Collaborative research: On the bleeding edge

Introduction

During the 1993-1994 academic school year, I arranged to conduct a research project on the teaching practicum with two elementary school teachers. Kathy had been a student in several of my classes while doing her Bachelor of Education. I taught Susan in a Primary Specialist Additional Qualifications summer course. I wrote references letters for both women when they applied for graduate school. Both teachers had acted as associate teachers for my students teachers. I had read assignments and journals they had written, and had watched them deal with children, their peers, and my students.

During the fall 1993, I was reading articles on the teaching practicum and writing the proposal for my annual research project. At the same time I was visiting teachers in schools to organize practice reaching placements for my student teachers. It was during one of these visits that I proposed collaborative research on the teaching practicum from the associate teacher's perspective with these two elementary school teachers. Both Susan and Kathy were teaching in the same school. In addition there were three other associate teachers in their school whom I bad worked with on a regular basis. Susan and Kathy were both working on their Masters Degree and struggling to juggle their teaching, family, and academic responsibilities. The following quotation from Susan's narrative describes my original fall meeting with her:

I remember sitting on the green couch in the staff room with Jane, a professor from the University of Ottawa She wants to discuss placing another student teacher in my classroom. She is friendly and bright--a happy new mother ready to share her experiences. And me? Overburdened and tired --I feel like I am a bad mother, a bad teacher, and a bad wife. I don't know if I have anything to offer a student teacher coming into my classroom.

Jane is concerned and puts aside her own stories to listen to mine. I feel the tightness in my chest and tears behind my eyes. I have not even admitted this struggle to juggle all of my simultaneous demands to myself! I am bone weary. My celebration of teaching and parenting are lost. I try to tell Jane of the strenuous demands that my Master's course has placed on me. Jane listens sympathetically and then asked if I would like to take a course where I could have a say in the workload? Not only set the research agenda and help to conduct it, but take an active part in each stage. Have my voice as a classroom teacher heard? (Stewart, et. al., 1994)

The experience was to be mutually beneficial. Kathy and Susan would enjoy the convenience, and flexibility offered by conducting research in their classrooms. They would obtain a university credit towards their Masters Degree during the process. They would participate in the annual Learneds Conference and co-authors research papers. I would have a richer viewpoint of the associate teacher's perspective of the teaching practicum and freer access to the other associate teachers teaching in their school. These were the expectations which were discussed at that time.

I would like to share with you mistakes that were made during this process, what was learned, and make suggestions on how this process could be improved. By sharing this information I have tried to show the pros and cons experienced when one university professor attempted to conduct collaborate research with two elementary school teachers. The paper is written from my perspective as a university professor. I have taken excepts from Susan's narrative account of the experience written during the research process. Both teachers wrote about the process in a reflective paper one year after the completion of the project. I have also included quotes from these papers in an effort to reflect their feelings about this process. Finally, I presented both teachers with a draft of this paper and received their feedback and comments on my account of the process in an effort to validate and clarify my interpretations of their perceptions.

The Collaborative Process

In the beginning we were all very positive toward conducting this collaborative research project. Susan wrote about this in her narrative account of the research process.

Jane has planted a small of hope within me...I read about the need for more collaborative research between faculty of education departments and school boards. The need to bridge the gap between educational theory and educational practice. And the urgency to not only add the classroom teacher's voice to the research but to encourage the classroom teacher to create new knowledge" (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990). I feel new intellectual energy and excitement building. I see a place where my knowledge and questions and experience can have some value. I read about the "potential of teacher research to help in the reform of schooling (Cochran-Smith & Lyle, 1990). I see the urgency for reform all round me but until now, I had no forum to pose my queries or demonstrate my support for is change. I read about "action research" is and schools as "centers of inquiry", of teachers as "reflective practitioners" and teacher as "transformative intellectual". It is powerful. I feel full and electric (Stewart, et. al., 1994).

Kathy also remembers the beginning of the project extremely positively as the following excerpt from her reflective paper suggests. "My colleague, Susan and I were extremely excited about the project in terms of its subject and because it was an effort to bridge the gap between university and public school system of which we were a part."

I too reflect positively on our interactions. I recall the three of us sitting around my kitchen table drinking tea and discussing the research issues. I was grateful to have rich conversations and valuable input. I remember the ease of our conversations and feeling connected with these women, the mutual respect, and the support. Susan wrote about these meetings in her narrative.

In December the university agrees to accept our proposal. I will work from my own classroom. I will determine my own schedule and my own commitment. I feel a growing energy, intellectual interest and connection. The demoralizing fatigue and depression of November have disappeared ... In January Kathy, Jane, and I meet to review what we know and to establish our questions for the survey. I have never designed a survey, and it is an invigorating session of colleagues sharing ideas and questions back and forth... (Stewart, et. al., 1994).

A research proposal was necessary to get approval from graduate studies for the teachers to obtain credit for their involvement in the project. I took the initiative and wrote the research proposal. Once we received approval from the administration, I presented Kathy and Susan with the proposal and invited them to come on board. Susan makes a good point in her reflective paper when she suggests that it would have been ideal if the collaboration process bean at the conceptual stage.

Because we were pressed for time, Kathy and I had no real hand in the development of the proposal for the university. We should have been equal partners in that important phase and been truly collaborating in developing the research questions. Instead Jane developed the research questions and the proposal and Kathy and I looked at it after the fact. That is significant. It set the tone and established a pattern of one leader and two helpers.

I believe the collaborative research experience was extremely positive for all involved up until the writing process began in April. The following quotation extracted from Kathy's reflective paper also suggest that it was during the writing stage that the collaboration process broke down. "We were on the same wave-length at the beginning but as the time pressures began to impinge and our need to develop and retain some ownership for our writing increased, the collaborative process began to break down."

Susan's account of the research process written in early April also suggest that at this stage she was extremely positive about the collaborative process:

And so here I am, a primary teacher struggling to bring the "teacher's voice" to the research. One who is beginning to appreciate the potential of collaborative work, and who is discovering the power of narrative written from an ordinary classroom teacher's perspective. The research experience that I have gained through this work is invaluable and I will reap the benefits next winter as I toil away in my classroom working on my own thesis. The flexibility of the arrangement meant that I could determine my own schedule, my own level of commitment and work out of my own classroom. I am now more familiar and comfortable with qualitative research, designing a survey, developing and conducting a focus-group interview, and individual interview, and keeping and sharing a personal journal. I understand the rigors of sifting through data to discover trends and themes--to let the data speak for itself. I was empowered to have a voice in a process that directly impacts my career. And I understand the strength and support that exists in collaboration. (Stewart, et. al., 1994).

The writing process took place in April and May. I was to write e research paper on the teaching practicum. I suggested that Susan write a personal narrative of the collaborative process. Kathy was relating the literature to the research paper and editing various drafts on both papers. We establish that we would co-authors both papers.

Based on my own reflections, statements made by Kathy in her reflective paper, and Susan's account of the research process written in April, I am convinced that the writing stage is where the collaborative process broke down. More specifically, I believe the break down was due to problems in the following areas: time, experience, and skill level, ownership, and roles and expectations. Time

Writing takes time. Kathy and Susan were I teaching school all day and both had family responsibilities. With my university teaching responsibilities complete, I was able to devote full-time to my writing and research responsibilities during the months of April and May. I would work on the paper all day and then meet Kathy and Susan at their school to discuss what I had found and to get feedback on what I had written. This continued for approximately a month before I began to feel held back.

Susan and Kathy wanted to be more involved and were becoming frustrated by my pressure to meet deadlines. Some realistic such as the Learneds Conference, and some self imposed--such as the demands I place on myself to publish. Kathy and Susan didn't feel the same urgency or pressure. Kathy comments on this in her reflective paper:

Susan and I as full-time teachers simply did not have the time to devote to the writing as did Jane. Jane was anxious to get things moving again and feeling the constraints of time and deadlines...Obviously, Susan and I had not had the experience of writing research papers that Jane had and Jane was feeling the frustration of being held back.

Susan also refers to the issues of time in her reflective paper. "Time was our enemy. Time and the difficulty of meeting our individual schedules and individual commitments in a satisfactory manner."

Ownership

I believe ownership became a problem for all of us during the writing stage. I began to realize that I would have fewer publications than in previous years. This became a concern for me especially when I realized the time I was devoting to the project.

Kathy played an extremely important role at editing and giving feedback on endless drafts of both papers. Particularly important was her role in relating the findings to the literature. Her role in the collaboration process was extremely valuable. However, Kathy felt frustrated because she didn't see her role as equal. She didn't feel the ownership that Susan and I felt. Although we were all very involved in both papers, giving feedback and opinions on what was written, Kathy wanted ownership of a paper to feel equal in this process. Kathy reinforces this point in her reflective paper. "Susan very much wished to retain ownership of her paper and I was experiencing the difficulties with co-authoring and was wishing that I had something of my own to do".

As Kathy points out, Susan also felt the need for ownership during the writing stage of this process. This was evident to me after the first draft of the paper on her narrative account of the collaborative process. I remember reading the first draft of the paper and thinking, we are going to have difficulty getting this publish. As co-author I took a heavy hand at editing Susan's work. I made strong recommendations for elaboration, additions, deletions and eventually recommended journals for publication.

I believe Susan took offense to my involvement in what she felt was her paper. We discussed this problem during one of our meetings and Susan expressed a desire to do the editing herself. Susan refers to this stage in her al reflective paper. "...it must have been a great surprise when I finally dug my heels and disagreed."

I was concerned about the demands on Susan's time--she was involved in her teaching until the summer, taking another course in the summer, and planning to begin her thesis in fall. I was feeling the pressure of getting the paper off to a journal before I went on maternity leave. I was concerned that Susan did not have the experience required to know what had to be done to the article in order for it to be published in a refereed academic journal. In hindsight, I feel that Susan wanted to retain full ownership of the paper. In fact, reading her reflective paper a year after this process concluded, I realize how deeply hurt Susan was by the editing process. What is extremely difficult to notice is the change in her mood from her initial narrative paper on the collaborative process in April to present.

I feel disappointed in myself... What I had thought would occur when I rushed in with great enthusiasm into the research and the reality of what occurred has left a hollowness in me. I feel no real excitement about the fact that these two articles might be published because I no longer feel positive attachment to them.

Experience

I expected Susan and Kathy to assume full responsibility in all aspects of the research project. Susan and Kathy were at early stages of their Masters Degree and although extremely intelligent and capable, they did not have the experience or the time to meet this expectation. All the responsibilities including; writing the proposal, clearing the university and school board ethics committees, applying for conferences, finding journals for publications, writing letters to accompany manuscripts, editing manuscripts, summarizing reports for conferences, and the majority of the writing--I took on as my responsibility.

I believe they wanted to be more involved. However, they didn't have the time that I had to devote to the research project and they didn't always have the experience or skill to know what to do. Therefore, it was often easier to do things myself, and then get their feedback on what I had done. This was especially true when timelines were an issue.

Roles and Expectation

Susan, Kathy and I established our roles at the beginning of this project as equal partners. This was not a realistic expectation. I was Susan and Kathy's professor and responsible for evaluating them. Susan wrote about this in her reflective paper:

Once Kathy and I handed over the leadership with the writing of the proposal, it became tacit knowledge that Jane was the leader. She had the experience. She was evaluating our effort for the university. I do not say hat I felt embittered or resentful of this. I respect Jane and her work but this inequalities of roles was unspoken but present.

As Susan points out, I was the "unspoken" leader. However, we had vaguely established that we were equal partners in the publication process. Kathy and Susan neither had equal time nor equal experience in this regard. Although we tried to communicate about this problem, it remained an issue throughout the remainder of the project. Kathy comments on the importance of establishing roles and expectations in her reflective paper. "The downside involved a lack of communication regarding expectations between collaborators for all aspects of the research...A clear understanding of each persons role is crucial for collaboration to be a success."

Susan also wrote in her reflective paper that roles and expectations must be clearly defined. "Now I would consider long and carefully before committing myself to another collaborative research effort. I would demand that the roles, responsibilities and rights of each collaborator be carefully determined and understood by all involved."

However informally, our roles were established as equal partners. We established that we would be equal in the writing, presentation, and publishing aspects of the research until the completion of the project. When it became evident that this was not a realistic expectation, redefining these expectations became difficult. From this experience I have come to believe that it is not necessary to be equal partners to conduct collaborative research. It is possible to have different levels of commitment, different roles and expectations in the research based on each individual's interest, time, and experience. As Susan and Kathy suggest, defining these roles is crucial to successful collaboration.

Conclusion

Four weeks ago I received work that our first paper, (Susan's narrative account of the collaborative research project), which I had sent to a refereed journal had been accepted for publication with revisions. I telephoned Susan and Kathy to inform them. Susan is teaching full-time and heavily involved in her thesis data collection, in addition to her normal family responsibilities. Kathy is one week away from delivering her second child. We all agree that I would be responsible for editing the paper.

While I was talking with Susan and Kathy, I forced myself to ask them to write a reflective paper about the collaborative experience one year after the completion of the project. Most of me just wanted to put the project behind me. I had agonized and lost sleep over the problems we had encountered. However, I felt I needed to take responsibility for my mistakes in order to bring the project to closure. Despite their busy schedules, both women graciously provided me with a reflective paper within a two week period.

Although Kathy's proposes suggestions for improvement in the collaborative process in her reflective paper, her memories of this research experience are overall very positive. "In essence, the collaborative process was rewarding experience for me. I thoroughly enjoyed working with my colleagues. It was wonderful to work with a member of the faculty. I was thrilled to be able to participate at the Learneds

Even though Susan's account of the collaborative process was extremely positive, the following excerpt from her reflective paper suggest that these memories are all but forgotten, tainted by the pain she experienced during the writing stage of this research.

I remember my initial excitement--the flush of enthusiasm. At last a place to voice what I believed about a pan of my teaching. As I glance backward today, I am sad to report that the negative conclusion of the collaboration eclipsed its vital beginning...

After reading Susan's paper, once again I just wanted to move on to my other writing commitments. I felt like the week I had spent editing Susan's narrative account of the collaborative process had been in vain. Even though it was a valid account of her perception of the collaborative process up to the editing stage, it didn't account for the problems we encountered after that time. Once again, I forced myself to go to the computer and deal with this unsettling issue. After writing the first draft of the paper I felt a somewhat better. As Kathy suggests in her reflective paper, time is a great healer:

Finally, it is always helpful to come together after all is over to discuss the process and to make suggestions for change. I think we tried to do that but it was difficult at the time since emotions were running high. Now that a year has passed, I can look back on the experience with what I hope is an objective viewpoint. Perhaps it is well to let some time pass and reflect before analyzing.

The more I read Susan and Kathy's comments, the less personally I interpreted them and the more objectively I could respond. I wrote down my own reflections and noted similarities, differences, and, connections among all our perceptions. I gave a draft of the paper to Kathy and Susan for their reaction and comments.

Kathy agreed that the paper was an accurate account of the collaborative process and had no recommendations for changes. She expressed that she felt privilege to be involved in this research project and retains overall positive feelings about the experience. She suggests defining roles and expectations as a way to improve the collaborative process.

Susan also felt it was an accurate account of the experience but wanted to clarify her interpretation of how she felt at the writing stage. She wrote the following comment on the manuscript. "I think you write a fair account of the process. Ownership of the paper was not as significant to me as my loss of value or power ... Suddenly what had been valued about me prior to the research became a handicap-lack of research, experience, scheduling, occupation."

Susan perceived that she was not appreciated at the writing stage and interpreted my editing of her work coupled with my frustration with her lack of time and experience as a personal attack on her self-worth.

I benefited from working with Susan and Kathy. I enjoyed the insight, feedback, and knowledge they offered. I benefited by having access to their schools and classrooms. I feel I obtained a richer perspective of the associate teacher's perspective on the teaching practicum due to the trust they established when collecting data from their peers.

I also felt frustrated at being less productive than in the past when I worked alone or when I collaborated with university colleagues who had equal time and experience. I tried to make a convenient and meaningful arrangement to obtain a university credit for women struggling to balance family and career. I believe the experience of conducting a research project from the conceptual stage, through presenting at a National Conference, to obtaining authorship of two articles in refereed journals is something that few students experience with their professors at either the Master or Doctorate level.

If we had worked together up until the writing stage, I think we would all reflect upon this experience in a much more positive light. Kathy and Susan would still have obtained their university credit, they would have experienced how to conduct a research project, and had the experience of presenting research at a National Conference. At that point we all could of possessed ownership of the data and findings to write up or publish in any way we saw fit, and on own time lines. We could have acknowledge each others contributions in a special note at the beginning or end of each paper.

In the future I would welcome the opportunity to conduct research with such exceptional school teachers as Kathy and Susan. I would also welcome the opportunity to present research at a conference with school teachers. My conclusion is that it is unrealistic and unfair to all concerned to expect participants with different degrees of research and writing experience and skill, to be equal partners in a collaborative research project. It is possible to have different levels of commitments, and various roles and expectations in the research based on each individual's interest, time, research and writing skill and experience. Moreover, these roles and expectations should be discussed and defined early in the research project. Kathy suggests a similar arrangement in her reflective paper.

It should be made clear from the beginning who will be responsible for writing aspects of the research. Perhaps the faculty member involved could concentrate on the paper which needed to be published or submitted within a certain time frame while those of us with less experiences and expertise could take the extra time to go through the process of writing and editing while still retaining ownership. It is wonderful to have a paper accepted for publication but the process of trying is in itself a learning experience.

Similarly, it should be made clear that these roles and expectations may need to be redefine at various stages of the research project. Hopefully, through this process we are beginning to understand each others perspective, see where mistakes were made, and identify what changes would improve collaborative research between faculty members and school teachers.

References

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide, Educational Researcher, 19(2)2-11.

Stewart, S.R., Baker, D., MacDonald, C.J. 1994. One classroom teacher's personal narrative of collaborative research on the teaching practicum. Educational Action Research Journal: An International Journal, 2(2) 339-346.

The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of elementary school teachers Dorothy Baker and Sandra Stewart.

Copyright Project Innovation Spring 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved