterns where one person is responsible for the planning of the project, otherteam members become active in later stages, namely when writing the draft or providing feedback andrevising the paper.

Further, in the drafting stage, there is either one team member who writes the entire draft, or several teammembers that produce parts of it (which are then compiled by an individual or a group), but nointerdependent work. This suggests that the advantages of diversity are mainly achieved in the planning stageand the revising stage, and not in the writing in itself, which seems to be the most independent part of

research collaborations.

Such a division of labor, however, may not serve all needs of individual contributors. A groups researchcollaboration also provides psychological work encouragement and feelings of minimizing/dividing risk byleaning on the experience of one or more senior colleagues as well as the possibility easing negative emotionshould the research fail or a publication be rejected. Moreover, some researchers are academically talented andhighly skilled but may have difficulties in organizing their work effort and thus enjoy the organizingassistance of peer group members for performing their work in a timely fashion.

But the mere division of labor and basic psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; 2003) are rarely the onlyresults of research collaboration. Most often the dialogue between different researchers combined with theinteraction with the research field or subject of inquiry includes a construction of meaning that enables the

research group to reach a final product that is a result of creative interactions. At least this is the aspiration offunding authorities on a global scale (Lee & Bozeman, 2005). The anticipated creative interaction involvesresearcher-to-researcher contact and is not unlike the conceptual interaction experienced in field research. AsGeertz (1979) terms it, a researcher:

... engages in a continuous tacking between the most local of local detail and the most global of globalstructure in a way as to bring both into view simultaneously Hopping back and forth between the wholeconceived through the parts which actualise it and the parts conceived through the whole which motivatesthem, we seek to turn them, by a sort of intellectual perpetual motion, into explications of one another (p.239).

This hopping back and forth between ones own position and the position of others in the designing andpublishing of joined research is a process of collective meaning construction that could result in a product of

higher conceptual quality than any of the single participants could have achieved (Lee & Bozeman, 2005). Thisprocess may be perceived as a hermeneutical movement where the creation of meaning in the whole (theresearch design or research paper) depends on interpretations of the different parts (authors, fields, literatures),but where the contribution of the single parts are also interpreted in the relation to the whole (cf. Gadamer,1989). Put differently, the contribution of an individual author can only be understood and evaluated as beingpart of the ongoing collective effort.

Accordingly, the single researcher understands the research object through the structures surrounding him orher. Therefore the working towards a collective product is shaped through a combination of different group


6/18


7/18

7

Step 2 Structure and assignment of sub-groups with timelines

The assigned project leader spent a considerable amount of time trying to structure all the input from thebrainstorm (from the face-to-face meeting) into initial categories that would make sense for the future work.Not only would this help structure the subsequent group-work and literature reviews, it would also be a basefor the structure of the writing of the paper which could later be revised using an open mindset andsomewhat clean sheet (following Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1998). In essence, and in hindsight, weapplied a mix of brainstorming group and nominal group at different times in the process.

Step 3 Content creation & Literature review(s)

Each subgroup (category) consisted of 3-4 people with one leader/coordinator and each group was asked to do aliterature review and recommendations within the specific area - for example, Are we asking the rightquestions. In this review section, the scholars that were considered influential were identified and their work

was synthesized and extrapolated (e.g. Adler and Harzing; 2009; Bell 2010; and Van de Vens, 2007). In somecases a 1:1 dialogue was opened directly with these authors, in order to better understand their work andthinking.

Step 4 Patch work, revisions and internal review process

A number of contributors (six) were dedicated upfront as reviewers. That is, based on individual expertiseand skills, experiences and interests, people reviewed sequentially the emerging paper by focusing on a)content (i.e. what was missing and what was inadequate) and b) the structure of the paper. Given the number

of eminent brains involved it soon became clear that there was plenty of content and the biggest efforts hadto be put into structure, presentation, flow and internal logics of the paper. This patch work resembled adrugless trip (Glaser, 1978). The drugless trip in grounded theory refers to the period in the coding processwhen the researcher turns and twists the maze of codes from a rather mechanical exercise into a creative,sensemaking endeavour, for which there is no magic formula.

The revisions were plentiful over the time where the steps described above took place. At the end of thisprocess this process the paper was edited and discussions were held with potential outlets, not only for thepurpose of publishing but also to get the right steer on the formatting and style. e submission process andsubsequent negotiations with editors and reviewers was not a group effort. This complex admin task wasdone entirely by the project leader, obtaining the authorization of all co-authors when needed, includingstyle-coherent biographies and other info details.

Afterthoughts

The final paper happened especially due to three reasons. Firstly, the authors were dealing with a subjectwhich time had come and several pieces that followed in 2010 (refs) including the Presidential address tothe Academy of Management (Walsh, 2010) were discussing vividly how to make international businessresearch more relevant and what this relevance might mean. The contribution (Jonsen et al., 2010) was


8/18

8

perhaps particularly strong in the area of defining relevance. This is important because relevance is too oftenleft abstract and inherently diffuse vis--vis rigor (see also Kieser and Leiner, 2009). Ph.D. programs trainthoroughly future reviewers for rigor and methods, and therefore it often leaves relevance in an unfavourablesituation. Secondly, the authors were dealing with an amazing amount of diversity [including informationaldiversity] in this project. Diversity, as well pointed out in its literature (e.g. Stahl et al., 2010), has the abilityto outperform homogeneous groups, but only if managed well (e.g. Maznevski, 1994). In this case the structureprocesses and division of labor were suggested early on in the project. The aim was to make use of thediversity in content and review processes (continuous improvements) Instead of suppressing divergentopinions, we made an effort to keep a fluid structure that could entail different viewpoints and thus enrich

the paper. Single participants had the opportunity to gradually internalize some perceptions and views fromother participants as well as provide opportunities for other researchers to internalize parts of his or herperception of the final product. It was also discussed to which extent there was agreement on thefundamentals and which areas there were less agreement on. Yet, the objective of contributing to sciencethat matters was never under threat and so called positivists could work together with so-calledconstructivists harmoniously. The group provided each other with psychological work encouragementthroughout the process, either via dyads (conversations) or emails (one to one and one to many). Thirdly, theproject leader took clear roles in some phases (e.g. structure, timing and submissions processes) and had laissezfair rule others (e.g. how the sub-groups were working). Important here was what Richard Hackman labelsrefereeing(Coutu and Beschloss, 2009) which is evidently needed in a large group of diverse minds andpersonalities2. Finally, since the chosen task was inherently cross-disciplinary, high on modularity andrelatively low/medium on complexity (speciality insights), we benefitted mostly from the diversity of the

group by using it in a brainstorming group early in the process vis--vis nominal groups (workingindividually) later on in the process (see also McGlynn et al., 2004).

Example 2: The EvalEthic Project Example

EvalEthic is an online action-research tool (see Appendix A) to explore ethical decision-making inorganisations. The French language tool was initially conceived and developed by Jean-Jacques Nilles, aphilosopher and founder of Socrates, a small French company based in Lille. The tool was tested and furtherdeveloped in conjunction with sociologist Christian Mahieu, the Socrates team and a number of French

companies. To reach a wider audience, the French developers needed an English-language version and accessto English-speaking test samples. The opportunity to connect with English-speaking academics and possibleEnglish test samples came through a chance introduction to the Dean of Kingston Business School and Frenchnative at an EASBIS conference in 2009 who mentioned the existence of a Kingston psychologist colleague,Sunitha Narendran, with an interest in decision-making.

With pressures from the UK governments Research Excellence Framework (REF) exercise already beginning,Sunitha asked me with my knowledge of the French language and my research interest in cross-culturalmanagement to join her in applying for some UK government Enterprise funding in conjunction with Socratesand, possibly, get ourselves another quick publication. From our side, division of labour was the sole socialprocess for entering into this collaboration with persons unknown to us from Socrates. For Sunitha there wasan additional need for division of labour particularly as well as psychological support for research given her

heavy administrative role as Head of Department. For me, well, I am not really sure.

Step 1 heading tbd

We all lurched into this virtual collaboration very suddenly and with no real understanding of the skills,abilities, constraints, resources, motivations or expectations of one another as a team. In this collaborationthe individual doing the autoethnographic study was jumping on a riding train, which means that thebrainstorming stage was skipped.

2i.e. making decisions on content and structure of the paper


9/18

9

The situation was further complicated by language, workload and intellectual property ownership issues. Setup as an instrumental transaction, there was no discussion of the social processes behind the collaboration. Inthese ways, this collaboration was different from others I had embarked on to date which had mainlydeveloped slowly over a period of time with both face-to-face contact and virtual phases in the developmentof the relationships.

The first few weeks of our collaboration passed in increasing frustration. As the original contact with theFrench side, Sunitha led email contact with Socrates. In return for the fee Socrates was to receive from theEnterprise funding we won, we expected swift receipt of the on-line questionnaire for translation. We had

short funding deadlines to meet, other heavy work obligations to attend to, and a desire for a quickpublication. Response from the French side was puzzling. Days might pass before an email response wasreceived and then it wouldnt address the content of our message. We were also increasingly concerned bythe lack of receipt of a formal signature from Socrates founder Jean-Jacques Nilles on the Enterprise contract.With our instrumental division of labour focus, worries about wasted time began to appear. Was thiscollaboration worth pursuing?

Sunitha was ready to give up on the relationship. I suggested that we might be having communicationproblems, possibly stemming from language difficulties, and that maybe a face-to-face meeting would help toclarify things.

Step 2 heading tbd

We invited Christian to visit us in Kingston and discovered that he was a real academic like us, associatedwith one of Frances prestigious research centres, who was looking to generate publications and researchfunding. He also proved to be an extremely likeable person. In short, we hit it off and so the seeds ofpsychological support began to germinate. Although we spoke in English at that meeting because Sunitha is anon-French speaker, Christians English was not fluent and, I noticed, that he missed parts of what we weresaying, and, at times, I translated difficult ideas into French. He suggested we apply for some joint researchcouncil funding with an early April deadline. This suggestion was a move away from the initial solelytransactional-based division of labour relationship to a more transformational one. Although I was excited bythe possibilities, given my already full workload, my heart sunk at the enormity of the task especially coupledwith the language challenges.

Sunitha was somewhat oblivious to the challenges. In addition to being my colleague and close friend, she

had, as Head of Department, little time to focus on the project and hoped that I would carry things forward.Not only was I realising through the careful reading of the French documents being sent by Christian for thebid that EvalEthic was not a psychometric tool, rather an action-research one, but was also quicklydiscovering that division of labour between Sunitha and I meant that I was to do all the work. I was now inthe position of letting down a good friend (not to mention my boss) and feeling rather short of thepsychological support that might have made the collaboration worthwhile. How could I have let myselfbecome involved in this mess? How could I now get myself out of it?

Step 3 heading tbd

It proved easier, but not easy, to convince Sunitha that the funding bid was too much too soon. We had notproduced any joint work to date and we certainly hadnt constructed much meaning together! Althoughdisappointed, Christian accepted our decision not to speed up the collaboration, but stick to the original plan;

and invited us to meeting # 2 in Lille. Although I discussed our misunderstanding of the nature of theEvalEthic tool with Sunitha on a number of occasions, she was so preoccupied that it was not until she couldquestion Christian about it in Lille that she finally understood that for Socrates the focus of the project was onthe construction of meaning (of ethical decision-making) itself. Our instrumental focus on division of labourfor a quick publication had led to much lost and energy. At the same time, it opened a new phase in theteams collaboration in which psychological support became significant. We agreed to the piloting of Kingstonstudents using a subset of the scenarios translated into English in the autumn. A whole team construction ofmeaning was still not a focus though it seemed to me like it might need to be. With the intellectual propertyowned by Socrates, it seemed though impossible to assert our intellectual sides.


10/18

10

Step 4 heading tbd

The pilot didnt happen until January 2011, much to Christians disappointment. Sunitha and I realised that,owing to other commitments, we couldnt realistically continue with the project and continue to let down ourFrench partners. A shifting in the division of labour was necessary. It was at this time when we hit upon theidea of turning over much of the work to two of our doctorallevel students who had expressed some interestin the area. As discussed with Christian when we met during Spring of 2011 (meeting # 3), together with oneof my pHD students, industry funding too would be necessary to keep us going. Psychological support for theteam as a whole was significant now with open discussions of workload issues and institutional political

realities. Moving toward some collaborative construction of meaning seems a possibility. The strict division oflabour seems to be fading too.

Language and workload issues, coupled with our initially virtual relationship, have certainly provedsignificant obstacles to collaboration. We have nevertheless persevered. It seems in this case that processes ofpsychological support, friendship and compatibility mixed together with a certain amount of desperation (foran English-language connection on the French side and a business connection on the British side) have provedinstrumental to us hanging in. We understand each other much better and mutual support is developing inspite of everything. With a little luck and work to get our students settled, we might be able to say we havefinally established a real partnership.

Afterthoughts

From what was a very shaky start, the EvalEthic team have a number of small successes to be proud of and tobuild on. In the first 12 months that passed since our first face-to-face meeting, we just met face-to-face fourtimes. The last meeting, like the first one, was held at Kingston, the United Kingdom. We have also managedto translate eight scenarios into English, submit and have accepted an abstract to the EABIS conference in St.Petersburg, attend the EABIS conference and hold a simultaneous third meeting in St. Petersburg, and conduct asmall pilot study with Kingston Exec Ed MBA students in January 2011. Although the pilot study was verysmall, results look promising in that there seems to be considerable variation in the reaction to the scenarios.Further work leading to a full academic paper now seems possible as does extending the collaboration toPhD/DBA students and other researchers and seeking industry funding.

Example 3 A multilevel data collection processOur third example is a 3-year large-scale, multilevel data collection process that took place between August2008 and June 2011. The data collection focused on HRM issues in multinational corporations and was acollaborative effort between two Finnish universities, involving the joint efforts of nine researchers fromvarious backgrounds and nationalities. The research group collaborated with 12 Nordic multinational firms andthe data collection process consisted of three different stages, the first consisting qualitative pilot interviews,and the latter two involving the design and administration of five different questionnaires. The processemerged as follows:

Step 1 Pilot stage

Six senior members of the research group had done work on both HRM and various issues related tomultinational corporations, and as an opportunity arose to get financing for a major research project, theystarted to put together a research plan for an ambitious, internationally cutting edge project. The project planstarted as a relatively loose and at least in afterthought messy collection of ideas, with which it was soldto the participating companies. The first step was to collect pilot data from the Corporate HR managers/directorsof the participating companies, using semi-structured interviews that benchmarked their various HR practices.After considerable reflection, it was subsequently decided that a multilevel data collection effort was the wayforward, both because it was the best way to examine the relationship between HR practices, theirimplementation and various employee and unit-level outcomes, and also because there had been recent calls


11/18

11

for rigorous multilevel research in the IB and HR fields (e.g., Felin & Hesterly, 2007; Minbaeva, Foss & Snell,2009). Furthermore, it was decided that the appropriate levels of analysis should include the corporate(focusing on the Corporate HR function), subsidiary and employee levels of analysis.

Step 2 First stage of quantitative data collection

The group then set off to design a set of three questionnaires: one for Corporate HR covering firm-level and HQ-issues, one for the subsidiary HR Managers focusing on various HR-related independent variables, and one forthe subsidiary General Managers to get unit-level outcome variables, and also to avoid the pitfalls of commonmethod bias. An employee-level questionnaire was kept in mind for the next stage of the process. The targetwas to examine 10 subsidiaries in 15 firms, with the total of 150 subsidiaries, and with some serious sellingthe total number of 123 units in the 12 firms was reached. An equally painful process was the design of thequestionnaires. The six senior team members all had their own (and rather varying) research interests theywanted to include in the design. A brainstorming process was started in which different sub-groups (whichwere fluidly assigned by research interests and expertise) first came up with concrete paper ideas, theoreticalframeworks and appropriate measures; these were then debated and contrasted against each other during a 6-month period, which at times felt rather frustrating by all team members as ideas competed, were droppedand re-surfaced in a what felt like a very messy process. After multiple iterations, a final plan emerged thateveryone was happy with, and data collection could start. The data collection itself was smoother thanexpected, partly due to the extensive preparation and planning, as well as the hiring of three excellentresearch assistants, two of which subsequently joined the project as PhD students.

Step 3 Second stage of quantitative data collection

Having successfully completed the first stage quantitative data collection, the group started the second stage ofquantitative data collection which included the design and administration of web-based questionnaires toapproximately 10 managers and professionals in the focal subsidiaries, targeting some 1200 employees. Thedesign of this questionnaire was, if possible, an even more painful process in which different interests,concepts and measures were fiercely debated the number of questions in this form had to be minimized so asto reach high enough response rate; a low response rate was seen as a crucial pitfall to be avoided both for

validity and data analysis reasons. The debate could have gone on but when an acceptable solution wasreached, the group moved on to the actual data collection, which again went reasonably well thanks to thethrough preparation and another excellent research assistant joining the team (he also continued in the projectas a PhD student); in the end a total number of 920 responses in 105 units were reached. With successfullycompleting such an ambitious multi-level data collection effort, the group decided to leverage their by thenconsiderable expertise and relationships the companies, and go back to the Corporate HR to administer anadditional post hoc questionnaire which covered research ideas that came up during the process.

Afterthoughts

Such a large-scale and labour-intensive data collection process was both a major challenge and a huge learning

process. As the first example, also this one was an emergent and creative sensemaking endeavour, in thebeginning of which no-one knew (or could have guessed) where it would end up. Looking back, the emergingnature was a blessing as had the group known what was to come they may not even have started.Nevertheless, the project happened due to three reasons: First, the group was extremely committed to makingit work and despite different interests and working styles each member showed considerable ownership andwillingness to overcome obstacles. Second, the at times frustrating and organised dialogue was necessary forthe outcome to emerge: as in the first example, instead of suppressing different viewpoints, the team engagedin a fluid discussion that took advantage of diversity in ideas and opinions in a spirit that was fundamentallysupportive and trustful. Third, although some parts (such as questionnaire design) took place in a veryemergent and self-organizing way, the project as a whole was highly objectives-driven with clear milestones


12/18

12

(such as meetings and reports to the case companies) that provided non-negotiable deadlines and thenecessary discipline. One person took leadership of process issues, making sure that we were on track with theprocess and deliverables. The creative part, on the other hand, took place in a very equalitarian and self-organising way. This combination was, I believe, key for the success of the project (not that it felt like it at thetime, but in hindsight!)

Uppsala Reflections

Lessons from the three processes mentioned above and this current paper, leads to a number of questions.First, in the Jonsen et al. project, the initial brainstorming stages were an act of a group of people, meant tomaximize the benefits of variety and creativity, but with an initially loose and unstated objective. This wasalso the case for the data collection process, where the term a messy collection of ideas was used. Thenarrative of the EvilEthic project starts with the entrance of Kingston University partners in a Frenchinitiative: there seems to be no cross-cultural or international teamwork underlying the first steps of thisproject. Given the difficulties experienced by the Kingston side of the EvilEthic project, their jumping on ariding train with little information on the path to follow led to frustrations and almost to a withdrawal fromthe project. This suggests that the first stage-setting part of a project is very important not only for developingideas, but also for structuring the project and building trust.

Proposition 1: International research (or writing) collaborations benefit from early interdependence/interactionbetween many members of the team in terms of a) clarifying division of labor; b) building psychologicalsupport and c) constructing meaning.

Second, the narrative about the EvilEthic project explicitly mentions the importance of face-to-face meetings.Where the project seemed to be doomed to fail and the Kingston partners almost withdrew, a personal meetingbetween the French side and the English partners developed trust and laid the careful foundations fordeveloping psychological support. In fact, the personal meetings seem to be related to the steps of progress in

the project, suggesting that personal meetings are helpful for structuring the project as well. Furthermore, thedata collection project as well as the Jonsen et al. project started out with a meeting of the participants inwhich idea generation was central. This early face-to-face interaction was not followed up as often as in theKingston project, yet the participants were able to fall back on trust developed in this first meeting, perhapsbecause they already knew each other from past professional and social engagements. This suggests thatpersonal meetings are less important for the later stages of a project once the project started out with aninteractive meeting.

Proposition 2: International research collaborations benefit from face-to-face meetings throughout the projectsstages when interdependence3 and trust is not established in an early stage.

Earlier work on international research collaborations (Ede and Lunsford, 1990) found that some teams use theinput from multiple team members in early stages of the project, like in the Jonsen project, whereas other

3 Interdependence is defined as a state of being in which a person is determined, influenced or controlled by some other person

(DeSanctic, Staudenmayer & Wong, 1999) and thus it reflects the extent to which group members are dependent upon one another to

perform and complete their individual jobs. Interdependence has been found to affect a teams conflict pattern, decision quality, job

satisfaction, and performance (Kelley, et al., 1983; Somech, Desivilya & Lidogoster, 2009; Staw & Barsade, 1993; Tjosvold et al.,

2003 ).


13/18

13

teams benefit from the variety of teammembers expertise in the later stages of feedback, reflection andrevision. In all but one patterns of collaborative writing reported by Ede and Lunsford (1990), however, somestage of the project was organized by one individual: be it the initial idea or the planning, the writing of afirst draft or the putting together of the submission. This suggests that research collaborations and in particularwriting projects can benefit from the knowledge generation in diverse teams in different stages, but also that acertain division of labour seems to be preferred in such teams. Our example projects seem to support this: boththe Jonsen as well as the current Uppsala team used a pattern where one person was main responsible fororganizing the writing of the paper. In the EvilEthic project, no such single responsible person has stood out,perhaps because this collaboration is essentially one between two separate teams. Within both the French as

well as the UK team, however, one person is mentioned to have become the responsible contact for thecollaboration. This suggests a new pattern of collaboration: one where two subteams in a larger team each arerepresented by a person who has a larger role in the planning, writing and revising stages.

Proposition 3: International research collaborations benefit from using a pattern of sequential stages, in one ofwhich a single individual is responsible for the progress of the project. In collaborative projects consisting ofseparate subteams, such responsibility is shared by representatives of the respective parts.

Concluding ReflectionsOne contribution of this investigation is that we studied [mainly] the writing stage of international researchcollaborations, a stage that was mainly ignored in prior studies on research teams. Of particular relevance isour focus on how these collaborations of researchers operate in practice, another issue on which the literaturehas been rather silent (Salmi, 2010). Further, our use of and auto-ethnographic method, in particular to studyan ongoing project, namely the current paper, is novel. Such an approach may of course suffer from knowchallenges of auto-ethnographic research, such as a lack of distance, role conflict of the researchers and alimited pool of potential study objects (Karra and Phillips, 2011). Because we studied three researchcollaborations, of which not all participants in the current project took part (only in the third example doesthe research team show extensive overlap with the authors of this paper), the lack of distance and the roleconflict problems were less important. Some of the authors of this paper were outsiders to two of the cases weinvestigated, which means they had a more objective relationship to the collaborations studied and did not

experience a role conflict. Further, by extending our pool of potential collaborations to those in which anymember of our research team participated, we increased the variety of projects that could be included in ourstudy.

References(To be completed)

Adams, P. G., & Thornton, E. S. 1986. An inquiry into the process of collaboration. Language Arts of Michigan,2: 25-28.

Adler, Ashton-Jones, E., & Thomas, D.K. 1990. Composition, collaboration, and womens way of knowing: Aconversation with Mary Belenky. Journal of Advanced Composition, 10: 275-292.

Adler, N. J. 1983. Cross-cultural memagement research; The ostrich and the trend. Academy of ManagementReview, 8: 226-232.

Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A. W. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academicrankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8: 7295.

Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R.J. & Niessen, T. 2006. Considering Diversity: Multivoicedness inInternational Academic Collaboration. Detail Culture & Psychology, Dec2006, 12 (4): 461-485.


14/18

14

Ancona, D.G. & Caldwell, D.F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups.Group and Organization Studies, 13, 468-494.

Antal, A.B., & Richeb, N. 2009. A passion for giving, a passion for sharing: Understanding knowledge sharingas gift exchange in academia. Journal of management Inquiry, 18(1), 87-95.

Barnett, A. H., Ault, R. W.; Kaserman, D. L. 1988. The rising incidence of coauthorship in economics: Furtherevidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, August: 539-543.

Beaver, D. deB., & Rosen, R. 1979a. Studies in scientific collaboration. Part III. The professionalization and thenatural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Sociometrics, 1: 231-245.

Beaver, D. deB., & Rosen, R. 1979b. Studies in scientific collaboration. Part II. Scientific co-authorship, researchproductivity and visibility in the French scientific elite. 1799-1830. Sociometrics, 1: 133-149.

Belanger, K., & Brockman, E. B. 1994. Writing our way into a discourse community. The Bulletin of theAssociation for Business Communication, 57(1): 55-57.

Bell, M. 2010. From the Editors: What if?: Diversity, scholarship, and impact. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 9: 5-10.

Bernstein, R.J. 1985. Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.Bloomfield, R. L., & Chandler, E. T. 1984. Creative collaboration: A duet, not a duel. Medical Communcations,12(2): 44-50.

Blyler, N. R., & Thralls, C. 1994. Making a collaboration work, Bulletin of the Association for BusinessCommunication, 57(1): 50-52.

Bourdieu, P. 1990. The logic of practice. New York: Polity press.

Boyacigiller, N. A.. &. Adler. N. J. 1991. The parocbial dinosaur: The organizational sciences in a global context.Academy of Management Review, 18: 282-290.

Busse, T.V. & Mansfield, R.S. 1984. Selected personality traits and achievement in male scientists. The Journalof Psychology, 116: 117-131.

Coutu, D. & Beschloss, M. 2009. Why teams dont work. Harvard Business Review, 87, 5: 98-105.

Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., McLeod, P. L. 1991. Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative andcompetitive behaviour on a group task. Academy of Management Journal 34: 827 - 847.

DuFrene, D. D., & Nelson, B. H. 1990. Effective co-authoring for business communication academicians. TheBulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 53(2): 68-71.

Easterby-Smith, M., & Malina, D. 1999. Cross-cultural collaborative research: Towards reflexivity. Academy ofManagement Journal, 42: 76-86.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. 1990. Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. 1983. Why write Together? Rhetoric Review, 1: 150-57.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44, 350383.

Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning ininterdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 14191452.


15/18

15

Gadamer, H.-G. 1989. Truth and method. In Sheed and Ward. London.

Geertz, C. 1979. From the Natives Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological understanding. In P.o.S.Rabinow, W. (Ed.), Interpretive Social Science: A Reader. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gibbons, M. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporarysocieties. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Ltd.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Glaser, B. G. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity : Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley,Calif.: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B. G. 1998. Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. SociologyPress.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1967. Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago:Aldine.

Griffith, D. A., Cavusgil, S. T., & Xu, S. 2008. Emerging themes in international business research. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 39: 12201235.

Hellawell, D. and Hancock, N. 2001. A Case Study of the Changing Role of the Academic Middle Manager inhigher education. Research Papers in Education 16(2): 183-97.

House, R. J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. and Gupta, V. 2004. Culture, leadership andorganizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howe, K. R. 1988. Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis (or dogmas die hard). Educationalresearcher (17) p10-16.

Jeffrey T. Polzer, Laurie P. Milton, & William B. Swann, Jr. 2002. Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonalcongruence in small work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2): 296-324.

Karra, N. And N. Phillips 2011. Researching Back Home International management research asautoethnography. Organizational Research Methods, 11(3): 541-561.

Karsten Jonsen, Joerg Dietz, Mila Lazarova, Todd J. Weber, David C. Thomas, Martha Maznevski, Catherine T.Kwantes, Sue Canney Davison, Mary M. Maloney, Julia Gluesing, Ed McDonough, Sully Taylor, Nakiye A.Boyacigiller, Iris Berdrow, Zeynep Aycan, Mary Yoko Brannen and Svjetlana Madzar. 2010. ScientificMindfulness: A Foundation for Future Themes in International Business, in Devinney, T.M., Pedersen, T. &Tihanyi, L. (eds). Advances in International Management: The Past, Present and Future. EmeraldPublishing.Volume 23, pp. 43 69.

Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. 2005. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies ofScience, 35(5), 673-702.

McGlynn, R.P., McJurk, D., Sprague Effland, V., Johll, N.L. & Harding, D.J. 2004. Brainstorming and taskperformance in groups constraint by evidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 93: 75-

87.

Mendenhall, M., Oddou, G., & Franck, L. 1984. The trend toward research collaboration in social psychologicalresearch. Journal of Social Psychology, 122: 101-103.

McGrath, J.F. 1984. Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H. 1998. Covert Leadership: Notes on Managing Professionals. Harvard Business Review, vol 76(nov-dec):140-147.

Moustakas, C. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.


16/18

16

Newman, M. E. J. 2004. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101: 5200-5205.

Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed) Newbury Park, CA. Sage.

Petry, G. H., & Kerr, H. S. 1982. Pressure to publish increases the incidence of co-authorship. Phi Delta Kappan,63 (March): 495.

Rimmershaw, R. 1992. Collaborative writing practices and writing support technologies, pages 15-28.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Salmi, A. 2010. International research teams as analysts of industrial business networks. Industrial MarketingManagement, 39: 40-48.

Scherdin, M. 2007 The Invisible Foot Survival of new art ideas on the Swedish art arena: anautoethnographic study of nontvstation. Doctoral thesis No.127, Department of Business Studies, UppsalaUniversity.

Sharple, M. 1992. Adding a little structure to collaborative writing. London: Springer-Verlag.

Speck, B. W., Johnson, T. R., Dice, C. P., & Heaton, L. B. 1999. Collaborative writing: An annotatedbibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. [see pp. 233-256 on "Academics as collaborative writers" and pp.

257-271 on "Scientists as collaborative writers."]Stahl, G., M. L. Maznevski, A. Voigt and K. Jonsen. 2010. Unravelling the diversity-performance link inmulticultural teams: meta-analysis of studies on the impact of cultural diversity in teams. Journal ofInternational Business Studies, 41(4), 690-709.

Stephan, P. & Levin, S. 1992. Striking the mother load in science: the importance of age, place and time. NewYork, Oxford: University Press.

Tambiah, S.J. 1990. Magic, science, religion and the scope of rationality. London: Cambridge university press.

Tartas, V. & Mirza, N.M. 2007. Rethinking Collaborative Learning Through Participation in an InterdisciplinaryReseach Project: Tensions and Negotiations as Key Points in Knowledge Production, Integrative Psychological

and Behavioral Science, 41: 154-168.Teagarden, M. B., Von Glinow, M. A., Bowen, D. E., Frayne, C. A., Nason, S., Huo, Y. P., Milliman, J., Arias, M.E., Butler, M. C., Geringer, J. M., Kim, N-M., Scullion, H., Lowe, K. B., & Drost, E. A. 1995. Toward a theory ofcomparative management research: An idiographic case study of the best international human resourcesmanagement project. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1261-1287.

Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, New York:Oxford University Press.

Von Glinow, M. A., Drost, E. A., & Teagarden, M. B. 2002. Converging on IHRM best practices: Lessons learnedfrom a globally distributed consortium on theory and practice. Human Resource Management, 41: 123-140.


17/18

17

Table X. An example of we can compile the learning from the field (ION and other collaborative projects) we

may decide on more relevant categories and we can of course include more than one from each

collaborative project if we like

Collaborativeprojects

Mainchallenges

How handled Comparativeadvantages

Howbenefitted

Jonsen et al. Short timeframe & busyindividuals

Time scheduleand progressmonitored andfollowed up

Differentdisciplinarybackgrounds

In-depthdiscussionand breadthin topicsaddressed

Butler et al.K.M. et al......

Table Y. An example of how we can structure the findings currently from the Jonsen et al paper but also

drawing on the other projects when developing a model

Collaborativemodel

Input Activity Output Who

Step 1 Articles Brainstorming Themes AllStep 2.....


18/18

18

Appendix EvalEthic SampleSituation example: Management Training for an Older EmployeeA 52 year old subordinate has made numerous requests for management training, because he would like to a

management position. You do not think he has the necessary competences. He reiterates his request.

A. You convey his request to HR without comment.B. During an appraisal meeting, you aim to make him understand his lack of potential.C. You meet with him to explain your view of his managerial competences. You suggest he have a

conversation with HR to arrange a competence assessment.

D. You explain to him that the business does not invest heavily in training for employees who arenearing the end of their career.

EvalEthic Instructions EvalEthic presents you with a simplified situation within which a decision making problem arises. It

describes: 1) The situation itself: the context of the decision and 2) The different options available toyou: scenarios.

Firstly, it is suggested that you qualify the situation. Next, EvalEthic presents you with a set ofpossible scenarios for the situation. The scenarios have been identified by Managers based on their

experience. It is suggested that you assess each of these decisions firstly from the perspective of its

ethical value, then from the perspective of its probability. These two assessments are not necessarily

the same: for example, it is possible that a decision is the best one for you, but that, in a real context,

it is unlikely for a manager.

Finally, EvalEthic suggests that you make a decision, which should be the one that you would makeif you were a Manager. As has already been specified, so that your answers are meaningful, they must

relate to your personal point of view and not the ideal point of view. At the end of the survey, youwill have access to your individual results. The survey results will allow you to position youranswers against the average of others participants and analyse your point of view.

Documents

Herding Cats- Reflections on Collaborative Research Projects