Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The methodological illumination of a blind spot: information and communication technology and international research team dynamics in a higher education research program

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 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 psychology 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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.

References

  • Altbach, P. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university, and development. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogentic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, G., Hey, T., & Szalay, A. (2009). Beyond the data deluge. Science, 323, 1297–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M., & Sandström, U. (2000). Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 29(2), 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnholtz, J. P., & Bietz, M. J. (2003). Data at work: Supporting sharing in science and engineering. In Proceedings of SIGGROUP 2003, pp. 339–348.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2004). The science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, N. (2010). The shallows. London: Atlantic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • De Masi, D. (Ed.). (1989). L’emozione e la regola (The emotion and the rule). Laterza: Bari-Roma.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finholt, T. A. (2003). Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(1), 5–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grassmann, O., & von Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams. R&D Management, 33(3), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hine, C. M. (Ed.). (2006). New infrastructures for knowledge production. Understanding E-science. London: Information Science Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 effects of marketization in higher education (pp. 273–296). Rotterdam: Sense Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, D., Rios-Aguilar, C., Blasi, Dragšić, Z., Ewen, A., Horta, H., Kosmützky, A., & Nokkala, T. (2011b). ICT-based research team collaboration and the amplification, aggravation and amelioration of international 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 unit size on academics’ scientific productivity and information exchange behaviors. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 449–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure (enlarged edition). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, K. (2001). Documents of life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, P. (1998). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 261–291). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sooho, L., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.), Academic mobility in a changing world: Regional and global trends (pp. 338–358). London: J. Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Välimaa, J. (2011). Higher education institutions in networked knowledge societies. Keynote address, CIHE International 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 information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylijoki, O. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45(3), 307–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. M. (1983). The collectivization of science. In Proceedings of the royal society, vol. 21.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Our team wishes to thank the European and National Science Foundations, in particular Ms. Sarah Moore, for her consistent and constructive support regarding our study. The networking and training events sponsored by the European Science Foundation, that allowed our team members—many of whom did not know one another prior to this study—were essential to our efforts. In addition, we thank our own universities and research institutes: The Finnish Institute for Educational Research (University of Jyväskylä, Finland); The Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research (Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal); The Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Education (University of Rijeka, Croatia); The International Centre for Higher Education Research (University of Kassel, Germany) and the School of Educational Studies (Claremont Graduate University, USA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Higher Educational Studies Research Team, Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

    David M. Hoffman & Terhi Nokkala

  2. Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research (IN+), Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal

    Brigida Blasi & Hugo Horta

  3. Department of Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia

    Bojana Ćulum

  4. International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER), University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

    Žarko Dragšić & Amy Ewen

  5. School of Educational Studies, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

    Cecilia Rios-Aguilar

Authors
  1. David M. Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brigida Blasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bojana Ćulum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Žarko Dragšić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amy Ewen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hugo Horta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Terhi Nokkala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Cecilia Rios-Aguilar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Hoffman.

Appendix: Initial query

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?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoffman, D.M., Blasi, B., Ćulum, B. et al. The methodological illumination of a blind spot: information and communication technology and international research team dynamics in a higher education research program. High Educ 67, 473–495 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9692-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9692-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation