The methodological illumination of a blind spot:information and communication technologyand international research team dynamics in a highereducation research program

David M. Hoffman • Brigida Blasi • Bojana Culum • Zarko Dragsic •

Amy Ewen • Hugo Horta • Terhi Nokkala • Cecilia Rios-Aguilar

Published online: 1 December 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This self-ethnography complements the other articles in this special issue by

spotlighting a set of key challenges facing international research teams. The study is

focused on the relationship between information and communication technology (ICT)-

based collaboration and research team dynamics. Our diverse team, drawn from

researchers in five countries and three projects, argues that an ironic casualty of the

powerful, global phenomena we study, is a lack of insight into what happens to generic

research team dynamics, when groups are ‘stretched’ in terms of geographical distance,

generations, cultural beliefs, values and norms, as well as disciplinary/specialist traditions.

Good intentions are not sufficient to cope with these challenges. This is because of the

emerging complexity inherent in many types of international, interdisciplinary fields of

study and the complexity of the career trajectories needed to make these studies a reality.

Our study underlines that there are no beliefs, values, norms and practices linked to

research team dynamics, that hold across the current territory, generations, disciplines,

cultures, organizations and individuals leading and conducting comparative studies—and

D. M. Hoffman (&) � T. NokkalaHigher Educational Studies Research Team, Finnish Institute for Educational Research,University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finlande-mail: david.hoffman@ktl.jyu.fi; david.hoffman@jyu.fi

B. Blasi � H. HortaCentre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research (IN?), Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon,Portugal

B. CulumDepartment of Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka,Croatia

Z. Dragsic � A. EwenInternational Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

C. Rios-AguilarSchool of Educational Studies, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

123

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495DOI 10.1007/s10734-013-9692-y

even less reflection on the implications of this fact. Compounding this lack of awareness is

a less-than-perfect understanding of the way in which ICT-based collaboration bears on

research team dynamics. We assert that a holistic, critical, long-term approach to emerging

insights into the global division of academic labor, serves our field better than folk psy-

chology or the methodological parochialism that sustains convention at the expense of

creativity. Careful consideration of emergent processes, relationships and linkages that

explain how short-term cooperation—within projects—begins to make sense—over

careers—illuminates key focal points, which, in turn qualitatively illuminates the way

forward concerning conceptualization and problematization of our practice; and novel

methodological routes available for those interested in attaining better outcomes, over the

long term.

Keywords Comparative higher education � Methodology �Academic work � Self-ethnography � Research group dynamics

I see ICT usage as an aspect of organizational learning, organizational memory and

mind, and organizational knowledge. Their effects on stratification in research teams

and research team dynamics, as well as on implicit and tacit knowledge are crucial

issues! (Program Researcher, via ResearchGate)

Introduction

This is a qualitative exploratory study in a field and region where information and com-

munication technology (ICT)-based research team collaboration generally cannot be

described as routine: international comparative higher education. The focal context for this

study was an international research program launched in 2009, coordinated by the Euro-

pean Science Foundation (ESF), and funded by several national funding agencies. The

research program consisted of four international research projects, all focused on higher

education and social change. By 2010, these four projects employed approximately 90

personnel in 17 countries. The authors of this study were employed as researchers in three

of the four research program projects. This study is based on the author’s experience and

reflections about the relationship between ICT-based collaboration and research team

dynamics within and across the research projects we were working, within this ESF

research program.

Because our research projects were conducted by non-collocated research teams, much

of our interactions were carried out by ICT-based communications: specifically email,

Skype and occasionally telephone. As we initiated this study (detailed below) we initially

focused on aspects of our own experiences with the purpose of learning something that can

be generalized to our own research community, and by doing so add to the growing body of

literature on human–computer interaction, science 2.0, and collaborative research tools.

As researchers, collaborating with a new set of international colleagues was met with

considerable excitement by many of us. Colleagues with common interests and life cir-

cumstances rapidly became friends. However, satisfying as collaboration was, we quickly

encountered limitations related to individual personal preferences, stark cultural differences,

and glaring generation gaps. In the beginning, many of us assumed ICT could bring us

together, in spite of the tensions that typically bear on research teams (Hackett 2005). But can

this be more of an illusion—or even a delusion (Morozov 2011)—to be lumped together with

474 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

the rest of the uncritical hype linked to the recent proliferation ICTs? These tensions, over

ICT, its potential and limitations with respect to research team dynamics caught our attention.

At the outset of our efforts, the authors began with two research questions:

• What are the key potentials and pitfalls of ICT-augmented research team collaboration

within our scope of analysis?

• What advice would we offer research teams in fields with a low level of ICT uptake,

who are considering ICT-based platforms to add value to their research?

We believed our first research question to be important because the juxtaposition of

literature on academic work and research team dynamics and recent studies focused on ICT

usage amongst scholars mainly spotlighted life scientists (Ding et al. 2010; Winkler et al.

2010). While these studies were excellent first steps, our aim was to contribute insights

from fields not covered in those studies. Our second research question aimed at an outcome

in short supply in comparative higher education, specifically, practical insights and advice

on the processes of ‘doing’ international comparative research. By adopting a methodo-

logical approach—and tools—mainly ignored in the comparative higher education com-

munity, we hoped to take a few steps forward regarding ‘development’, i.e. the missing ‘D’

in R&D—with respect to process, in our research community, in general and with regard to

our topic, in particular.

It is important to note, that from the outset, we break with convention, in order to

overcome its limitations. As is often the case in opportunistic, qualitative studies carried

out in the traditions we have used, our approach has left us with better questions and

insights than those we began with. These are the result of a journey, rather than looking for

‘gold nuggets’ on the beaten paths of assumption and convention (Kvale 1996). As we

were learning from our own experience, we found that resistance and rejection—alongside

enthusiasm and heavy use—of newer technologies varied considerably regarding the use of

the ICT tools by researchers. This situation was complicated by the proliferating ICT

choices available. Yet, we found that despite the plethora of choices, the social dynamics

of research groups remain somewhat generic, in the sense that they might be encountered

by the members of any group of researchers, in any field, in any region of the world.

In this article, following this introduction, we firstly overview relevant literature on

ICT-based collaboration and research team dynamics. Secondly, we elaborate our journey,

briefly contextualizing our original starting point, which we reported, in detail in Hoffman

et al. (2011b). Thirdly, after putting our efforts in context, we detail the fundamental set of

methodological challenges we encountered that made us reconsider our original approach,

in a methodological sense. Because of this explicit reconsideration, based on data, our

analysis, unlike many studies, begins within the methodology section, rather than following

the methodology section. Fourthly, we introduce our analysis or articulation of a blind spot

not perceived by many in our research community, but which constituted a set of acute,

emergent concerns for the authors of this study and many of our peers. In conclusion, we

advance and discuss the specific insights, concerning what we have learned during the

opening stage of this journey.

We stress that it is not only theory that illuminates empirical data, but also method-

ology. And it was our team’s willingness to consider adopting methodology unfamiliar to

our research community that ultimately allowed us to articulate new insights regarding our

research community. This write-up of our journey, in a holistic, ethnographic sense has

resulted in our articulation of a blind spot: specifically, a way of thinking about research

team dynamics which constitutes unremarkable, everyday reality to some researchers;

while remaining completely invisible to others.

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 475

123

It was methodological flexibility that allowed us to make this move. While several

facets of our journey evolved into topics in their own right, presently being dealt with in

other distinct studies, those studies can all be traced back to this original methodological

illumination.

Literature and previous studies

ICT-based collaboration in scientific research

The increasing emphasis on collaborative work in knowledge production (Wagner and

Leyesdorff 2005) and the emergence of ICTs in science (Hine 2006); have changed the

shape of the research collaboration. After earlier emphasis on large scale, government-led

e-science initiatives (Atkins et al. 2003), which mainly focused on the STEM fields, the

social sciences and humanities began to catch up the new ICT-based research collaboration

developments in the last decade (Schroeder and Fry 2007; Barjak et al. 2009). Currently,

several disciplines and specializations feature ICT-based collaboration (Grassmann and

von Zedtwitz 2003). The emergence in the recent years of many internet-based technol-

ogies, often referred to as ‘Web 2.0’ (O’Reilly 2007), with a grass roots emphasis on

interactivity, co-creation, and user participation, provides a possibility to customise

internet-based technologies according to users’ needs, thus making them more approach-

able for people without need or knowledge of large scale information infrastructures or

programming experience (Rollett et al. 2007; Vickery and Wunsch-Vincent 2007).

In recent years, the scientific collaboration has both increased and been encouraged by

internal norms, external research funding bodies (Benner and Sandstrom 2000; Defazio

et al. 2009) and become increasingly distributed across wide geographical spaces, with

specific challenges associated at the foundation, formulation, sustainment and conclusion

stages (Sonnenwald 2007). To solve problems related to non-collocated collaboration

(Andres 2013) and computer mediated communications (Walther and Bunz 2005) and to

help researchers cope with the ‘data deluge’ (Bell et al. 2009) caused by the ever increasing

amounts of scientific output (Vincent-Lancrin 2006), new research collaboration tools

riding on the crest of the web2.0., have emerged (Nokkala and Gill 2011). The adoption of

ICT tools has been uneven. ‘General-purpose’ tools offering familiar function and tech-

nologies, such as user-contributed content or tele/video-conferencing have been adopted

more widely than ‘science-specific’ tools introducing new ways of working, such as

academic social networking sites or open lab notebooks (Nokkala and Gill 2012). The

adoption and use of research tools is also affected by the type of research tasks and extent

of mutual dependence, different institutional settings, as well as career stage, age, gender

and discipline (Birnholtz and Bietz 2003; Barjak et al. 2009; Dutton and Meyer 2009;

Venkatesh et al. 2003; Heimeriks et al. 2008).

While data and reference management functions, as well as help for identifying new

people with similar research interests are generally well developed in some tools, they

offer little support for social interaction in existing collaborations (Nokkala and Gill 2012).

In diverse cultural settings, computer-mediated communications may lead to misunder-

standing (Walsh and Maloney 2007) and offer limited functionalities in interactivity and

expressiveness, which is considered important for building the necessary trust to complete

complex shared knowledge production tasks (Matzat 2004; Finholt 2003). Thus, computer-

mediated collaboration has also been found be less able to facilitate shared task-

476 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

formulation, learning and development of mental models compared with face-to-face

collaboration (Andres 2013).

On research team dynamics

Research is a collective enterprise (Ziman 1983), where groups act as informal and pliable

organizations, adapt—or not—to change and interface with the outside world (Horta et al.

2010, 2011). The research group is a unique collective that encourages the interdependency

of tasks, shared of responsibility for outcomes, the cohesion of a social entity embedded in

a larger social system, and the crossing of organizational boundaries (Cohen and Bailey

1999). Both the CUDOS values (Merton 1968) and the PLACE formula by Ziman (1983)

do not able to fully capture the nature of all scientific communities,1 which are rather

characterized by a situated ‘group ethos’ in which everyone, with full respect to his or her

own freedom and career goals, cooperates with others to achieve common goals.

Creating and developing a research group is not a natural act and requires intent,

capacity and specific circumstances. In a group, ideally, the skills and the intellectual

preparation of the individual scientists can be enhanced by strong emotional involvement,

a deep sense of membership, reciprocal trust, shared memories and culture, strong will,

dedication, multiplicity of interests, competitiveness with rival groups and solidarity within

the group, security of one’s own ideas, organizational skills and propensity to take risks

(Bland and Ruffin 1992). The central figure is the founder-leader, often capable of heroic

devotion to the objective, effective in creating a positive atmosphere and in ‘‘mobilizing’’

members to undertake new projects, strongly oriented toward the task, the group and

themself (Pirola-Merlo et al. 2002). The leader is often charismatic and influential, inclined

to view the group as their creature and feels intimately tied to its destiny, careful to feed the

memory and to strengthen the identity and the culture of the group, able to resolve conflicts

in favor of incentives aimed at solidarity (De Masi 1989).

Research groups are inherently challenged by the tensions between the affiliation to the

group and the principle of autonomy and freedom of the individual researcher; tradition

and originality in research activity; the choice of objectives and priorities; the pursuit of

lines of research at high risk of failure, but highly important in scientific terms, and lines of

research at low risk, but little significant in scientific terms; the need for cooperation within

the group and competition between researchers and between researchers and leaders, both

from a scientific point of view, and for access to resources and positions; democratic

participation and strong leadership; hands-on work and articulation work2 (Fujimura

1996), which draws researchers ‘away from the bench’; the need for stability and the

continual change in group membership and in research focus (Hackett 2005).

Groups react with different strategies according to their different functional contexts

and this widely enriches the range of their academic work and includes writing research

proposals, fund-raising, project management and budget control, marketing and dissemi-

nation, initiatives to promote research results, equipment purchase, recruitment and

training of young researchers, reviews of scientific articles and participation in journal

1 Merton described the traditional ethos of science as comprising the values of Communism, Universalism,Disinterestedness, Originality, Systematic skepticism (hence the acronym CUDOS). According to Ziman,CUDOS values are slowly being replaced by the values PLACE, another acronym that identified non-universalistic values, typical of industrial science, where research is considered Proprietary, Local,Authoritarian, Commissioned, Expert.2 The articulation work refers to the active management and maintenance of time, resources and objectives.

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 477

123

evaluation committees, patent registration and technology transfer initiatives, conference

organization, team coordination, policy support and so forth (Bleiklie et al. 2011; Horta

and Lacy 2011; Blasi and Romagnosi 2012).

This division of labor, roles and tasks give research groups a high degree of flexibility

and a dynamic nature that enables complex relationships with the outside world. Thus,

setting up a research group and ensuring its survival require the achievement of equilib-

rium between different constraints and conditions that, however, can dissolve over time

and must therefore constantly renewed. Therefore, a research group represents a ‘‘fragile

social miracle’’ (Blasi and Romagnosi 2012). In constantly changing environments, like

higher education institutions, research group participation involves anxiety and uncer-

tainty. The resulting complexity can affect groups’ cohesion and ad hoc strategies can

influence research programs and even weaken them. The example of ICT usage in inter-

national collaborative teams is relevant to understand how this threat currently manifests.

International collaborative research programs generate intense communication and

mobility, in broad networks and give a new face to the modern researcher (Howells 1995;

Scott 1991; Knight 2008; Horta et al. 2010, 2011; Hoffman 2009). These changes intro-

duce new dynamics in the group, new work ethics, lifestyle questions, and expectations for

researchers; effectively increasing competition and, consequently, the pressure to produce

and publish (Altbach 1998). The outputs can differ among research teams and members: it

can cause a substantial stress that puts the scientist into an uncomfortable professional

position, lowering the productivity of the individual and the collective (or keeps high the

productivity but lowers the quality). On the other hand, information exchange among peers

or rapid obsolescence of research results can constitute an opportunity and produce an

increase in both productivity and quality (Sooho and Bozeman 2005). For these reasons,

globally networked research teams and virtual communities are increasingly developing

awareness, capacity and the purposeful management of research team dynamics can

positively contribute to the stability of the group. Failure to acknowledge emergent indi-

vidual and collective risks that derive from misrecognized social dynamics (Bourdieu

1990) can amplify the destabilization of the team (Blasi and Romagnosi 2012).

Context

In order to clarify the focal scope of our study, sequence of events and researchers

involved, we draw the following distinctions. Our efforts were initially focused on the

ESF’s research program (here and after ‘research program’), in which the authors met, as

described in the introduction. During the methodological evolution of our efforts our own

research team (here and after ‘research team’) involved eight persons, the authors, who

met while working on three of the four projects in the program. A third distinction which

has always been important to our research team, is the wider research community (here and

after ‘research community’), which our research team would agree involves scholars

around the globe focused on international comparative higher education research. A

detailed account of our initial efforts were presented and reported in Hoffman et al.

(2011b). In the sections immediately below, we briefly synopsize this account, in order to

give the reader a picture of the events and context in which our journey began.

Regarding context, it may be interesting to note that our research team (eight authors)

are from seven different countries, who were working in five different higher education

centers, located in five different countries, in three different research projects, brought

together in one research program during much of the time while this study was underway.

478 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

Moreover, the research team was composed of three men, five women at early stage, early

career and mid-career, on very different career trajectories, grounded in several different

disciplines and specializations. The differences in the authors’ perspectives have ultimately

led to two, different (new) studies, outside the scope of this article, which focus more fully

on the benefits and implications of our multiple perspectives. For the purposes of this

initial study though, we underline that the nature of our team grounds our analysis in a

fundamentally different type of perspective than is the norm in the places many of us work.

ICT-based research team collaboration: fact and friction

At the formal launch conference of the research program, in October 2009, the project

leaders from the research program’s four projects expressed a strong interest in developing

an ICT-based collaboration platform. It was envisioned that this platform could facilitate

and enhance data security, sharing, the coordination of tasks, as well as offer a place in

which information could be shared and distributed. It was agreed by those present that the

authors’ (Hoffman and Nokkala) institute, could implement and host this platform.

Research collaboration platform: ‘Attempt #1’

After discussions with the institute’s (Peda.net) ICT team (author) Hoffman and the ICT

team designed the initial Research Collaboration Platform (RCP), using the ‘Oppimappi’

collaboration environment. The development and implementation of this platform and

observation of the different ways, from the beginning, it was used—or not—by teams and

individuals in the research program, led to considerable discussion amongst researchers

interested in further developing ICT-based collaboration. Especially, younger researchers

were baffled by the lack of features in the RCP, compared to standards on proliferating

Web 2.0 applications like LinkedIn, or which we used daily within Google or Wiki

systems.

Because of dissatisfaction with our initial use of the first generation tools, an ad hoc

group of program researchers explored several popular academic and professional social

networks for this purpose: Academia.edu, LinkedIn and ResearchGate. Since Research-

Gate offered the best functionality for our purposes, we established a pilot group for one of

the program’s research teams at the beginning of August, 2010. Most of the early career

team members joined within a few weeks. Soon sub-groups for individual project teams

were established, as well as ‘sister groups’, for example for a group focused on our

emerging interest in ICT based research team dynamics.

ResearchGate: ‘Attempt #2’

A key meeting occurred in September, 2010, at a research center with researchers from

three of the four research program’s projects. (Authors) Ewen, Hoffman and Dragsic were

present at this meeting. In addition, research program staff joined the meeting via Skype. A

key point on the agenda of this meeting was developing a more robust ICT-based col-

laboration capacity. While it was evident that the RCP was free, stabile and offered secure

data storage, it was experienced as entirely inadequate for our actual collaboration needs.

To this end, those present decided to expand the pilot groups within ResearchGate, to see if

these better suited collaboration.

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 479

123

A second key outcome of that meeting was the genesis of this study, as it was clear that

our initial efforts with regard to the way in which ICT-based research team collaboration

was actually used within our research program and community, gave us a glimpse into a

very compelling set of circumstances, which we were inextricably caught up in. This was a

unique opportunity to reflect on what we were doing, at the same time as we attempted to

deal with acquiring a capacity that couldn’t be learned in books or journals, discussed with

senior colleagues knowledgeable about such matters, nor informed by technicians who did

not understand our needs. We knew professionals in other fields used on-line collaboration

that suited their circumstances, for example, natural scientists, engineers, musicians and

authors. However, none of us were familiar with persons using and building the type of

capacity we felt we needed.

The groups we piloted on ResearchGate were regarded as successful by those partici-

pating. However this was a key threshold: participation. While we announced the exis-

tence of these groups, giving detailed instructions as to joining them, it was clear that

something else needed to happen. Wider participation in ICT-based collaboration eluded

us. Several team members—even entire teams—opted out of ICT-based collaboration.

This, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad, but it was an empirical reality that remains

highly interesting to us. And, while several anecdotal reasons are readily apparent at the

level of folk psychology for non-participation, there is too much known about the land-

scape of academic work, especially regarding power (Bourdieu 1988, 2004), career stage

(Baldwin and Blackburn 1981), disciplinary cultures (Becher and Trowler 2001), the

international trends shaping our work (Marginson and van der Wende 2007), and our

competitive horizons (Hoffman et al. 2011a) to base future action on such a low level of

abstraction.

The journey we set out on in September 2010, detailed below, ended up in our self-

ethnographic analysis, which connects the dots between our initial point of departure, a

practical, conventional study on the opportunities and challenges of ICT in research team

collaboration, and the course of our journey, since that time. Our end-point, in the dis-

cussion, brings us to a point at which we can now pursue new, empirically grounded

research questions, which would not have occurred, had we depended on paths normally

traveled within our research community.

Our analysis is unconventional in the sense that, strictly speaking, it does not occur

‘after’ the ‘methodology section’. Holistically speaking, our problematization and analysis

began ‘within the methodological process’, itself, with respect to the context in which we

worked and the social dynamics that we encountered. To this end, we present the pro-

blematization of our topic and process in three distinct phases, followed by the analysis of

data generated within and because of our iterative problematization.

Methodology

Phase I: problematizing convention

At the beginning of our journey, following our September 2010 meeting, our research team

focused on a choice between case study and participative inquiry. The strength of the

former is that it is widely used in higher education research, which is also its greatest

weakness. Although two of the authors are case study specialists, almost none of the case

studies we review or discuss feature the hallmarks that would earn them the distinction of

being excellent case studies as defined by Creswell (1998), Miles and Huberman (1994),

480 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

Stake (1995) or Yin (2003). What our team was accurately doing, methodologically

speaking, was critical action research (Kemmis 2006) in general and a participative inquiry

(Reason 1998), in particular. Specifically, our research team was comprised of primarily

early stage and early career researchers, voicing a critical perspective on a topic that might

be entirely missed, if not voiced by those experiencing the phenomena. We wanted to use

the same sort of initiative that is rewarded in many occupational sectors, in particular the

innovative organizations or movements held up as examples when speaking about net-

worked knowledge societies and creative cultures (Valimaa 2011; Florida and Tinagli

2004). As researchers, we often study those organizations, societies, movements and

cultures, because they are interesting and catch the attention of funding agencies. Meth-

odologically speaking, though, it is more interesting to question whether the members of

our research community are employed by these organizations, networked in these societies

or members of those cultures.

As active researchers, our motivation is aimed at improving the situation of our research

community, by being both critical and constructive, mainly because the proliferation of

ICTs shows no signs of diminishing and it is clear these will have a significant impact on

our careers. The main problem with methodological approaches like participative inquiry,

however, is they are seldom used in higher education studies, in the countries in which

most of us are employed. Further, they occur within a paradigm that aims at advocacy and

participatory knowledge claims (Creswell 2002). Many in our field, as we would find out

during the course of our journey, are highly uncomfortable with those types of knowledge

claims and their research traditions, finding them naıve.

Data and analysis

This was an opportunistic study, focused on our ‘day jobs’, as researchers in collaborative

research projects in an international research program. Our original plan was a conven-

tional sequential, mixed-methods study. Specifically: a qualitative participative inquiry,

using interviews, followed by a survey. Our original plan envisioned the scope of analysis

as all 90 researchers working in the program, in each of the four projects. In the following

section, we detail the way in which the challenges we encountered, made it clear that our

research team’s ICT-based communications was initially the best data available, in the

exploratory phase of our efforts.

Because the methodology of our study changed, as our focus evolved, so did our data.

Specifically, during the process outlined in the following sections, our focal data became

email messages and texts from two online collaboration platforms; the RPC used by our

research program, hosted by the institution of (authors) Hoffman and Nokkala; and Re-

searchGate, a widely used Web 2.0 internet-based network, aimed at scholars. This data

concerned our reflection on our topic, from its earliest stages, as our thinking evolved. Key

excerpts of this data appear below, spotlighting the ways in which our own ICT-based

collaboration both shaped and revealed our thinking, over the course of the initial phases of

this study. This type of data is naturally occurring and we recognized, from very early, it

was compelling evidence of emergent phenomena (Archer 1995).

Because of the methodological shift we experienced, as elaborated in the following

sections, our analysis is presented in the form of an ethnographic write-up, in which the

evolving text has been continuously framed and reframed, in ongoing iterations amongst

the eight authors, dating from September, 2010, till October, 2013. In other words, our

writing process, as inquiry (Richardson 1998), was the way in which we analyzed our data,

arriving at a holistic, ethnographic write-up. As such, our analysis of the ‘blind spot’ we

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 481

123

discuss, is a methodological outcome of our team’s iterative reflection, collaborative

writing and analysis of ways of thinking about and doing research that constitutes

everyday reality to some researchers; while remaining completely invisible to others. The

analysis we present lays an empirical foundation for further efforts, including analysis of

policy and practice related to several substantive issues spotlighted during the 3 years this

journey took, as well as the conceptualization of the phenomena we outline below. While

those topics are all beyond the narrow scope of this article, being handled in different

studies, what remains is an account of our initial insights, which resulted from taking a

methodological road, less-traveled.

Limitations (of circumstances and convention, not methodology)

Lack of resources, situated risk: or both?

In this study, events evolved that made the authors question the feasibility of our original

research questions and methodology. From the outset, this was a study none of us had the

time, nor funding to do. It was part of the myriad of activities that we, as researchers, do

concurrently. This produces a tension familiar to scholars across the globe, but also hints

how the adoption of ICT tools is not a straightforward and appealing thing from the onset:

I have noticed that my reluctance to tune into ResearchGate has grown compared

with the beginning, so I am offering a couple of alternative explanations of that: a)

it’s a factor of this ‘‘not getting paid’’, i.e. that this is a low priority and other things

have just crowded my to do list b) the user interface has changed for the worse and I

can’t find anything anymore etc. (Author Nokkala via ResearchGate)

There is nothing unusual about overloaded academics doing their best to maintain and

develop a coherent research agenda, in the absence of time, job security or funding (Ylijoki

2003). As (author) Rios-Aguilar pointed out, in an email, we ‘‘find hours here and there to

be able to do the research that we want to do and that we think matters’’. While this type of

motivation runs strong through our team, an opposing—more culturally and institutionally

situated risk has to be accounted for. Specifically the reluctance academics have to engage

or acknowledge the paradigm where a study of this sort takes place, because it involves

reflection and critique of the power dynamics that academics find themselves in. As

(author) Hoffman advised the group initially interested in this study (on ResearchGate):

…this kind of study has a bit of risk involved. We will be shining a spotlight

(sometimes) on issues that many might think it more clever to leave alone. Everyone

who participates needs to seriously consider that – it’s a bit like poking a bee’s nest.

I’m very used to this – and so are the people I work for and with. If you are

uncomfortable with this area of social science, please email me so we can talk about

the risk element of what we’re doing.

This note prompted a reply from (author) Dragsic, using the same platform:

I will start with poking bee-nest, namely the issue itself and the consequences, of

which myself (as a novice) I am not sure I’m fully aware of. I’d like to know what

are we really poking and why some would think or say it is more clever to leave it

alone. I say this for the sole purpose of finding out what are the ways of tackling this

482 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

issue - i.e. playing it as safe as possible, without disturbing the powers that bee inside

the hive.

At this point in the study, a clear paradigmatic boundary becomes visible, the one which

separates whichever paradigms most higher education researchers would claim to be

working in, for example, knowledge-claims that organize post-positivist, social construc-

tivist or pragmatic approaches to topics and those which govern advocacy/participatory-

driven knowledge claims (Creswell 2002). Actual experience with this last type, which is

unfamiliar in many settings—and to many scholars—in our research community neces-

sitates thinking, very carefully, about this kind of ‘move’. This is especially true with early

career researchers, as they need to be fully aware that this type of research might be

evaluated by peers with no experience-informed knowledge of the methodological

implications involved. What (author) Hoffman (via ResearchGate) answered, was:

… Any time researchers take a hard, critical look at the way they (themselves) are

doing things and ask ‘Isn’t there a better way, particularly regarding established

problems that have been well documented?’ - others (who might in some ways be

linked to the dynamics we are trying to improve), might take offense at us asking that

simple question. In some occupational settings, questioning the status quo makes you

a hero, in others it damns you to hell. So, the ‘nest we poke’ involves two levels of

thinking about it. On the first level, is people who may know, guess or just wonder if

they are bound up in the kinds of challenges we have noticed - or become angry if

they feel ‘accused’ by our study. The second level involves researchers who - in

addition to being slighted at the first level - are also offended about the way in which

ICT plays into all of this, i.e. by using it, not using it, ignoring it, etc. Short answer -

like Bourdieu writes - ‘When you turn the mirror scientists like to use - back to

scientists - so they see themselves, lots of them will hate your guts for it’ (I’ve never

found compelling evidence he was wrong about that…) Whether we do this as

participative inquiry or a case study, some people’s feelings might get bent out of

shape. But the usual remedy for that is to be quite honest, open about what we’re

doing and do a solid job, so if someone has complains it’s not based on the coherence

between topic, methodology, methods and analysis.

This exchange was apparently ‘good enough’ for (author) Dragsic, however it caused

another talented researcher to drop out of our team, citing power dynamics. Specifically,

not wanting to anger senior personnel in the research center where s/he worked. This

withdrawal underlines the methodological caution needed in going forward in studies like

these. The exchange between (authors) Hoffman and Dragsic ultimately foreshadowed an

important limitation in paradigmatic convention in the countries several of the authors live,

specifically, misunderstanding the ways in which paradigmatic and methodological con-

vention, combined with power dynamics, militates against reflection and ultimately,

engaging key topics within universities (Alvesson 2003).

Phase II: problematizing convention

Methodological path dependency

A second phase of problematizing convention involved our mixed-methods approach, in

which we drafted surveys and an interview protocol aimed at the wider population of the

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 483

123

research program. What gave us pause were three concrete problems which could be seen

in data we already had.

Ignore the data, full speed ahead

Our original draft surveys, based on our efforts in 2010, focused almost exclusively on

ICT-based communication, ignoring face-to-face communication which we, ourselves, had

already identified as the form of communication many of the personnel in our focus—

including ourselves—valued most. For example (author) Horta wrote (email):

… at first I was an advocate of the online tools, like ResearchGate, but soon I felt

inundated … I was getting a lot of information, the vast majority was not priority or

interesting. The other problem was that I often wanted to reply to some comment, but

couldn’t find it. The time that I was losing trying to find things led me to quit

ResearchGate and the other ICT platform tools and concentrate on good old, reliable

e-mail! In this project, e-mail and Skype were the two critical tools. The other ICT

tools enabled much greater interaction with the CRP members, but, in terms of social

engagement and trust building, nothing can replace face to face meetings and events.

This was ironic, especially since one of the major problems we had identified involved

the non-usage of ICT-based tools. In other words, our survey was firmly focused on what

was not happening, rather than what was.

A much more fundamental aspect of our data was already present in (author) Nokkala’s

quote (via ResearchGATE) on their articulation between the short term, fragmented view

of a disconnected plethora of platforms and projects at the expense of the larger, real life

events that formed the social context in which our careers were actually playing out.

…my life is incredibly fragmented right now. Fragmented in terms of homes (I have

three), projects (depends on how you count), mobile phones (three again) email

addresses (three again), social networking tools (two, counting RG) and demands on

my time … Perhaps, instead of various new tools giving us new opportunities to

communicate and collaborate, they just crowd and fragment our lives more … It’s

difficult to remember to do everything on ones to-do list when the to-do list is spread

over so many different media. Another train to catch again…

This observation became fundamental to an emergent view we would later articulate,

after we presented this topic in a higher education conference with far different conven-

tions than what most of us were used to.

You can’t get there, from here

A third problem was pointed out to us, at a 2011 conference presentation of our research

(Hoffman et al. 2011b), in a region (North America) where there was far greater latitude

regarding topic and methodological choice, than the countries where most of the authors

lived. Specifically, our discussant in this conference, while praising our hunches, recom-

mended adopting a different methodological course of action, specifically: self-ethnogra-

phy (Alvesson 2003). Initially, this was not the type of advice we were hoping to hear.

However, reading about this approach predicted both problems we would later encounter

and indications that those future problems were already in our data. The discussant illu-

minated an important ‘mismatch’ between the methods we were placing our faith in

(surveys and interviews) and their potential to answer our research questions. Our

484 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

discussant recommended going beyond our initial modest research questions to engage the

emergent phenomena (Archer 1995) linked to the more fundamental, critical questions we

were running into. The problem we were actually up against had been previously articu-

lated by Teichler (1996: 343):

Ironically, research on all higher education … is paradoxically both a rich and

vulnerable position because it addresses actors who, besides believing that the nature

of society and culture can only be fully understood through systematic research, are

also convinced they understand their own living environment (i.e. higher education)

perfectly well without it.

As we already ‘knew what we didn’t know’ and knew we could generalize this

knowledge to those around us, Alvesson’s (2003) text underlined the folly of seeking

further personal opinion, projection or anecdotes that, to a large extent, create and sustain

the blind spot we were in. What was needed, to illuminate the terrain we had discovered on

our journey, was a different methodology to use with the data we were already generating.

Not data that spoke to what higher education scholars thought they were doing, but rather

data regarding what we were actually doing (Bourdieu 1988). At this point of our journey,

we decided to turn our attention away from our original research questions and approach,

more closely observing, reflecting and analyzing the social dynamics inherent in the actual

situation the eight authors were immersed in, as members of different international

research teams. To do this, we took the advice of our discussant and chose self-ethnog-

raphy, as a way forward.

Self-ethnography and circumventing convention

While the conventional researcher (with an anthropological orientation) may ask

‘‘What in hell do they think they are up to?’’ the self-ethnographer must ask ‘‘What in

hell do we think we are up to? … On the whole, students of organizational culture within

one’s own national context suffer from a lack of imagination making it possible to

accomplish studies not caught up in the taken-for-granted assumptions and ideas that

are broadly shared between the researcher and the researched. Too much of organi-

zational life is often too familiar. For academics studying other academics this is an

especially strong problem. (Alvesson 2003: 171&177 emphasis added).

When the most urgent questions and preoccupations of scholars—in universities—

mirror social transformation—in society—sociologically-driven inquiry is indicated

(Bourdieu 2004). While this motivation; particularly concerning societal transformation,

ICT and our research community, drives our team, a more culturally and institutionally

situated set of risks have to be accounted for. Specifically the reluctance academics have to

carry out studies of the sort advocated by Alvesson, mainly because these often critique

power dynamics. Two aspects of self-inflicted convention caused people to drop out of our

team, over the course of this study, as these perceived risks were quite real. These types of

social dynamics transcend what is often addressed in ‘methodology sections’, as they speak

directly to our analysis and discussion.

Using unfamiliar methodology to question the status quo

The two most accurate statements our team can make about self-ethnography; as advocated

by Alvesson (2003), is that most of us—as well as our colleagues—had never heard of it;

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 485

123

and many, upon first hearing about it, immediately confuse or conflate self-ethnography

with auto-ethnography or other forms of ethnography. This unfamiliarity is compounded

by the fact that raising questions, especially about power relations, while lauded in many

settings, is ‘not done’, with regularity within the small community of researchers who

inhabit the world of international comparative higher education where most of the authors

(with the exception of author Rios-Aguilar) live and work. In other words we, as a

scholarly community, are generally not very good at applying the same level of scrutiny we

do not hesitate to point in other directions to ourselves.

Answering questions no one has asked

The idea that we went ahead—on our own initiative—without ‘being told’, ‘without

funding’ or—especially—without asking permission, chasing a curiosity-driven topic, has

been viewed as a limitation and labeled naıve by some in our research community.

However, as (author) Rios-Aguilar points (via email) out:

I engaged in this collaboration because I find it intellectually stimulating, interesting,

timely and important. That is usually the criteria I use to decide whether I involve

myself in a research project or not. I certainly have time constraints, as everyone else

has. I am not a special case … I have learned in my little experience in academia that

there are always short windows of opportunity and I sometimes have to find hours

here and there to be able to do the research that I want to and that I think matters.

This second set of risks created a very real limitation from within our team. As the quote

indicates, some of us were used to working with curiosity-driven topics that emerge over a

long periods of time, in the absence of anything other than our own interest. Some of us

were not. This was not an easy ‘sell’ and we lost two team members who realized that the

delayed gratification inherent in efforts like this was a poor fit. There was too much delay,

not enough ‘pay off’ or the contribution they sensed—or could otherwise contribute to—

just wasn’t there. This approach is not for everyone (Alvesson 2003).

Phase III: beyond convention, a rationale for self-ethnography

Alvesson (2003) warns that the risky nature of this approach sets up additional risks of ‘backing

off’ sensitive topics and taboos, resulting in less-than-bold analysis, in order that everyone

involved ‘save face’. The approach to known challenges, the risks we faced as we conducted this

study and submitted it for review, are summed up by Alvesson (2003:183–184).

In general, research suffers from the inability of researchers to liberate themselves from

socially shared frameworks. That evaluators agree may not be a sign of objectivity as

much as culturally or paradigmatically shared biases … The trick is to get away from

frozen positions, irrespective if they are grounded in personal experiences or shared

frameworks. A problem is that staying within socially shared frames and biases may

make research life easier – while what is seen as personal biases are sanctioned,

proceeding from and reproducing socially shared biases may be applauded.

Our intention, then, with regard to these ‘limitations’—is identical to many qualitative

methodologies. Specifically, to producing an analysis which (re)casts the familiar in a new

light, yet is convincing, relevant and constitutes a contribution that those inside and outside

of the scope of analysis can critique. Doing this contributes to further elaboration of what is

486 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

known about our field: new knowledge. In other words, the ‘limitations’ we outline above

are, in many ways, strengths.

Questioning status quo power relations; answering questions no one has asked; pursuing

interesting, emergent phenomena not related to ‘hot, trendy topics’ and problematizing con-

vention. We would argue these are the signature of the social sciences, at their best. Within the

tradition we are working, there is plenty of room for the type of critique needed to advance further.

Adopting self-ethnography, especially iterative reflection of events occurring around us,

is related to two other significant issues. The first is researching one’s own context, which

involves known difficulties, particularly regarding power issues, information disclosure

and assumptions of bias (Creswell 2002: 184). These difficulties are outweighed when

one’s context would pose other researchers significant access problems (Johnson 2002). In

this regard, it is clear that researchers using other methods would have little or no chance

accomplishing the study we present, using the conventions and methodologies most in our

research community are more comfortable with. The surveys and interview protocols we

originally considered were inadequate for the challenges linked to our evolving topic, in

general and the follow on studies we are pursuing, in particular.

Secondly, it is not difficult to find scholars who are reluctant to critique their own

organization, institution and profession in the first person. This denies the empirical reality

that ‘‘sometimes, the social scientist becomes his or her own object of study: it is their life

which is the focus … the focus may be on the sociologist’s own ‘insider’ life but it is

connected through sociology to an ‘outsider’ world of wider social processes’’ (Plummer

2001: 32). When the voices connecting the dots between our biographies, history and a

particular intersection in society (Mills 1959), belong to the researcher, it is hard to deny

Ellis and Bochner’s (2000: 734) claim ‘‘to show how important it is to make the

researcher’s own experience a topic of investigation in its own right’’, stepping away from

writing ‘‘in passive third-person voice … written from nowhere by nobody’’. Our effort,

then is to avoid ‘‘contributing to the flotilla of qualitative writing that is simply not

interesting to read because adherence to the model requires writers to silence their own

voices and view themselves as contaminants’’ (Richardson 1998: 347).

Analysis: the illumination of a blind spot

In our analysis, we retrace the course of our journey, analyzing the key milestones that

bring us to the insights we eventually arrive at, in our discussion.

‘Trees’ and ‘forests’

In May, 2012, after our team agreed on adopting self-ethnography, we began our ‘sense-

making’ (Alvesson 2003) by posing an initial query, to ourselves, focused on collaboration

(See ‘‘Appendix’’). The written answers that came back were startling in a few different,

but important, ways. Like Bourdieu’s (1988) homologies of field and trajectory, we use the

homologies of a (holistic) ‘Forest’, and the (individual) ‘trees’ that make up the forest.

Tree’s, not forests

When initially asked about collaboration, we often narrowed our focus to two types of

‘trees’. The first ‘species’, was a single project—a concrete example. Some of these were

inside our program, some outside.

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 487

123

I would regard my work at my center within our team, in our program project, as a

good example of collaboration. Also some of the collaboration with the other pro-

jects have gone well in that sense. (Author Dragsic, via email)

The second kind of tree, was a more generic species, specifically, a description of

generic qualities, ideas or substantive issues what could be found ‘across projects’, not only

‘within projects’.

…there is a major benefit in having another voice/point of view to complement one’s

own. One person or team can get caught up in their own work, and work with

blinders on. Having another person or team with a different background, for

example, can broaden the scope of a project. (Author Ewen, via email)

What both ‘trees’ lacked were a broader contextualization, as to why projects are

important, how—or if—they were connected. The absence of a big picture gave the

impression we were only scratching at the surface, not making profound insights. As a

team, we were still operating at the level of folk psychology. However, not all of the

answers described only ‘trees’, there were glimpses of holistic ‘forests’, but they were

partially obscured by references to larger stories that were playing out in our home

institutions and ‘between the lines’ of the starting places (our initial questions) we’d begun

our journey with.

I initiated the project, and set up a small scale collaboration team driven shared,

common visions; there was a clear division of tasks and responsibility from the

beginning; however, members were mutually supportive, and everyone was involved

in all project phases and assignments; regular team meetings, regular monitoring of

outcomes, and feedback; flexibility, but strong orientation towards goals, and respect

for agreed deadlines; more or less all objectives were met and the project was

successfully complete; great cooperation with media, and media support in local/

regional presentation of the centre (Author Culum, via email)

The more holistic excerpts hinted of more powerful phenomena, issues, processes and

events that had more influence on project outcomes and their connections to a broader

context. The emerging question here was the extent to which more fundamental phe-

nomena were in play. In other words, was there something in the forest we couldn’t ‘see’,

because we were only focused on the most obvious elements: ‘Trees’?

ICT

When asked about ICT, its importance seemed self-evident, as it has been since the

inception of our efforts. This, in hindsight, seemed obvious, as team members could only

be reached in this manner in many instances. This said, it was equally clear that

assumptions and behavior were not shared.

In my project I have experienced a high level of collaboration and this has helped me

to grow as an early career researcher. During meetings, conferences or through

emails and skype calls I have exchanged opinions with my senior and junior col-

leagues about our project or our personal research interests. We have exchanged also

texts and reviewed these. This has highly improved our outputs and taught me much!

On the other hand, with some of the other projects the collaboration and exchange of

ideas about our project and future steps has been difficult. Also, the different larger

488 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

projects have often acted and taken decisions autonomously. This has slowed down

schedules, discouraged individual efforts and sometimes undermined the quality of

the outputs. (Author Blasi, via email)

This type of answer highlights an early career researcher noting the utility of ICT—

alongside face-to-face communication, in the context of their program-related projects, as

well as noting team members of those who do not use the ICT systems for the same

purposes they do. Reflecting back, to our program’s launch, the general overestimation of

what could be accomplished via ICT and the current underestimation of the actual capacity

of many program participants was easier to understand, in light of the experiences we had

shared in the communication—and lack of communication—across our related projects.

IRL

During this time period, the events most important to us in real life (IRL) were often very

different, in many cases, than work related to our projects. What connected projects, norms

and action remained in the background. That said, the focal points of the things we spent

most of our time actually thinking about, IRL were plain to see, in face-to-face conver-

sations and especially via ICT, in the ‘PSs’ to our emails, Facebook posts and Skype

‘mood messages’. These events concerned job searches, interviews, funding applications

and items about our personal lives. This ‘bigger picture’ included news about hobbies,

partners, families and travel plans. In other words: what happens IRL.

Dear all, I’m happy to tell you that on Wednesday our baby was born! I will send

photos ASAP! Best regards!

One of the most telling examples, as we were doing our write-up of this study, was the

quick, informal email announcement, by one of the authors, about the birth of their child.

Colleagues, sharing this type of news, is nothing particularly startling. However, what

captured our interest was the fact that prior to the research program where we met, none of

us knew this particular author, nor they us. S/he was a postdoc, hired by another of the

authors, to work on a project in our research program. However, after our initial meetings,

the author’s work on research team dynamics captured the attention of several of us—

concurrent to becoming friends. Their email, about their personal life, is telling, in the

sense of who it was sent to. More importantly, who it was not sent to. Specifically, the

email empirically illuminates their friendship ties (Scott 1991) with seven out of 33

members of the research team they worked on. Those ties imply the absence of a similar tie

with 26 members of that team. Further speculation, in terms of social network analysis, is

beyond the scope of the argument we present in this study. That said, this direct obser-

vation illuminates the way in which ICT—in multiple domains—evidences the importance

of scope and context, when thinking about studying emergent phenomena which become

visible, because of ICT, where real life and long-term scholarly collaboration intersect.

The forest: emergent, long-term collaboration

When taking a step back, to consider the type of concepts that would allow us to articulate

the relationships between ‘trees’ and ‘forests’, it was clear that we were on the edge of a

more holistic view. This vista offered more credible insights, based on the substantive

issues our data allowed us to articulate. The communicative means our team was actively

using to engage our respective worlds of work, as well as our personal lives, when viewed

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 489

123

more holistically, revealed a more multi-dimensional and profound level of collabora-

tion—concerning several projects and key transitions, over longer periods of time. The

extended consideration of—and reflection about—our evolving topic, over time, was

revealing a larger context, the ‘forest’ in which the single ‘trees’ of projects actually made

sense. The next step was to see if this could be articulated, not only as individuals, but as a

group. It was equally clear this emerging view was not readily available to everyone

within our scope of analysis, especially beyond our team, in our research projects and our

wider research community. In other words, it is our perception that some members of our

research community had a blind spot that prevented them from seeing an emergent

‘everyday reality’ to some, but not all research personnel in our team, project groups and

research community. To underline the homology, our team was beginning to see how a

narrow focus on trees, such as individual projects or use of ICT can indeed hide forests, i.e.

collaboration spanning time and projects, or a myriad of collaborative practices, each with

their own dynamics and power relations. More importantly, a short-term focus on single

projects obscures the coherence—or lack of coherence—between single projects.

These observations are important because without an understanding of the context in

which social dynamics, like international research team collaboration, take place—and

what matters in that context—we argue it is very difficult to intentionally affect outcomes,

consistently, over time. The idea that ‘context matters’ in the analysis of social dynamics is

not particularly profound. But it is profound, as Bourdieu (1988, 2004) underlined

throughout his career, how often scholars forget this applies to us.

The conclusion of the journey’s beginning

Our analysis sets up an empirically grounded, substantive rationale for conceptualizing

power dynamics, as they play out within social structure which may be fundamentally

misrecognized (Bourdieu 1990) and the limitations and potential of agency, especially

emergent, collective agency, in academe (Archer 1995). That type of study, while outside

the scope of this article, has become the next step our team has begun. Identifying the most

relevant issues to focus on, within the blind spot we encountered, has been our first step, in

our journey. The role of ICT in research team dynamics is both relevant and obvious. That

said, the authors found much of the assumptions about research team collaboration—

including our own—lacking, after extended, critical scrutiny. This is especially true

regarding the role of ICT. The findings regarding ICT-based collaboration underline that

there is not a magic solution that different people (in different generations, countries,

cultures, disciplines, institutional settings, career stages) can adhere to, in using different

combinations of ICT tools to communicate. Recognizing the multiple options, like the way

in which ICT-platforms are used—or not—is no longer an option. Rather, this is becoming

an integral part of a researcher’s skill set, as is the judgment that needs to be exercised with

regard to the efficacy of these tools. The literature on ICT-based collaboration and research

team collaboration do not map onto each other well, but our analysis, methodologically

speaking, has illuminated a promising literature gap, in need of closing. This is because

research team collaboration in our team, projects, program and wider community have not

reflected societal change, as a whole, compared to other fields and domains. At the end of

the day, it remains our hope that ICTs make our jobs easier—as individuals, groups and as

a research community. In order for that to happen, we need to better understand the

situation than is presently the case.

490 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

ICT-based research team collaboration is not something for casual dismissal, populated

by a hyper-distracted, hyper-connected, Generation X and the Millennials, who follow

(Carr 2010). Nor is it a place for uncritical rose-colored glasses (Castells 2009; Florida and

Tinagli 2004). More than anything—we found—it is a great place for data, which shines an

uncomfortable light on the fact that early twenty-first century folk psychology and personal

preferences are not adequate when contemplating intentional improvement of social

dynamics critical for international research team collaboration, systematically, over time-

frames long enough to be meaningful with regard to state-of-the-art work. International

comparative higher education research is not an exception with regard to the pervasiveness

and challenges connected to emergent collaboration norms. This is an especially important

set of points for today’s research team leader to take note of, as well as those s/he is hiring.

As important is the need for accepting and using a wider variety of paradigmatic starting

points and associated methodological approaches, than is currently in use in our research

community. This concerns not only methodological approach or how we frame and execute

studies. It concerns what we chose to focus on—or ignore—and why. This means, in our

case, not shying away from challenging convention that obscures power relations within

universities. In this sense, our efforts and findings risk becoming less powerful, if con-

formation to normative convention and unquestioned assumptions becomes habit. Fol-

lowing ‘safe paths of least resistance’, in an intellectually lazy stroll, is not a trait we would

hope defines international comparative higher education. As Mills (1959) warned, there is

good reason to periodically interrogate self-inflicted methodological orthodoxy and con-

vention. We underline the relevance of qualitative approaches, like self-ethnography, that

can be used to methodologically ground observation and reflection, forcing anecdotal,

oversimplified personal, cultural or situational projections and assumptions onto the table,

side-by-side with better explanations (Miles and Huberman 1994). This, in and of itself,

justifies our methodological departure from well-beaten, more comfortable and ‘conven-

tional’ paths. This is especially true, as neither context we experienced; face-to-face or

online, are neutral or ‘separate’ terrains, where power relations ‘vanish’. Rather the phe-

nomena; both the power struggles and friendships we experienced, manifest within and

across both settings.

As social scientists and educators, it is our job to challenge assumptions. In this regard,

we have not shied away from our critique of convention. We assert the best stance is

anchored by constructive, critical reflection on the ways in which to openly engage our

evolving topic, on the next steps of this journey.

The implications of this study are clear. Conceptually and empirically speaking, this

entails follow-on studies, aimed at explanation-building with regard to the blind spot we

encountered that explain, or conceptually illuminate, the blind spot we stumbled into.

Empirically, we can build on that conceptualization with regard to specific topics. And

there is further refinement of self-ethnography: as a starting point to studies in international

comparative higher education studies. All of these types of studies are in progress. In

practical terms, what remains is continual, knowledge and experience-based improvements

in our day-to-day practice, grounded in a better understanding of the transforming nature of

the relationships between ICT-based collaboration and international research team

dynamics.

Acknowledgments Our team wishes to thank the European and National Science Foundations, in par-ticular Ms. Sarah Moore, for her consistent and constructive support regarding our study. The networkingand training events sponsored by the European Science Foundation, that allowed our team members—manyof whom did not know one another prior to this study—were essential to our efforts. In addition, we thank

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 491

123

our own universities and research institutes: The Finnish Institute for Educational Research (University ofJyvaskyla, Finland); The Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research (Instituto Superior Tec-nico, Portugal); The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Education (University ofRijeka, Croatia); The International Centre for Higher Education Research (University of Kassel, Germany)and the School of Educational Studies (Claremont Graduate University, USA).

Appendix: Initial query

• What are your beliefs about collaboration?

• Can you give an example of when you have participated in a successful collaboration?

• Can you give an example of when you have participated in an unsuccessful

collaboration?

• What are the benefits of collaboration?

• What are the negative aspects of collaboration?

• Within the scope of this study, your specific task in your current research team, the

larger comparartive project in which your research team is situated and the research

program, what are your perceptions and experiences of collaboration?

• If you had a profound/excellent idea tomorrow—outside the scope of the research

program—that necessitated future collaboration to realize it, would your experience in

the research program bear on the way you would act with respect to your new idea?

• If yes, how so?

• If no, why not?

• What part—if any—has, does or will ICT play in all of this?

• Why?

References

Altbach, P. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Green-wich: Ablex Publishing.

Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close up studies—struggling with closeness and closure. HigherEducation, 46, 167–193.

Andres, H. P. (2013). Team cognition using collaborative technology: a behavioral analysis. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 28(1), 38–54.

Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogentic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Atkins, D. E., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure. Report ofthe national science foundation blue-ribbon advisory panel on cyberinfrastructure. Arlington, VA:NSF.

Baldwin, R., & Blackburn, R. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process: Implications forhigher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(6), 598–614.

Barjak, F., Lane, J., Kertcher, Z., Poschen, M., Procter, R., & Robinson, S. (2009). Case studies ofe-infrastructure adoption. Social Science Computer Review, 27(4), 583–600.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture ofdisciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bell, G., Hey, T., & Szalay, A. (2009). Beyond the data deluge. Science, 323, 1297–1298.Benner, M., & Sandstrom, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the

academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301.Birnholtz, J. P., & Bietz, M. J. (2003). Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. In

Proceedings of SIGGROUP 2003, pp. 339–348.

492 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

Bland, C., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review.In Academic medicine, June 1992, volume 67, issue 6, pp. 351–357.

Blasi, B., & Romagnosi, S. (2012). Social dynamics in scientific practices: Focus on research groups.Sociologia, 2, 67–77.

Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Lepori, B., & Musselin, C. (2011). New public management, network governance andthe university as a changing professional organization. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), TheAshgate research companion to new public management (pp. 161–176). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P. (2004). The science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Carr, N. (2010). The shallows. London: Atlantic Books.Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop

floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.Creswell, J. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.De Masi, D. (Ed.). (1989). L’emozione e la regola (The emotion and the rule). Laterza: Bari-Roma.Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific

productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.Ding, W. W., Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E., & Winkler, A. E. (2010). The impact of information technology

on academic scientists’ productivity and collaboration patterns. Management Science [0025-1909].Dutton, W. H., & Meyer, E. T. (2009). Experience with new tools and infrastructures of research: An

exploratory study of distance from, and attitudes toward, e-research. Prometheus, 27(3), 223–238.Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Finholt, T. A. (2003). Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization. Economics of Innovation and

New Technology, 12(1), 5–25.Florida, R., & Tinagli, I. (2004). Europe in the creative age. Report. Carnagie Mellon Software Industry

Center. Philadelphia.Fujimura, J. H. (1996). Crafting science: A sociohistory of the quest for the genetics of cancer. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.Grassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams. R&D

Management, 33(3), 243–262.Hackett, E. J. (2005). Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. In Social studies of science,

vol. 35.Heimeriks, G., van den Besselaar, P., & Frenken, K. (2008). Digital disciplinary differences: An analysis of

computer-mediated science and ‘Mode 2’ knowledge production. Research Policy, 37, 1602–1615.Hine, C. M. (Ed.). (2006). New infrastructures for knowledge production. Understanding E-science. Lon-

don: Information Science Publishing.Hoffman, D. (2009). Changing academic mobility patterns and international migration—what will academic

mobility mean in the 21st century? Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 347–364.Hoffman, D., Raunio, M., & Korhonen, M. (2011a). Finnish universities: Car dealerships, churches or

cultural institutions? In P. Teixeira & D. Dill (Eds.), Public vices, private virtues? Assessing the effectsof marketization in higher education (pp. 273–296). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

Hoffman, D., Rios-Aguilar, C., Blasi, Dragsic, Z., Ewen, A., Horta, H., Kosmutzky, A., & Nokkala, T.(2011b). ICT-based research team collaboration and the amplification, aggravation and amelioration ofinternational research team dynamics. Paper Presented at ASHE. Charlotte, USA.

Horta, H., & Lacy, T. A. (2011). How does size matter for science? Exploring the effects of research unitsize on academics’ scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors. Science and PublicPolicy, 38(6), 449–460.

Horta, H., Sato, M., & Yonezawa, A. (2011). Academic inbreeding: Exploring its characteristics andrationale in Japanese universities using a qualitative perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(1),35–44.

Horta, H., Veloso, F., & Grediaga, R. (2010). Navel gazing: Academic inbreeding and scientific produc-tivity. Management Science, 56(3), 414–429.

Howells, J. R. (1995). Going global: The use of ICT networks in research and development. ResearchPolicy, 24(2), 169–184.

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 493

123

Johnson, J. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interviewresearch: Context & method (pp. 103–119). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action Research, 14(4),459–476.

Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil. The changing world of internationalisation. Rotterdam, TheNetherlands: Sense Publishers.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. OECD. Education

Working Paper No. 8.Matzat, U. (2004). Academic communication and internet discussion groups: Transfer of information or

creation of social contacts? Social Networks, 26(3), 221–255.Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure (enlarged edition). New York: Free Press.Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.Nokkala, T., & Gill, A. (2011). Web 2.0 tools in the science 2.0 workplace: The changing face of scientific

work. Paper prepared for the 24th Annual CHER conference 23–25. June 2011.Nokkala, T., & Gill, A. (2012). Different technologies for different collaborations: Adoption of social tools

for scientific practice. Journal of the European Higher Education Area, Issue, 6(2), 29–46.O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of

software. Communications and Strategies, No. 1, p. 17.Pirola-Merlo, A., Hartel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective

events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561–581.Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life. London: Sage.Reason, P. (1998). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of

qualitative inquiry (pp. 261–291). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Richardson, L. (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and

interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 345–371). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Rollett, H., et al. (2007). The web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International journal of Learning

Technologies, 3(1), 87–107.Schroeder, R., & Fry, J. (2007). Social science approaches to e-science: Framing an agenda. Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), article 11.Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,

41(1), 643–681.Sooho, L., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social

Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Teichler, U. (1996). Research on academic mobility and international cooperation in higher education: An

agenda for the future. In P. Blumenthal, A. Goodwin, P. Smith, & U. Teichler (Eds.), Academicmobility in a changing world: Regional and global trends (pp. 338–358). London: J. KingsleyPublishers.

Valimaa, J. (2011). Higher education institutions in networked knowledge societies. Keynote address, CIHEInternational Forum. Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Charlotte,North Carolina, USA.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of informationtechnology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

Vickery, G., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2007). Participative web and user-created content: web 2.0 wikis andsocial networking. OECD e-Publication.

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in academic research? Trends and futures scenarios. EuropeanJournal of Education, 41(2), 169–202.

Wagner, C., & Leyesdorff, L. (2005). Mapping the network of global science: Comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(2), 185–208.

Walsh, J. P., & Maloney, N. G. (2007). Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems inscientific work teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 712–732.

Walther, J. B., & Bunz, U. (2005). The rules of virtual groups: Trust, liking, and performance in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 828–846.

Winkler, A. E., Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (2010). The diffusion of IT in higher education: Publishingproductivity of academic life scientists. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(5),481–503.

494 High Educ (2014) 67:473–495

123

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Ylijoki, O. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case study on changing ideals and practices of

university research. Higher Education, 45(3), 307–335.Ziman, J. M. (1983). The collectivization of science. In Proceedings of the royal society, vol. 21.

High Educ (2014) 67:473–495 495

123