Processing the Process: One Research Team's Experience of a Collaborative Research Project

PROCESSING THE PROCESS: ONERESEARCH TEAM’S EXPERIENCE OF ACOLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT

Laura BryanMichael NegrettiFaline Bateman ChristensenSean Stokes

ABSTRACT: Students and faculty frequently collaborate on research.This paper presents the processes of a research team that not onlyconducted a qualitative research study but also investigated interac-tions and group dynamics while engaged in the project. Although thepostmodern paradigm places importance on all voices being heard,could faculty and students work through the hierarchical structure andgenuinely collaborate? Transcripts from individual interviews and aresearch team focus group were analyzed using phenomenological tech-niques. Six core themes emerged, providing a description of the groupprocesses. Suggestions for researchers considering a collaborative qual-itative research project are offered.

KEY WORDS: qualitative research; group project; collaborative research; authorship;postmodernism; marital and family therapy.

I think that we put ourselves through the ultimate test. Ireally do and what a way to learn about postmodernism andour own growth and our own personality and how we interactand the different challenges of being involved in that. And weknow we live in a society, and we’re part of structures thatare hierarchical, and to talk postmodernism but to deny that

Laura Bryan, MS, is a doctoral student in the Marriage and Family Therapy Programat Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1162 (e-mail: [email protected]).Michael A. Negretti, MA, Faline Bateman Christensen, MA, and Sean Stokes, MA, aredoctoral students in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Texas Tech University,Lubbock, TX 79409-1162.

Contemporary Family Therapy 24(2), June 2002 2002 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 333

334

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

reality, particularly in research and clinically, is absurd. A,participant-researcher.

The postmodern paradigm has implications for how research isconducted and perceived (Oldfather & Thomas, 1998). This paper de-scribes a qualitative study using a postmodern lens to illuminate theprocess of doing collaborative research. We applied phenomenologicalprinciples (Holstein & Gubrium, 1998) to examine the group processfrom the viewpoint of the six researchers who participated in theproject.

POSTMODERNISM AS A FRAMEWORK

A postmodern paradigm includes listening to oppressed voices,recognizing multiple realities, and deconstructing dominant assump-tions (White & Epston, 1990). Participating in a collaborative qualita-tive project is consistent with the postmodern view that knowledgeshould be acquired from local experience and by listening to all voices(Anderson, 1997; White & Epston, 1990). We used these postmodernprinciples to guide the exploration of our group process.

An important part of the phenomenological approach is recognizingthe researcher’s assumptions about the particular phenomenon (Rie-man, 1998). These assumptions are spelled out in reflexive memos(notes about the process) and descriptive memos (detailed records ofthe activities). Researchers then suspend, or “bracket,” these assump-tions so the voice of the participant is clearly heard. The researchersin this project, however, are the participants. The following literaturereview details our bracketed assumptions of what we would find in theexamination of our group process.

Examining the Process

Community building. An important element of collaboration is tobuild a sense of community among group members. Community isdeveloped by taking time to foster an environment of safety and trustin the group. Differences are seen not as divisions but as enriching tothe group process (Newman, 1997), and each person’s contribution isconsidered valuable. Frequent and honest communication can helpgroup members deal with the anxiety of depending on other people(Marshall & Reason, 1997). Although hierarchies may exist in such a

335

L. BRYAN, M. NEGRETTI, F. B. CHRISTENSEN, AND S. STOKES

community, leaders must be willing to set aside their control so thegroup can make decisions through consensus (Peck, 1987). Practicalconcerns often get in the way of building consensus as deadlines ap-proach or one group member appears to have more knowledge aboutthe topic. The process of working through these concerns has the poten-tial to either split the group or further the sense of connection. Theseelements are consistent with postmodern tenets of hearing all voices,questioning dominance and hierarchy, and differences are seen as good.

Personal development. Oldfather and Thomas (1998) noted thatthe very procedure of conducting research can have as much or moreimpact than the particular research findings for both researcher andparticipant. Many qualitative methods require the researcher to be asself-reflexive and as critical as possible (Richardson, 1998). The femi-nist critique of mechanistic, empirical, and positivistic research meth-odology has highlighted the problem of incomplete disclosure of theactual research process. Masheter (1998) modeled a stance of reflexivityand self-scrutiny of research assumptions and process in order to helpresearchers understand and learn new methods. In a similar manner,Allen (2000) encouraged researchers to publicly engage in critical reflec-tion of their personal research process, noting that students desire notonly information about theories and methods, but also open conversa-tions about what it means to be a family researcher.

Consistent with the recommendations above, we are examiningour own process of conducting a collaborative study. The investmentand intensity are even greater when researchers are both evaluatorsand participants because there are multiple demands for self-reflexiv-ity: as a researcher, as a participant, and as a participant-observer.

Challenges of Collaboration

Authorship. Like research, writing can be accomplished as a col-laborative process. Group writing can take several different forms,such as (1) peer reviews of individually written work (Dunn, 1996), (2)writing portions of the manuscript together, or (3) each member of thegroup writing a section of the paper on his or her own, then one or twopeople acting as editors who combine the sections into a coherent whole.It sometimes seems easier to let one person take the lead and trustthat she or he will include all voices. Sometimes the pressures of timeand other commitments can cause a group to let the “leader” write thepaper, possibly compromising the validity of the story in order to meet

336


external demands (e.g., publishing deadlines). Newman (1997) won-dered how each member can participate to develop a representativetext rather than reproducing the very hierarchy collaborative research-ers try to avoid.

The issue of credit for authorship is particularly difficult wheneach group member has actively participated in the entire process.According to the Ethical Principles of the American Psychological Asso-ciation (APA), authorship indicates a major contribution to the project,whether through collection of data, interpretation of results, or writingthe paper (APA, 1994). Traditionally, the order of the authors’ namesis a measure of the contribution to the research and paper; that is,the first author has the most responsibility for the project and eachsuccessive author has progressively less responsibility (APA, 1994).Such a hierarchical system can wreak havoc for a collaborative researchgroup guided by postmodern tenets.

Hierarchy. Tom (1997) noted that postmodernism challenges theaccepted student-teacher hierarchy. Previous attempts to deal withthis power imbalance have been through strengthening the hierarchyor denying its existence. Instead, Tom suggests that teachers and re-searchers need to create a deliberate relationship to empower studentsto one day have power themselves. Teachers should be transparent intheir practice; that is, they should make their thinking processes overt(Allen, 2000). This transparency also means that students can chal-lenge teachers, and Tom (1997) noted that teachers must be willingboth to be challenged and to maintain their conviction that they shouldbe in charge of some elements in the classroom (see also Marshall &Reason, 1997). On the other hand, as students develop knowledge andexperience, teachers and students should collaborate in the transfer ofpower. If researchers in collaboration are somehow classified into ahierarchy (e.g., faculty-student papers), the value of collaboration mustbe balanced against roles in the hierarchy.

Personal and professional conflicts. It is ironic that family re-searchers often are unable to balance time spent studying “the family”with time spent with their own families. Fontes, Piercy, Thomas, andSprenkle (1998) described their experience as running against clocksof many kinds—tenure, biological, semester, and grant. At the sametime, “real life” (i.e., outside of academia or work) continues as well.Making the choice of where and how time is spent is complicated. Thisissue is compounded in collaborative projects because group members

337


must coordinate their schedules, often meeting at times that wouldotherwise be available to family (e.g., weekends).

METHODS

Research Questions

As part of a contemporary theories course, five students and theprofessor opted to engage in a collaborative research project (resultsdescribed in Wieling, Negretti, Stokes, Kimball, Christensen, & Bryan,2001). During the project’s development, a professor-student hierarchywas clearly evident, as students would propose suggestions for researchprojects and the professor would discuss the feasibility of the project.Ironically, we were falling into the very pattern that postmodernismencouraged us to challenge. Eventually we decided that the projectwould involve the entire class as researchers, including the courseprofessor, which introduced concerns about the role of faculty-studentcollaborations. We discussed whether it was even possible to do post-modern qualitative research in the context of a university course, whichhas inherent hierarchical properties.

Early in the development of the project, the professor suggestedthat we be mindful of our group processes through memos and debrief-ings. As the process evolved, we repeatedly asked ourselves

• Is it possible to be a postmodernist in such a modernist world?Can faculty and students be in a truly collaborative relationship?

• How much time would this project demand, over and above classtime? What would happen to the group dynamics when the proj-ect extended beyond the semester?

• What makes this process unique from and similar to other groupprojects?

• What sorts of benefits (e.g., publications, presentations) couldwe get from a collaborative project?

These research questions directed the development of the grandtour and follow-up questions used in the focus groups and individualinterviews for the current paper. See Table 1 for the Grand Tour andsample probing questions.

338


TABLE 1Focus Group and Individual Interview Questions

Focus Group Individual Interviews

Grand Tour “Could you please share your “How did your personal atti-Question experience of being in- tudes and beliefs impact

volved in the qualitative the group process?”research project?”

Sample Probes “What about some of our pro- “Are there any thoughts orcesses on authorship and reactions to the focusthe writing?” group [about the process]

conducted on October 16ththat you would like toshare?”

Researchers/Participants

We gave each researcher an identifying letter, allowing a pictureof each person’s perspective to emerge without unduly exposing his orher identity. Hereafter, each researcher will be identified in the textusing his or her assigned letter.

Procedures

Of the original six researchers, four opted to find out more aboutthe experience of our group research process. We wanted to make sureeveryone had a chance to participate and have their voice heard, so wecollected data using two sources. First, we held a focus group of thesix researchers exactly one year after the project began. The focusgroup was intended to bring us back together to discuss the experienceof being involved in the research project (Krueger, 1994). Next, weconducted individual interviews in order to get perspectives of the groupprocess and any personal influences on the project. By utilizing bothgroup and individual interviews, we obtained a wider variety of percep-tions and perspectives (Fontana & Frey, 1998).

Data Analysis

The methodology for this study is based on the phenomenologicalapproach. Rather than rely on the observations of an outsider, phenom-enology explores the understanding of an event from the viewpoint

339


of participants (Creswell, 1998). We gathered data from those whoexperienced the original project from the beginning—the researchers.

The researchers transcribed the focus group and the individualinterviews from audio and video recordings. Each researcher individu-ally read through each transcript (focus group and individual inter-views), looking for significant words or phrases, collapsing this informa-tion into clusters of specific domains of meaning, and looking for emergentthemes and sub-themes across and within each data set (Spradley,1979, 1980).

FINDINGS

In phenomenology, researchers search for the essence, or the cen-tral underlying meaning, of the experience (Creswell, 1998). Then wemet to compare our individual results, noting a high degree of agree-ment between researchers, which increased the trustworthiness of thedata and its interpretation. Through collaborative discussions, we ex-trapolated six themes. These themes fall into two clusters: how thegroup evolved (roles, trust, and bonding), and our major struggles dur-ing this process (hierarchy, authorship, and publishing). The goal ofphenomenology is to answer two related questions: “What is the phe-nomenon that is experienced and lived, and how does it show itself?”(Rieman, 1998). We believe these clusters and themes accurately de-scribe and provide a deeper understanding of the researchers’ experi-ence of the group process.

Group Evolution

Roles. As the project developed, group members’ personalities be-came evident in various roles. In retrospect, F commented, “Each of ustook on different roles and I think it goes with what we’re good at andwhat we’re talented at. . . . One of the reasons this group worked isbecause we are different and we didn’t see those as weakness in eachother but as things that helped us.”

It appeared that A, although suspicious of hierarchy, remained theleader of the project and discussions. D noted, “I was really amazed athow much [A] kind of led things, and would come in with her set ideas,especially with regards to the project itself.” A admitted, “I know thatI can be a very dominant and controlling and pushy person. I wouldhope that it wasn’t my way that got imposed on students.”

340


E took the role of trying to keep the project focused, sometimesfeeling like a stick-in-the-mud who often discouraged additional workbecause “I was trying to protect myself, my family, about what I wasable to do.” Other group members commented on E’s use of humorduring group meetings,” [one of the] people who were almost constantlylightening the atmosphere.” E also brought up difficult issues thatneeded to be discussed as a group. “[E] tended to be our ‘this needs to betalked about, I’m gonna put it out on the table’ person,” D commented.

C took the role of keeping the group on track and on target, andbecame affectionately known as the group member who would “cracka whip” when the conversation wandered off topic. C noted “the groupmaybe at times looked to me for getting us back on target when weveered off into the nether lands.” Additionally, C was hesitant to enterinto the conversation, and D noted that “[C] . . . had to be almostdragged into the conversation, but always had something to say [whenasked].”

B noted that “I’m the kind of person that, if there’s a challenge,somebody says this can’t be done . . . I figure out ways to get it done.”In this same vein, B was also known for taking on too much. Thissometimes conflicted with E’s more restrained role. B appreciated thisinteraction, noting “if I was proposing something that was really toobig I came to rely on [E] to say that’s too big and even then got to thepoint where I didn’t have to say or E didn’t have to say it. I wouldknow.”

D always had something to contribute to the conversation. Whilenot being the instigator in any of the interactions, D facilitated discus-sion through comments and questions. In the individual interview, Dsaid group projects were enjoyable and did better work because groupmembers held each other accountable. Like B, D would also agree totake on more work when the opportunity presented itself.

F injected humor in many of the class interactions. F also enjoyedthe brainstorming aspect of the process, but needed other group mem-bers to get down to the more practical tasks. F commented that “Iappreciate . . . what other people can bring and they can say, ‘alright[F], now you have to do this.’ And I can say ‘ok, I’ll do that’ instead ofthinking about it in this kind of abstract way.”

Trust. For a project this size, trust was necessary in order to ac-complish all the various goals. We had to rely on each group memberto fulfill his or her obligations to the best of his or her ability. Initially,there were concerns regarding the timely completion of the project and

341


the interdependence of the group members. A told the students thatthey would get an ‘A’ grade as long as they fulfilled all class require-ments, risking the possibility that some students would not participatefully in the project. As we worked together, group members proved tobe reliable, following through with what they said they were going todo.

The project did not always go smoothly, however. There were occa-sions when we had disagreements. During those times, it was importantand valuable for us to be honest with one another. We felt vulnerableat first because we did not know how the group members would respond.It was this vulnerability and the willingness to take risks that led usto feel close to one another. A commented:

I think mostly about myself, frustrated, maybe angry, disap-pointed, whatever, but I also feel like there was room for peopleto make mistakes and then honesty for those issues to beaddressed and then for us to be able to move on. I’m glad I’vebeen able to learn and make mistakes with you because I feellike you can be angry at me. . . . but that we can move on.

The process as a bonding experience. As the project evolved, wenoticed a developing rapport between the researchers that went beyondsimply depending on one another to complete the task ahead. In almostevery interview, group members commented on what a positive experi-ence this had been overall. Such sentiments, after an arduous andtime-consuming project, speak to the strength of the bonds the groupdeveloped during the process of collaborative research. A commented:

Is it worth it? Because you risk relationships, you risk yourreputation, and you risk a lot of things in the process. And, ifyou have other people who are willing to have that postmodernvision and to have some of the sensibilities and are willing tohang in there with you through the anxiety, through the ten-sion . . . and not make ultimate judgments about you as a per-son that it seems like it is okay and I feel like that’s whathappened with us.

Major Struggles

Hierarchy. Early on in our process, it became obvious that hierar-chy was present. One day in class while discussing possible projects,A stated that one project would not be permissible, and F replied,

342


“Hierarchy is rearing its ugly head.” This phrase became our code to beaware of hierarchy when group members would disagree about projectdecisions.

A was in a powerful position, yet also at risk. This project wasconceptualized in the context of a university course in which A wasresponsible for teaching doctoral students about contemporary familytherapy theories. Thus, A had an obligation to lead and direct thematerial covered in the course. “I had a vested interest in this beinga quality project and also saw a lot of responsibility too, not only withthe topic and development of the topic, then in the process of doingqualitative research, that it was conducted in a manner that was appro-priate.” She wrote a contract outlining the time frame and responsibili-ties in the project (see Appendix). Although a contract may seem inher-ently hierarchical, A wished to be very clear about the expectationsand collaboration involved.

Hierarchy also appeared between the first and second year stu-dents. The first year students were anxious about participating in anupper-level class with second year students. Likewise, the second yearstudents also reported concerns about collaborating with first yearstudents. For example, when A would suggest additional assignmentsin conjunction with the project, B would enthusiastically agree but Ewould then challenge, citing commitments and constraints. This dy-namic eventually became helpful feedback for the group process inthe struggle to maintain the quality of the project while keeping itmanageable.

Hierarchy was even evident outside the actual research process.A worried that the amount of time spent on this project might becomea faculty concern because “it takes a lot of time away from me doingthings for me and for the institution that’s expected from me, [that]would be more productive, and I’m not being the most productive be-cause I’m not using this time to sit and write articles.” This projectwas a challenge to more hierarchical models and risky for an untenuredprofessor.

Authorship. Early in the development of the project, we had abrief discussion about order of authorship but no final decisions werereached and no criteria were established (e.g., greater workload, deci-sion-making leadership). At the end of the class project, the researchteam simultaneously wrote two articles generated from the data col-lected. When the time came to decide who deserved the position of firstauthor, we struggled with evaluating our collaborative effort. Each of

343


these articles involved revisions and rewriting which complicated theissue of authorship: who should be credited when a section written byone person is substantially edited by another?

It was agreed that E would be second author on one of the articlesfor his role as A’s research assistant, and A felt that she deserved firstauthor credit because she had led the project, used her seed money,written the results section of the paper, and combined students’ writtenportions of the paper. Discussions about authorship ended with anagreement that we would meet again to decide order of authorshipwhen the article was ready to be submitted for publication. Unfortu-nately, some students turned in their sections late, leaving A to writethe finishing touches and submit it without time for a final authorshipmeeting. A was the first author, E second author, and the remainderof the students were listed in reverse alphabetical order.

The bonds of trust formed over the course of this project werechallenged by this event, as well as the resulting lack of communicationbetween students and professor. The students felt betrayed by thisaction and discussed among themselves how this should be handled.It was easy to fall into an “us versus them” mentality, regardless ofour genuine bonds with each other. With the approval of the otherstudents, E discussed these concerns with A, who then called a meetingto discuss the situation and talk directly about the students’ concerns.During the course of the meeting, all members described their percep-tions of this event. For students it was important to share their feelingsabout not being consulted. Once the students felt understood, however,they all were in agreement that A merited first authorship because ofher substantial contribution to the project.

A also felt betrayed in this event, and at times felt ganged up onor not given the benefit of the doubt. A felt defensive and isolatedbecause there was not another faculty member involved to share con-cerns with, whereas the students had each other. Although A had moredecision-making power in this system, this meant having more respon-sibility and less support than the students.

Publication. Another concern discussed was the process of submit-ting the material for journal publication. Both of our submissions cameback with the request to revise and resubmit. The reviewers’ sugges-tions, however, were very divergent. We found that the most frustratingcomments were those requesting a quantitative analysis in contrast tothe qualitative nature of the project. More than one reviewer suggestedeliminating the majority of the literature review on the contemporary

344


theories in MFT that have evolved out of postmodernism (solutionfocused, narrative, collaborative). This seemed contradictory to the post-modern emphasis on the importance of language, in this case a bridgeto postmodernism for the reader. We felt that by deleting these sectionsthe integrity of the paper would be compromised because it was ourintention to not only share our research results, but also to constructa foundation of shared meaning of postmodernism. E noted “And thething that’s funny is we put so much time into writing and then wejust have to slaughter it, but do we lose all the integrity of our paper?And is it worth it?”

Faculty perspective. When we submitted this paper for publication,one reviewer suggested that we include more about the perspective ofthe faculty member involved (A). We decided the best way to accomplishthis would be to interview A again, using the reviewer’s suggestionsto guide the conversation. This interview took place via telephone andwas transcribed as it occurred. This conversation encompassed threegeneral categories: strengths of the project, caveats about participatingin such a project, and recommendations for other collaborative efforts.Below we present a summary of the strengths and caveats of workingon this project from A’s perspective; A’s recommendations will be pre-sented in suggestions for further research.

Strengths

One of the strengths of this project was the way it captured theprocess of research, fully engaging the researchers from the very begin-ning—brainstorming ideas, conceptualizing the design, collecting data,and writing. Decisions were made through a collaborative perspective,discussing and negotiating through the entire process. From the begin-ning, the contract specifically stated that the data belonged to the entiregroup, and any member considering writing a paper had to offer othermembers the chance to be included. However, group members couldwithdraw from the project at specific points if they wanted. A secondbenefit of participating in the project was the potential for publishableresults, possibly meriting publications and professional presentations.

Finally, the small amount of money used in this project (which camefrom A’s research seed money) was a good investment of resources. Anoted that “it is not uncommon for faculty members who have largeresearch grants to share portions of their data with graduate students,”

345


although not usually so early in the process or so closely involving thestudents in decision-making.

Caveats

A offered some cautions to faculty members considering similarprojects. The time involved in this and comparable projects may have anadverse impact on tenure status if a faculty member is less productivebecause of it. A described her dilemma saying:

There were time constraints and conflicts of at least two sys-tems. One, at the institution level, the demands made, andthe assumptions of how new faculty should spend their time;and two, as a faculty member, I wanted to adhere to my philoso-phy of teaching and researching, which at times was differentfrom institutional priorities. It was a question of how to meetmy own personal needs and the needs of the institution.

Some concerns are inherent to a project within a course, such asgrading issues, which highlight the concerns with hierarchy. Thesewere addressed in this project by not only giving all students an ‘A’ forthe project, but also setting aside time for discussion to address poten-tial problems of “slacking off ” or miscommunications. Although theseefforts were helpful in addressing the student-faculty divide, the influ-ence and power of faculty members over students extends as long asstudents are in the graduate program, and a post-course project doesnot prevent conflicts within the larger (i.e., program) system. A pointedout that this influence is bi-directional:

If a faculty member gets upset with a student in a project likethis, it could come back to haunt them. If a student experiencesa faculty member in a negative way, it could adversely impactthe faculty member also. This was an area where I felt vulner-able. I didn’t always know whether it was okay to make mis-takes and if students would be understanding and give thebenefit of the doubt. There seemed to be an assumption thatit was okay for students to make mistakes because they’relearning, but it’s not okay for faculty to make mistakes.

A did not discuss the project with other faculty members becauseshe wondered whether she would “be judged or looked down upon formaking the decision to undertake a project with students, which I

346


thought might be perceived as a poor choice professionally.” A also feltprotective of the group, believing that another person would not beable to completely understand the group’s process, especially when wewere negotiating the thorny authorship issue. A noted, however, that“I never did get any negative response from my colleagues about mychoice. No one ever pulled me aside and told me, ‘you need to rethinkthis.’ I had support.” A had mixed feelings about whether having an-other faculty member participate in such a project would be helpful.It could be beneficial to have another person at the same level tocollaborate with but it could also accentuate the hierarchy in a negativeway. If faculty members worked together on a project like this, theywould need to have similar ideas about collaboration.

A said she would not do this with every class, rather perhaps onlyonce every three years or so. She pointed out that the researchers wereall in a particular developmental phase that was well suited to thisproject, but researchers at a later stage in their careers may not benefitfrom a project like this.

A said she started the project knowing there would inevitably becomplications. “The project wasn’t perfect because there were glitches,but it was ideal because we had the resources to deal with them.”These resources included trust, commitment, and similar goals. Groupmembers displayed honesty and personal integrity by doing their part,showing respect, and performing roles that utilized their strengths. Asaid sometimes it was like the “blind leading the blind . . . [but] I’mamazed at how wise we were as well.”

DISCUSSION

In a partnership among six researchers, we used postmodern tenetsto guide the process of conducting a qualitative research project. Wesoon discovered just how difficult it can be to avoid the more familiarmodernist route. The essence of our experience is described in the sixthemes that grouped in two clusters: roles, trust, and the process ofbonding were all part of the group evolution; hierarchy, authorship,and publishing were the group’s major struggles.

From the beginning of the project, people assumed various rolessuch as leader or taskmaster. These roles soon became mutually sup-portive, enacted for the good of the group. All members of the groupwere dependable and remained dedicated to finishing the project. As

347


trust grew, we were able to communicate honestly with each other,even during times of disagreement. Going through the difficult timesbound the group members together even after the original researchproject was finished.

The three challenges to the group, hierarchy, authorship, and pub-lication, tested these bonds. The first struggle was hierarchy. We founda humorous yet pointed code (“Hierarchy is rearing its ugly head”) fortimes when it seemed that decisions were being made without every-one’s voice being heard. The group would then pause and reflect onwhat was happening and find a way to hear all sides. The next testwas authorship. Our group could not find a way to indicate equalauthorship within the present journal system; thus, we made criteriafor order of authorship. Still, there were some people who had to takea lower position of authorship than desired. Finally, we encounteredunforeseen barriers to publishing our manuscript. The first and per-haps most threatening to the integrity of the manuscript was the feed-back that we needed a more quantitative analysis in spite of the qualita-tive nature of the project. We also received requests to explain thequalitative research terms and methods, even though a quantitativepaper would probably be less likely to need such explanations. Review-ers suggested that we also eliminate the majority of our literaturereview on the influence of postmodernism, which compromised ourability to create a shared meaning with the readers.

Strengths and Limitations

This study contributes a unique perspective to conducting collabo-rative qualitative research. We believe that sharing our group processwill be helpful to other groups as they begin and consider the dynamicsof engaging in a collaborative qualitative research study. Anotherstrength of this study is that we were particularly sensitive to ourprocess and group interaction. Previous authors have noted that it isvaluable to document and discuss the process of the research (Allen,2000; Masheter, 1998).

Although adding to the unique contribution of the study, the dualrole of participant and researcher may be a limitation to the research.We realize that we cannot get away from our biases and this may havebeen exacerbated because we were our own participant-observers. Thismay be too much of an insider perspective, causing us to miss whatsomeone further removed from the process might have observed.

348


Suggestions for Future Research

Other students engaged in collaborative projects have noted someof the difficulties inherent in researching from a postmodern paradigm(Stringer et al., 1997). At a recent conference, we met other researcherswho are engaged in, or who are contemplating participating in, collabo-rative research. These researchers are struggling with many of thesame issues we encountered in our experience, even to the point thatthey have not begun to conduct the research project because they are“stuck” in their attempts to negotiate the terms of a truly collaborativeresearch project (Christensen & Cate, 1999; Handy, Handy, Chap-man, & Mullis, 1999). With the advantage of hindsight, we offer thefollowing suggestions:

1. Choose a topic you are interested in; this is a time consumingprocess and you need to stay motivated. Expect to be frustratedand overwhelmed at times and be prepared to work throughthose feelings. A part of each research meeting should be de-voted to processing feelings and any concerns about the projectand the group dynamics.

2. Be realistic about what you can accomplish; use already sched-uled events such as conferences and class periods as resources(e.g., focus groups).

3. Make sure everyone works toward being “on the same page;”expectations about each other should be made explicit (e.g.,contract; see Appendix, although it did not address author-ship). This should first be done during the planning phase ofthe project, but needs to be revisited regularly in meetingswith all group members.

4. Take notes and record class discussions; keep written memosof all meetings, use audio and video technology to record meet-ings if possible; things happen quickly, so have some way toturn back the clock.

5. Divide the workload; this is a good exercise for those whohave trouble delegating and saying no. Recognize individualstrengths and weaknesses; encourage people to assume rolessuited to their abilities.

6. Be conscious of group dynamics such as support networks oralliances, since all members will differ in experience level andfamiliarity with one another. Make sure there is clear commu-

349


nication between these subsets; cliques can be dangerous togroup functioning.

7. All group members should collaborate in the construction ofthe research contract. Brainstorm possible areas of concern(e.g., authorship).

8. Set aside time for debriefing, discussing how the project isprogressing and what personal or professional problems havebeen encountered. Keep discussions flowing, even calling spe-cial meetings when needed.

9. If the project is initiated during a specific course and extendsbeyond that semester, schedule regular meetings in order tocomplete all the work.

10. Faculty members should have a teaching philosophy consistentwith the truly collaborative approach. Collaborative projectsare inherently important because although actual output (e.g.,publications) might be low, the value is in the teaching andlearning experience.

11. Students should be aware that qualitative projects are verytime-consuming, and must be balanced with other commit-ments (e.g., teaching, classes, working, clinical work, familytime). This type of project is likely to extend beyond a typicalsemester; for example, from beginning to submission tooknearly two years for this project.

12. In our experience additional human subjects permission wasnot necessary for examining our process because participationindicated consent.

Suggestions for Determining Authorship

We realize in hindsight that authorship is a topic that should bediscussed and decided at the inception of a project, and then addressedagain as needed (Fine & Kurdek, 1993). Order of authorship in thecurrent hierarchical system is used as an indicator of both researchcontribution and experience. Although we had discussions trying toavoid this dilemma, we were unable to find a way to have equal meaningin order of authorship. Placing researchers in alphabetical order bene-fits those with names earlier in the alphabet, and reverse alphabeticalorder simply mirrors the problem. Drawing straws leaves to chance aposition that is perceived as having more prestige, and a disclaimerstating “order of authorship does not indicate quality of contribution”

350


denies the fact that in the current hierarchical system being first authordoes benefit the recipient (e.g., research databases use the first authoronly to index publications).

In the focus group and individual interviews, all members of thegroup discussed authorship as a continuing concern. Unfortunately,there does not seem to be a “postmodern” solution to the authorshipproblem. We would strongly suggest that future researchers determinein the initial contract what duties would merit the position of firstauthor. In other words, predetermine who will contribute more to theproject and thereby merit a higher position of authorship.

In writing the current paper, we decided in advance that the firstauthor would take primary responsibility (Fine & Kurdek, 1993), in-cluding editing and rewriting portions of the paper, organizing thepaper for publication, and coordinating meetings with the researchteam. With these clear delineations, one student volunteered to be firstauthor. Another student was not interested in continuing with thispaper after the initial draft was written, meriting the position of fourthauthor. The second and third positions, however, were more difficultto determine and conflict arose between the two remaining students.Both had been involved since the inception of the project and therewas no clear indicator of who deserved a higher level of authorship.One student opted to let the other research member decide if she wantedsecond authorship with the stipulation that she would assist the firstauthor in the added responsibilities. Later in the process, the secondauthor realized that family commitments and other demands wouldnot allow her to fulfill the additional duties of this position, and resolvedto take third authorship instead. Through this experience, the impor-tance of honest communication, keeping track of contributions through-out the project, and deciding in advance each author’s role was reiter-ated.

In sum, we recommend that other researchers engage in self-reflex-ive and self-analytical collaborative research projects such as the onedescribed here. Our experience with this project has challenged ourideas about research and writing, and through a trial by fire we haveformed bonds that can withstand tremendous pressure. In essence, wetruly put ourselves through the “ultimate test.”

351


APPENDIX: SAMPLE CONTRACT

Class titleSemester and yearResearch Project:

Title

Instructor: [name]Students: [names]All members of [class] agreed to undertake a collaborative researchproject to meet the course’s final project assignment. Below is a list ofthe terms discussed between the instructor and the students:

• All members involved will be present at regular scheduled meetingsto discuss the development of the research project.

• All members involved are expected to contribute equally to the re-search project (i.e., time, effort, initiative, etc.).

• The goal of the study is to produce at least two research articles tobe submitted for publication.

The first article will be based on focus group interviews conductedby the class at [national conferences]. This article must be submittedby [deadline]. The instructor and all students will have their nameson this manuscript when submitted for publication. The second arti-cle will be based on [data]. [description of data collection and analysis]All class members interested in continuing to work on this portionof the study will have that option available to them. However, if theydo not wish to continue, they will be asked to submit a writtenstatement declining their wish to further participate in the studyand acknowledge that their name will not appear on this manuscript.The goal is to analyze this data and write up the results by [deadline].

The group has discussed the possibility of writing a process articleas well. Persons interested in this project should talk to [professor].

• Students will earn up to [#] points for their work in this researchproject. They will be evaluated based on their performance and abilityto follow through with responsibilities assigned to them by the group.In addition, personal initiative, creativity, and reliability are ex-pected of all members.

• The data collected in this study belong to the group. If any one personwants to use the data to write another article to be submitted forpublication, they must notify their colleagues in writing and givethem an option of collaborating with them.

352


I understand and accept the terms of this project as stated above.[signatures]

REFERENCES

Allen, K. A. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 62, 4–17.

American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the AmericanPsychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, H. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern ap-proach to therapy. New York: Basic Books.

Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems:Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process,27, 371–393.

Christensen, D. H., & Cate, R. (1999, November). A graduate seminar researchproject: A cooperative learning approach. A roundtable presented at the annual conferenceof the National Council on Family Relations, Irvine, CA.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfive traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dunn, D. S. (1996). Collaborative writing in a statistics and research methods course.Teaching of Psychology, 23(1), 38–40.

Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship creditand authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of the science. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp.47–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fontes, L. A., Piercy, F., Thomas, V., & Sprenkle, D. (1998). Self issues for familytherapy educators. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24, 305–320.

Handy, D. G., Handy, A. K., Chapman, P. L., & Mullis, A. K. (1999, November).From competition and hierarchy to partnerships: Faculty-graduate student collaborationand professional development. Roundtable presented at the annual conference of theNational Council on Family Relations, Irvine, CA.

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1998). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, andinterpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitativeinquiry (pp. 137–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Asking questions in a focus group. In Focus groups: A practicalguide of applied research (pp. 53–69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Marshall, J., & Reason, P. (1997). Collaborative and self-reflective forms of inquiryin management research. In J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Eds.), Management learning:Integrating perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 226–242). London: Sage Publications.

Masheter, C. (1998). Friendships between former spouses: Lessons in doing case-study research. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 28(3/4), 73–96.

Newman, V. (1997). Community ethnography: Reproduction and resistance in writ-ing the collaborative text. In E. Stringer, M. F. Agnello, S. C. Baldwin, L. M. Christensen,D. L. P. Henry, K. I. Henry, T. P., Katt, P. G. Nason, V. Newman, R. Petty, & P. S.Tinsley-Batson, (Eds.), Community-based ethnography: Breaking traditional boundariesof research, teaching, and learning (pp. 118–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Oldfather, P., & Thomas, S. (1998). What does it mean when high school teachers

353


participate in collaborative research with students on literacy motivations? TeachersCollege Record, 99, 647–691.

Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum: Community-making and peace. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Richardson, L. (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345–371). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Rieman, D. J. (1998). The essential structure of a caring interaction: Doing phenome-nology. In J. W. Creswell (Ed.), Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amongfive traditions (pp. 271–295). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Win-

ston.Stringer, E. (1997). Reinterpreting teaching. In E. Stringer, M. F. Agnello, S. C.

Baldwin, L. M. Christensen, D. L. P. Henry, K. I. Henry, T. P., Katt, P. G. Nason, V.Newman, R. Petty, & P. S. Tinsley-Batson (Eds.), Community-based ethnography: Break-ing traditional boundaries of research, teaching, and learning (pp. 1–15). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stringer, E., Agnello, M. F., Baldwin, S. C., Christensen, L. M., Henry, D. L. P.,Henry, K. I., Katt, T. P., Nason, P. G., Newman, V., Petty, R., & Tinsley-Batson, P. S.(Eds.) (1997). Community-based ethnography: Breaking traditional boundaries of re-search, teaching, and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tom, A. (1997). The deliberate relationship: A frame for talking about faculty-studentrelationships. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 43, 3–21.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:Norton.

Wieling, E., Negretti, M. A., Stokes, S., Kimball, T., Christensen, F. B., & Bryan,L. (2001). Postmodernism in marriage and family therapy training: Doctoral students’understanding and experience. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(4), 527–533.

Processing the Process: One Research Team's Experience of a Collaborative Research Project

Documents

Transcript of Processing the Process: One Research Team's Experience of a Collaborative Research Project