Reflexive deliberation in international researchcollaboration: minimising risk and maximisingopportunity

Angela Brew • David Boud • Lisa Lucas • Karin Crawford

Published online: 19 November 2012� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract International research collaboration raises questions about how groups from

different national and institutional contexts can work together for common ends. This

paper uses issues that have arisen in carrying out the first stage of an international research

project to discuss a framework designed to map different kinds of multi-national research

collaboration in terms of increasing complexity and increasing time to research outputs.

The paper explores factors that enable and that constrain progress in carrying out col-

laborative research. The paper highlights the complex interplay within research practice of

factors that derive from institutional structures and those that appertain to individuals as

agents. It uses the personal and collective reflexive deliberations of the authors, to dem-

onstrate that as the complexity of the research interface increases, and as the time to

research outputs increases, so structural risk increasingly develops into agentic risk, and

that structural risk becomes increasingly required to be managed through agentic action.

Keywords Research management � Internationalisation � Collaborative �Research projects � Research processes

Introduction

Research collaboration has become increasingly important in the context of globalisation

where there is pressure on academics to maximise research outputs and to strategically

A. Brew (&)Learning and Teaching Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australiae-mail: angela.brew@mq.edu.au

D. BoudUniversity of Technology, Sydney, Australia

L. LucasUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK

K. CrawfordUniversity of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK

123

High Educ (2013) 66:93–104DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9592-6

create a critical mass of research in specific areas. Institutions are urging academics to

engage in international collaborative research. However, understanding about what is

involved in successful international collaboration is not well developed. As a group of

researchers based in four universities of different kinds across two countries, we have been

engaging in an international comparative program of research carried out in Australia and

England. In doing so, we have been seeking to make sense of our own experiences. This

paper utilizes our experiences of research collaboration to explore some of the challenges

that occur in such arrangements and to identify factors constraining and enabling such

processes.

Collaboration is a complex phenomenon. It involves different parties located in separate

contexts, each with their own structures, constraints, and assumptions about the world

connecting with each and working on matters of mutual concern. It is a challenge when

there is a common base of understanding, but gets increasingly demanding when com-

monalities reduce. When major cultural differences, or language differences are obvious,

then there is a continual reminder to renegotiate understandings. When these are not

apparent, the problem becomes apparently simpler, but the potential for disruption

becomes no less.

The substantive focus of the research we have been undertaking is on how academics

make decisions regarding teaching and research and how they develop their professional

identities. The intention is that the research program will, through comparisons between

UK and Australian academic work lead to insights concerning academic formation and

identity. The focus of the present paper is, however, on the processes used to enact this

work as research collaborators. We discuss the substantive project only in so far as it is

necessary to draw out aspects of research collaboration. The paper is the product of the

research team’s ‘reflexive awareness’ of the processes of carrying out the study. This

comes about through each individual reflecting on what we are doing, the decisions we are

collaboratively taking, the implementation of decisions within our own and neighbouring

institutions, the ways in which the research fits with our own individual and career aspi-

rations and so on, which are exercised, in Archer’s (2003, p. 34) terms through the medium

of each individual’s ‘internal conversations’. It also comes about through our collaborative

‘reflexive deliberations’ (Archer 2003, p. 26), carried out through email conversations, face

to face meetings and collaborative writing.

Archer (2003, p. 130) argues that reflexive deliberations mediate structure and agency.

The circumstances and structures in which we find ourselves put particular constraints on

our actions as individuals and groups. We exercise power as agents by deliberating on the

circumstances in which we find ourselves and it is these deliberations that are responsible

for how we delineate our concerns, how we diagnose what is to be done and our actions in

relation to the outcomes we want. This paper argues that personal and collective reflexive

deliberations through which structural and agentic constraints and enablements (Archer

2007) are discussed by collaborators are important to the management of risk in research

collaboration and hence to successful research outcomes. The paper draws attention to

aspects of collaboration that are derived from, on the one hand, the institutional context

and the roles we occupy and, on the other hand, come from our personal histories, positions

and career trajectories. Indeed, by highlighting the ways these structural and agentic

aspects interact with the specific context of research collaboration, the paper shows the

futility of looking at aspects of research practice from a structural or an agentic perspective

alone. We show that as the complexity of the research interface increases, and as the time

to research outputs increases, so structural risk increasingly develops into agentic risk.

Structural risk becomes increasingly required to be managed through agentic action.

94 High Educ (2013) 66:93–104

123

In this paper, we first discuss the conceptual framework that we have used to enhance

our deliberations. We then provide more information about the substantive project as a way

of introducing the team and explaining how and why our collaboration came about. We

then apply the framework to our processes in carrying out the research. This raises a

number of issues regarding our research collaboration that we then discuss. Finally, we

discuss implications for research collaboration more widely.

Conceptual framework

In surveying the literature on studies of collaboration in research, Rambur (2009) suggests

such research is of three types: conceptual work, models drawn from cases within one

nation, and examples of specific partnerships around a particular theme (see Rambur 2009,

p. 82 for references). Research collaboration is one of the many ways in which academics

work in partnership (see for example Perez et al. 1998). It is also discussed in relation to

the factors that may or may not contribute to research productivity (Kyvik and Teigen

1996; Lee and Bozeman 2005). Lee and Bozeman (2005), for example argue that when

account is taken of the number of authors on publications, collaboration is not associated

with high levels of research productivity. They argue that, ‘‘it is important to understand

the effects of individual and environmental factors for developing effective strategies to

exploit the potential benefits of collaboration’’ (Lee and Bozeman 2005, p. 673). Inter-

national collaborations can enable colleagues from different places to utilise their mutual

strengths to make contributions they would otherwise not be able to do alone or with local

collaborators. It can also enable problems to be tackled that would be difficult for those in

one location to research alone, either because of insufficient understanding of the local

context, or access to knowledge possessed by locals.

On the basis of empirical research into how US academics have engaged in multi-

national collaborations, Rambur (2009) developed a framework mapping different types of

research collaborations. She used an open-ended interviewing technique to survey aca-

demic leaders in research-intensive universities who, by virtue of their position, were

responsible for a number of multi-national research collaboratives. On the basis of her

findings, she described five types of collaborations arrayed along a trajectory of increasing

academic risk, decreasing stability, increasing human factors with compounding interac-

tion costs, and increasing time to research outputs (see Fig. 1 and discussion below). The

Fig. 1 Conceptual frameworkfor multinational researchcollaboratives (from Rambur2009, p. 84)

High Educ (2013) 66:93–104 95

123

framework thus provides a way of mapping the factors that contribute to increased com-

plexity and time to research outputs.

We also draw on the work of Archer (2000, 2003, 2007) who suggests that social

structures and situations provide arenas where people pursue their personal projects and

develop their social identity. As well as providing the theoretical framing for our research,

this approach also provides a language for articulating our role in reflecting on our col-

laborative processes. After all, carrying out the research for us is to pursue our personal

projects and to assist us each to develop our identity as researchers in this field.

Archer suggests that social situations are ambiguous and present a complex variety of

conflicting opportunities for growth and development and for the pursuit of various per-

sonal objectives. For Archer, individuals live in natural, practical and social realities. As

such, the ontological sense of self is personally powerful and it is this that makes possible

peoples’ particular identities. Reflexive awareness, exercised through the medium of

‘internal conversations’ (Archer 2007, p. 2) mediates the impact of social structures and

institutional discourses, which are then interpreted variously by the individual as con-

straining or as enabling (Archer 2007, p. 15).

Rambur’s (2009) framework, then, enables us to identify and differentiate the structural

and the agentic aspects of our research collaboration and how these change in relation to

risk. Archer’s concepts of constraint and enablement aid us in identifying how that risk can

be managed.

Building the collaborative team for the project

Our collaboration focused on examining how academics are formed as researchers and

teachers. Some academics focus on teaching and ignore incentives to engage in research

and some focus on developing a research track record and engage minimally in teaching.

The research took a critical realist stance to explore what constrains and what enables

academics in developing specific academic identities as researchers and/or teachers.

The following questions provided the focus for the study:

1. How do mid-career academics, i.e. those with 5–10 years experience beyond their

doctorate or first appointment and in different disciplines and different research-

intensive university environments in Australia and the UK think about and act upon

the perceived constraints and opportunities for development in their context?

2. How do these academics come to position themselves in relation to research and

teaching? What has influenced this positioning?

Two of us (Brew and Boud) began to explore these questions in a study of Australian

academics in six universities (Brew et al. 2011). In 2008, a survey of academic staff in

sciences and technology, humanities and social sciences, and health sciences was con-

ducted in six Australian universities (Brew and Boud 2009). Respondents (n = 1,098)

were inter alia identified according to their research productivity. This research is

beginning to illuminate how Australian academics in different university contexts and with

different career orientations, interpret and position themselves in relation to those contexts

and what is made possible or conversely, is constrained, through policies and development

strategies.

This Australian work raised questions about the extent to which systemic conditions

influenced the responses of participants. How do academics within the same discipline

think and act differently when their environments differ and how do they position

96 High Educ (2013) 66:93–104

123

themselves in response to nation-wide variations in conditions. As there are many apparent

similarities between Australia and the UK, and apparent differences, a comparison between

the two contexts was thought to be a useful contribution to our understanding of academic

formation. Brew and Boud therefore sought collaborators in the UK who might have a

shared interest in the project to build a new team to carry the international dimensions of

the project forward. Lucas and Crawford became part of the broader team. The group of

four researchers is now working on an UK/English comparison, which focuses on sur-

veying academics in six UK universities and interviewing academics in both countries.

In order to build the team, it was necessary to explore links and common interests. Brew

and Boud had a history of working together on higher education projects, as had Brew and

Lucas (2009) who had a shared set of values and disciplinary backgrounds in sociology.

After meeting Crawford at a conference, Brew invited her to join the team to lend expertise

on Archer’s theoretical work on which the project was drawing and because she had

completed a closely related study (Crawford 2010).

Comparative data is now being analysed by conducting the Australian survey, with

contextual amendments, in six English universities across the same broad disciplinary

groups. Quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data is being carried out to examine inter

alia, research productivity and identity and prioritisation of teaching and research as in the

Australian survey. We are now using semi-structured interviews to provide the beginnings

of an in-depth understanding of how academics view their research and teaching formation

in relation to specific contexts. Purposive sampling is being used to select 24 academics

with 5–10 years’ experience beyond their doctorate/first appointment in three broad dis-

ciplines from two English and two Australian universities. Resulting data will be analysed

firstly in terms of Archer’s (2000) notions of reflexivity, then in terms of key themes and

variations that emerge in each of the three disciplinary areas. Subsequent interviews will

explore the internal conversations that academics have about the context of their practice,

the university and its role in their formation and will provide the basis for further work to

explore narratives of how academics in different disciplines and universities form their

identity as a researcher and/or teacher.

As part of designing and implementing the new study, the team have articulated their

individual reflections in the group, kept records of group reflections and interactions, notes

of meetings and details of iterations of the various planning processes involved. These

were used in ways similar to that undertaken by one of the team in a study of research

collaboration on a university/industry project (Solomon et al. 2001). Following that earlier

study, and recognizing the performativity influences on academics, the reflexive deliber-

ations on the data and experiences were directed to shape a common academic output: a

conference paper. Putting effort on such a product both focused discussion through a

specific timeline (the conference deadline) and facilitated further interaction through the

writing and presentation of the paper. This public exposure of the work by the team was

also a way of the cementing the project by being accountable to peers (as for example in

the collaboration of Boud in an international teaching collaboration: Boud et al. 2006).

Application of the conceptual framework

Rambur (2009) graphically presents her framework along a trajectory showing levels of

time to completion mapped against the complexity of the interface. As the interface gets

more complex, so the time to research output increases (see Fig. 1). Each of the five

categories differ in the number of interfaces that must be negotiated by institutions and

High Educ (2013) 66:93–104 97

123

individuals, with each ‘asymmetrical’ interface multiplying the potential for human factors

to create interpersonal and program tensions.

At the simplest ‘‘parallel facility sharing’’ level, people simply share equipment such as

large telescopes etc. Large scale multi-national collaborative projects such as, for example,

the Changing Academic Profession international comparative study across 20 countries led

by Universities UK (Locke and Bennion 2010) is characterized by Ramber’s second cat-

egory; what she calls ‘‘data sharing’’ where partners come from many nations to answer

broad-brush questions. The third, ‘‘bridging peers’’, is where researchers in different

countries each carry out a research project on a particular issue and then ideas are pooled.

Our research is on a smaller scale and is characterized by more fine-grained complexity.

Before beginning our project we might have located our research in the category that

Rambur labels ‘‘diverse scientific languages and cultures’’ (p. 87). Rambur argues that this

is characterised by differences that are often initially imperceptible but which come to light

as the work proceeds. Working through these, she suggests, requires numerous necessary

interactions that are likely to incur greater unforseen costs of interaction. The final category

in Rambur’s framework is what she calls ‘‘collaboratives with human subjects of politi-

cally/culturally sensitive themes’’. Our research, in hindsight may turn out to be at this

level. Rambur suggests that such collaboratives may require language translations. With

our research we assumed a common language but as the following discussion shows, this

was not always the case.

In our project, we started with a sense that we shared common understandings of it. The

team appeared to broadly agree about the conceptual frameworks that were to inform the

study and indeed the team was built so as to bring different strengths and understandings to

the project, while sharing values and theoretical positioning. We also considered that the

common heritage of Australia and the UK would minimise differences in academic cul-

tures that might be found in countries with different languages and pedigrees. However,

Rambur characterises what we found when she says:

‘‘these collaboratives were often marked by ‘deceptive similarities,’ the perception

among participants that there was agreement when in fact the evolution of the work

made it clear that what appeared to be agreement was actually a similar spoken

language for profoundly different things.’’ (Rambur 2009, p. 88).

Ramber further suggests that these interaction costs increase the amount of time taken to

reach desired outcomes. Often, as we examine here, there are unexpected delays and

complications happening even before data collection can begin. We explore three technical

areas, which caused confusion and unanticipated delays in our own research collaboration.

Ethical approval

One of the issues in our research that lengthened the time taken was derived from structural

aspects of university functioning. This was in relation to gaining ethical approval for the

research. This proved to be a very different process in the two countries. In Australian

universities there is a highly detailed and bureaucratic process involving approval of each

research project by a central human ethics committee in each institution. There is a

national statement that provides guidelines to minimise duplication of ethical review

(Australian Government 2007, p. 87), which supposedly cuts down the necessity for

approval to be obtained in each participating institution. However, the agreement does not

cover overseas institutions and so the Australian process required evidence of ethical

clearance from overseas institutions. However, in the UK ethical approval requirements

98 High Educ (2013) 66:93–104

123

appear less demanding and may rest either at the level of the institution or at the faculty or

departmental level and indeed, we found that the process was different at the two col-

laborating UK universities. We therefore decided to obtain ethical approval from both of

our collaborators’ universities. When this was completed, ethical approval was sought from

an Australian university. This whole process took several months thus lengthening the time

for starting the project.

Research assessment

To research academics’ identity as researchers and/or teachers, we required information

about their research outputs. The study is taking place in the context of countries which

both have national research assessment strategies. Despite the apparently common pur-

poses of the two strategies, and a common desire expressed in both favouring international

collaboration, negotiating the differences in language and culture in respect of research

outputs in the two countries considerably lengthened the time to implementation of the

initial questionnaire.

In order to obtain comparative data in Australia and the UK, it was decided to use the

same survey and only to make minimal changes necessary in the UK context. Changes to

ensure that the language was appropriate were discussed at two face-to-face meetings and

in numerous email and Skype exchanges. One of the key structural and cultural differences

that affected data collection of research output was the existence of national research

assessment in the UK, initially called the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and now

the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which will be conducted in 2014. It involves

peer assessment of research activity in all UK universities. Academics are required to

produce four high quality research outputs in order to have been put forward in any

departmental RAE submission. In light of this, an additional question was inserted in the

questionnaire, which was ‘‘Were you submitted for the 2008 RAE?’’

Australia also has a research assessment system—now the Excellence in Research for

Australia (ERA) initiative—that similarly collects outputs. However, exactly what publi-

cation data is collected, in which categories, and how it is reported varies from the UK

process (and, indeed, from the predecessor processes in Australia). Assessment is not by

individuals, however, but by Fields of Research codes, which frequently cut across

departmental boundaries, so a question that asked, ‘‘Were you submitted for the ERA?’’

would be meaningless. The key measure of individual research activity in the UK has no

Australian equivalent, though the notion of research activity is well understood.

We also changed wording in relation to teaching development activity, teaching awards

and teaching recognition to make it appropriate for each national context.

However, what caused perhaps most difficulty were the ways in which publications

were characterised and potentially differently valued in the two national systems of

evaluation. For example, at that time, in the Australian framework, much was made of the

distinction between scholarly books and textbooks and of the low regard of edited books.

In discussion, differences in how an ‘‘edited book’’ was valued in the two countries became

apparent. In the UK version, ‘‘Scholarly book’’ was translated to ‘‘Book (scholarly)’’ and

‘‘Edited book’’. Such differentiation will enable us, through the analysis, to interpret the

value of an academic’s outputs according to the different requirements and categories of

eligibility in the different countries. This is an example of ‘‘a similar spoken language for

profoundly different things’’ (Rambur 2009, p. 88). There is no definitive means of

assessing how such evaluations are done, despite the criteria for evaluation within the RAE

being made explicit as each individual subject panel is allowed to develop criteria

High Educ (2013) 66:93–104 99

123

appropriate for their discipline. Ultimately the process of evaluation during RAE panel

meeting is kept entirely confidential. Much critique has been directed at the RAE and such

procedures for evaluation (see for example, Lucas 2006; McNay 2003; Brew and Lucas

2009).

Access to participants

Another structural difference in academic cultures was in the extent to which lists of

academics in specific departments were available. For ethical reasons and to avoid asking

institutions to engage in more work than they needed to, the Australian lists were compiled

from faculty handbooks that were readily available on websites. The UK lists were

compiled from lists on websites. Indeed, this was the only way to obtain the names unless

institutions were willing to provide us with up to date lists that would have been highly

complex to manage and coordinate. The lists were often out of date; a fact that came to

light when the survey went out. Nearly 40 emails were received indicating that the person

was retired or moved to another institution. The lists also reflected the increasing diversity

of academic positions. It included many people who were not on teaching and research

contracts and while an effort was made to remove these before implementation, again, a

number of emails from people wondering if they were in the target group for the survey

were received. The timing of the UK survey also coincided with a political situation where

there were numerous voluntary and compulsory redundancies in many universities, as well

as a strike or ‘working to rule’ of unionists where academics chose to only complete 35 h

of work per week. These factors have affected the response rate.

Issues arising

Rambur suggests that the complexity of multinational partnerships is compounded by

increases in human factors and as meanings become more complex and that these amplify

the perceived distances between the institution and the individuals within them (Rambur

2009, p. 90). This is presented in Fig. 2.

The model postulates that the level of perceived and actual risk and instability changes

with increased complexity. The role of funding and the part played by institutional

• Risk—Institution

• Instability—Low• Funds as Catalyst—

Effective

• Administrative Champion--Essential

• Risk--Individual

• Instability--High

• Funds as Catalyst—Not Particularly Effective

• Administrative Champion—Not Effective

Fig. 2 Collaboratives: asimplified dichotomy ofcharacteristics (from Rambur2009, p. 91)

100 High Educ (2013) 66:93–104

123

champions also change. These factors are well illustrated in our collaborative experience

and point to structural constraints on the management of the risks of the research and to

where deliberate agentic action has enabled the management of that risk. Indeed, our

experience suggests that Rambur’s ‘area of deceptive differences’ refers mainly to struc-

tural risk factors and her ‘area of deceptive similarities’ suggests mainly agentic risk.

Risk

In our research, initially, there was perceived risk to our own institutions in permitting the

research to go ahead. The expectation that funding would be forthcoming meant that the

institutional risk might have been considered minimal. Over time, however, each indi-

vidual has been obliged to take on and to manage differing levels of risk, particularly as

funding has not been forthcoming. The risks to individuals vary according to their

workload and hence time available and their institutional expectation to bring in research

funding. Members of the team are at very different stages in their careers, so the research

has differing levels of priority for different members. Individual risk has been managed and

minimised by sharing tasks, by one semi-retired member of the team moving the project

along by doing administrative work. Structural aspects of risk have been managed by team

members making this project just one of a number of other projects and producing pub-

lications in other areas to satisfy institutional requirements.

Different members of the team were on different trajectories in relation to this research.

Boud and Brew had already surveyed Australian academics and written publications on

that (Brew and Boud 2009; Brew et al. 2011) by the time the collaborative group was

established to extend the research to the UK. So they had a vested interest in taking the

research forward and knowledge of the questionnaire implementation which reduced the

risk overall when implementing in the UK. Structural risk was also managed by the

application of what had been learnt in the Australian context where two institutions had

refused access and where it had been decided to inform institutions we were carrying out

the work rather than asking their permission to do so. In the English case, with the

exception of some queries about ethics from one university, gaining of access was rela-

tively straightforward. This may have been due to the wording of the letter based on

previous experiences in Australia. Earlier experience in Australia meant that the survey did

not need to be piloted so that was a clear enabler.

Another structural risk factor was the time differences between Australia and the UK,

which are different at three times of the year. The travel plans of different members going

into yet other time zones also made face-to-face contact even by electronic means very

difficult at times. These risks were minimised by using email as the ongoing means of

communication.

Funding

Structural and agentic risks are related to funding availability. Funding is intimately related

to timescale as Rambur’s model suggests. It has dramatically affected the time taken with

our research. Initially considerable effort was expended to try to gain funding from the

Australian Research Council (ARC) and other agencies rather than beginning the work.

The research is now going ahead without funding specifically allocated for it except for the

time of the researchers and small amounts of funding from other sources including per-

sonal resources. The initial funding proposal to the ARC was highly rated but unfunded

and subsequent efforts to other funding agencies have not been successful. The experiences

High Educ (2013) 66:93–104 101

123

of the team in continuing the research despite the lack of funding success is particularly

pertinent, especially in the UK environment where there have been drastic cuts to gov-

ernment research council budgets. External funding enables resources for example, for

administrative and research assistance. On the other hand, funding ties research to a

specific timetable. Without funding, the researchers are able to be more flexible but the

effect of this is to lengthen the time to research outputs. Further, without funding there is

the risk of losing institutional support, particularly champions in each institution who are

able to support the individual and ensure that the research forms part of their workload.

The lack of funding thus shifts structural risk to agentic risk. Again, this affected team

members differently and again it has been necessary for them to ensure they achieve

research outputs on other projects.

Communication

The above factors demonstrate that the capacity for collaborative research to be successful

is dependent on numerous interactions by the researchers and willingness of each member

of the team to work towards common goals even without institutional or funding support.

What has been facilitative in our case, however, are a number of material conditions that

have enabled interaction, and, indeed made the research possible. These conditions are

structural in that they are a function of the physical and institutional contexts of the

researcher, but they are also agentic because it is the ways in which they have been taken

up and used that has minimised the risk of not completing the research at all.

Material conditions include firstly the existence of email. This has ensured regular

communication and sharing of progress. The travel patterns of Brew and Boud who reg-

ularly visit the UK have ensured that different clock times do not always intervene and

have enabled face-to-face meetings in the UK. Also important have been the collaborations

that took place prior to the commencement of this project. Conferences have an important

facilitating effect in minimising risk in multi-national collaborative projects (Boud et al.

2006). It is at conferences that people get to know each other internationally and know who

is working in the field and/or on related topics. It was at a conference attended by Brew and

Crawford that a link between research interests came to light. Conferences are nodes of

communication where ideas can be presented to others and feedback obtained. They are

sites for the production of research output and the act of presenting at conferences is one of

the factors ensuring continuation of the project.

Working as a research team

The next phase of the research project requires the team to undertake a number of in-depth

qualitative interviews to explore the internal conversations that academics have about the

issues we are investigating. During our discussions to develop the interview schedule, we

became acutely aware of the potential challenges and opportunities that arise from having

four different interviewers working in four different settings across two countries. With the

interviews and other research activities spread ‘across multiple individuals, the list of

logistical and methodological challenges grows’ (MacQueen and Guest 2008, p 189). Yet

we recognised the value of the skill and experience mix in the team, thus to realise these

strengths we allocated significant time in one of our face-to-face meetings to a workshop

and role-play approach to developing, not only the research instrument, but also the skills

and style that we wanted to adopt for the interviews. As part of this joint planning work we

102 High Educ (2013) 66:93–104

123

were able to agree some key areas of consistency in the interview process, for example that

we would not use the term ‘research- intensive universities’, but rather ‘research intensive

environments’ as this would enable us to draw on an agreed definition relevant in both

contexts.

Discussion and conclusion

In writing this paper we have sought to understand the interplay of structural and agentic

factors affecting international research collaboration. We have focused on experiences with

our project of mid-complexity with deceptively similar countries, to explore how risks and

time to research outputs can be managed. We have located our project in a framework of

research collaboration and explored the enabling and constraining risk factors. This is all a

manifestation of the reflexive deliberations of the participating researchers. This matters

because such considerations are critical in reducing time to outputs and managing the

complexity of the ongoing process.

The framework suggested by Rambur, together with the Archerian theoretical frame-

work of the project and Crawford’s recent doctoral thesis have, in this case, been used as

tools for critical reflection on our concerns with regard to both the pursuit of the project and

our work as collaborating researchers. Rambur’s framework suggests that it is the com-

plexity of the institutional interfaces rather than the complexity of the research per se that

increases interaction costs, often in ways that are unseen by the researchers (Rambur 2009,

p. 84). In this paper we have extended this work by demonstrating the importance of

understanding the interface between those aspects of working and researching together

which derive from who we are as academics with particular orientations, work roles,

aspirations and career trajectories, and those which derive from the institutional and

national systems in which we work. Through our individual and collective deliberations,

we have highlighted the complex interactions between aspects of research collaboration

that derive from structural conditions and those that belong to us as agents in the process.

Further we have explored the ways in which these constrain or enable progress in col-

laborative research. Specifically, we have shown how with increasing complexity of the

interface and as time to research outputs increase, so risk has increasingly to be managed

by us as agents taking on more risk ourselves.

National systems of research assessment are driving an emphasis on international

collaboration in principle if not in practice. While they produce legitimising rhetoric that

can be used to mobilise support for such projects within institutions, the details of oper-

ation of such schemes provide as many constraints as enablers. As each scheme is made

more detailed and explicit to ensure fairness within each national system, such specifi-

cation when it diverges from others creates pitfalls that require further, often, unproductive

negotiation within international projects. Similarly differences between national systems of

ethical practice generate considerable busy work for researchers who can suffer under

excessive burdens of ethical paternalism.

There are implications here for other researchers and other national and multi-national

research collaborations. We have highlighted the ways in which deceptive similarities

regarding structural and funding constraints, linguistic anomalies, and different levels of

institutional and personal risk can be managed through reflexive awareness of research

team members and actions deliberately taken to do this. We have also pointed to the ways

in which non-human material conditions can be used to advantage in this regard.

Awareness of the factors that contribute to increasing risk in research collaboration, which

High Educ (2013) 66:93–104 103

123

were highlighted in the Rambur framework, together with the theoretical understandings

derived from Archer, has served to highlight the complex interplay of structure and agency

in the university context. Indeed, such collaborations bring valuable opportunities to reflect

on how structure and agency are intertwined in research practice. Indeed, it is the sys-

tematic application of what Archer calls ‘reflexive deliberation’ not just at a personal but

also at a collective level that leads to effective achievement of project outcomes in these

circumstances.

References

Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cam-

bridge: Cambridge University Press.Australian Government. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra, ACT:

Australian Government.Boud, D., Dahlgren, L-O., Abrandt Dahlgren, M., Larsson, S., Sork, T., & Walters, S. (2006). Creating a

‘world class’ program: reciprocity and constraint in networked global collaboration. InternationalJournal of Lifelong Education, 25(6), 609–622.

Brew, A., & Boud, D. (2009). Understanding academics’ engagement with research. In A. Brew & L. Lucas(Eds.), Academic research and researchers (pp. 189–203). London: Open University Press and Societyfor Research into Higher Education.

Brew, A., Boud, D., & Namgung, S. U. (2011). Influences on the formation of academics: Perspectives ofAustralian academics. Studies in Continuing Education 33, 1, 51–66.

Crawford, K. (2010). Influences on academics’ approaches to development: voices from below. Interna-tional Journal for Academic Development, 15(3), 189–202.

Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientificproductivity. Science, Technology and Human Values,21(1), 54–71.

Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. SocialStudies of Science,35(5), 673–702.

Locke, W., & Bennion, A. (2010), The changing academic profession: The UK and beyond, UUK researchreport. London: Universities UK. Retrieved 10 July 2011 from http://www.open.ac.uk/cheri/documents/the_changing_academic_profession_in_the_uk_and_beyond.pdf.

Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. Maidenhead: Society for Research into HigherEducation and the Open University Press.

McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK research assessment exercise 2001 andits outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy,30(1), 1–8.

McQueen, K. M., & Guest, G. (2008). Handbook for team based qualitative research. Plymouth: AltimiraPress.

Perez, A. I., Blanco, N., Ogalla, M., & Rossi, F. (1998). The flexible role of the researcher within thechanging context of practice: Forms of collaboration. Educational Action Research,6(2), 241–255.

Rambur, B. (2009). Creating collaboration: An exploration of multinational research partnerships. In A.Brew & L. Lucas (Eds.), Academic research and researchers (pp. 80–95). Basingstoke: Society forResearch into Higher Education and the Open University Press.

Solomon, N., Boud, D., Leontios, M., & Staron, M. (2001). Researchers are learners too: Collaboration inresearch on workplace learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13, 7/8, 274–281.

104 High Educ (2013) 66:93–104

123