Search results

This Commentary is a review and critique of arguments that oppose the desirability and impact of professional collaboration in education. The purpose of this paper is to analyze two recent high-profile reviews of professional development and collaboration. The analysis is informed by a historical typology of five phases of professional collaboration in theory and practice.

The Commentary reviews and summarizes selected key texts that represent different phases in the development of advocacy for and research concerning the emergence of professional collaboration. It then critiques the methodology, findings, and recommendations of two key critiques of professional collaboration and development that have been widely disseminated for educators and policymakers.

Contrary to the views of its opponents, professional collaboration as a whole has a record of indirect, long term, yet clear and positive effects on teachers and students. Particular kinds of professional collaboration can vary a great deal in quality and impact, however. Short-term collaborative interventions, such as data teams, are often dependent for their success on the prior existence of deeper cultures and processes. These processes and cultures characterize high-performing systems globally. Advocacy for competitive alternatives is based on insufficient evidence.

Although advocacy for more competition in public school systems is common, high-profile critiques of professional collaboration are relatively new. This paper engages with these critiques from a broader historical perspective, and finds they have serious flaws of reasoning and methodology. Thus far, the critiques provide insufficient warrant for moves toward more competitive systems of schooling and teaching.

This chapter examines collaboration among highly autonomous, powerful, professional peers to explain why the benefits of teamwork that scholars typically find in traditional teams may not apply. The chapter analyzes the perspectives of individual professionals to show that, in this setting, collaboration is often seen as more costly than rewarding for the individuals involved. It presents a conceptual framework exploring this paradox and suggests directions for future research to elaborate an underlying theory.

The chapter draws on extensive qualitative data from surveys and interviews in three professional service firms, including a top 100 global law firm, a boutique executive search firm, and a large, US-based commercial advisory firm. Findings are married integrated with organizational theory to develop testable propositions for future research.

Because senior professionals collaborate with peers who have the autonomy to choose to work collectively or independently, power and authority are not means to create a team or make it effective. Findings show how professionals interpret the relative costs and benefits of collaboration, and suggest that in most cases, senior professionals will not attempt it or give it up before collaborations can reap important benefits. Thus, short-term costs prevent opportunities to experience longer term benefits for many professionals. Yet, some professionals have figured out how to use “instrumental collaboration” to shift the balance in their favor. The chapter’s conceptual framework uses a longitudinal perspective to resolve this seeming paradox.

The chapter presents a nascent theory of instrumental collaboration, including five testable hypotheses, an emergent conceptual framework, and suggestions for specific future research directions.

Collaboration between creative professionals (artists and designers) and companies has become more prominent. In so-called “crossovers,” indicated with the acronym CoCreaCO (collaboration of creative professionals with companies) when they concern specific crossover of creative professionals with companies, societal and organizational challenges such as becoming more innovative are addressed through multidisciplinary collaboration that increasingly embraces and exploits the distinctive way of thinking and working of artists and designers. Over the past years, several scholars focused their research on the effect of artistic interventions or arts-based initiatives (ABIs) and design thinking in organizations. Hardly any research has been done on the conditions (organizational and individual factors) that are conducive to ABIs in organizations, such as trust and common ground. The central question for this study is which conditions foster successful collaboration between creative professionals and organizations in crossovers. For this study, the conditions for collaboration between creative professionals and four Dutch organizations were studied by interviewing ten creative professionals, project managers and employees who worked together, following which a survey of 60 questions was filled in by 41 Dutch respondents. This study shows that despite the differences between the disciplines of creative professionals and employees for this type of crossover, both disciplines requested quite similar conditions for collaboration. Both creative professionals and employees should realize and encourage trust and common ground by focusing on an open process and outcome, a shared creative process started with a shared problem. Experience with this type of collaboration, art disciplines, the role and qualities of the artist (individual factors) as well as the organization's sector seem to influence neither expectations of collaboration nor the intention to engage in this type of cooperation in the future.

Both ten employees (project managers) and creative professional(s) with whom the organization cooperated were interviewed (four case studies, semistructured interviews). Thereafter, 41 respondents have been filled in a survey.

Successful cooperation can be explained by six concepts of determinants, which are briefing, qualities of creative professionals, organizational qualities, organization factors and common ground. More particular, creative professionals' independency and their ability to render observations and to reflect of these and organization's role by informing employees and organizing a clear work process need to be addressed before or during collaboration.

past years, many scholars focused their research on the effects of artistic interventions or ABIs and design thinking in organizations. There is hardly any research on the conditions that are conductive to artistic interventions in organizations such as trust and common ground.

The interprofessional collaboration is a key practice for providing cancer care. However, the realization of collaboration requires effective leadership and administrative support. In this study, the aim was to analyze healthcare professionals' perceptions of leadership and administrative support (strategic and management) in interprofessional collaboration for developing practices in cancer care.

A descriptive survey design was used to collect data from healthcare professionals (n = 350, response rate 33.3%), including nurses, physicians and other professionals participating in patient care in one Finnish cancer center (out of five) in 05/2018–10/2018. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The instrument focused on leadership in the work unit and administrative support including organization strategy and organizational management.

Healthcare professionals perceived leadership in the work unit, organization strategy and management for the support of interprofessional collaboration as weak. However, the ratings of male respondents and those in leading positions were more positive. The findings indicate that healthcare professionals in the cancer care setting are dissatisfied with the leadership and administrative support.

Interprofessional collaboration, including its leadership, requires systematic and constant evaluation and development.

Healthcare leaders in the cancer care setting can use the results to identify factors that might be in need of attention and development in the field of interprofessional collaboration.

The purpose of this paper is to explore interprofessional collaboration during ward rounds on a Finnish emergency and infection ward from the viewpoint of three central professional groups: physicians, nurses and secretaries.

The authors utilise an ethnographically informed approach, with observations and interviews as the data collection devices. The data comprise ten interviews with staff members and ten hours of observations. The data were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.

The ward rounds were found to be rather physician- and medicine-centred, and mostly not interprofessional. Nurses and secretaries in particular expressed dissatisfaction with many of the current ward rounds work practices. Ward rounds are an essential part of collaboration in implementing the emergency-natured operational aim of the ward, yet we found that the ward rounds are complicated by diverging professional views and expectations, variable work practices and interactional inequality.

This study makes a contribution to the research of collaboration in emergency care and ward rounds, both of which are little-studied fields. Further, context-specific studies of collaboration have been called for in order to eventually create a model of shared expertise. The findings of this study can be utilised in studying and developing emergency care contexts.

The necessity for continuous advancement in library education and practice requires research collaboration among library professionals. This study aims to investigate research collaboration among lecturers in the department of library and information science (LIS) and librarians in university libraries in Nigeria.

A descriptive survey research design was used for the study. The quantitative study employed a close-ended questionnaire for data collection. The study covered all the librarians in academic libraries and lecturers in the department of LIS (LIS professionals) in public universities in Ekiti, Ondo and Osun States, Nigeria. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis. The criterion mean of 2.50–2.99 was used for the research questions.

It was found that librarians in academic libraries and lecturers in Nigeria rarely engage in research collaboration. The reasons for the research collaboration are to increase the quality of research in the library profession, make research in the library profession more in-depth and cross-fertilize ideas for generating novel insights.

It is the engagement of librarians in academic libraries and the lecturers in the LIS department in the exchange of knowledge at national and international levels through research collaboration that can enhance the quality of research that emanates from the library profession.

Promotion of the library profession requires the integrated effort of library professionals in academic libraries and lecturers in the department of LIS through research collaboration.

Promotion of the library profession requires the integrated effort of library professionals in academic libraries and lecturers in the department of LIS through research collaboration.

The growing number of people with multiple problems in different areas of life means that cross-domain interprofessional collaboration is becoming increasingly important. This study aims to focus on interprofessional collaboration between professionals from social work and financial and employment service organizations in The Netherlands. This type of cross-domain collaboration is still mostly superficial, and limited empirical knowledge is available about its beneficial factors.

The interprofessional collaboration model of Mulvale et al. (2016) was used as theoretical background for the research methodology and to reflect on the findings of our study. Data was collected through a qualitative study among professionals (N = 18) from social work and financial and employment service organizations in three different Dutch municipalities.

Similar team-level collaboration mechanisms of Mulvale et al.’s (2016) model were seen within this study. Joint client meetings were very beneficial for the interprofessional collaboration. Further beneficial factors include the decision-making process, team vision, client as an equal member, open communication and the appointment of a coordinator.

Further special attention is needed to determine how best to allocate co-ordinating tasks, and how organizational and policy contexts affect the functioning of interprofessional collaborative teams.

This study offers an empirical view on a cross-domain collaboration between social work and financial and employment service organizations, by using Mulvale et al.’s (2016) model. In addition, this study also offers special attention to the role of the client in interprofessional collaborative teams.

The purpose of this exploratory case study was to investigate the role of School Leaders (SLs) in building Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in schools, as well as to expand a literature-driven PLC model within the Pakistani context.

The study involved the purposive selection of two schools affiliated with a university. The sample comprised one school leader, one academic coordinator and five teachers from each school, altogether 14 participants. The participants shared similar demographic characteristics. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data, which were analysed thematically.

The findings of the study revealed that both schools have created PLCs to some extent and that school goals and culture were contributing factors in building these communities. Additionally, the SLs played a key role in promoting PLCs by encouraging teacher collaboration. The study concludes that SLs have the potential to strategize their actions to foster positive professional relations among teachers and ensure their well-being.

The study contributes to the literature on professional communities in Pakistan by validating a literature-driven PLC model. The model emphasizes collaboration among teachers, which can be facilitated by SLs. As such, the study implicates SLs in prioritizing the professional development of teachers to enhance student learning and achieve school success.

This study is unique in expanding a literature-driven PLC model within the Pakistani context, with a focus on teacher collaboration as facilitated by SLs. The model has the potential for replication in other contexts and can serve as a useful tool for future research.

Interprofessional practice (IPP) is one way to structure collaborations to more effectively meet the complex needs of students in educational settings. This article explores the lessons learned when one research team implemented interprofessional education (IPE) experiences in partnership with a public elementary school and pre-service professionals from elementary education, special education and communication science and disorders.

This reflective article explores the lived experiences of researchers and partners who completed an IPE experience within one professional development school’s site. Researcher anecdotes are included to support the viewpoints shared.

It was discovered that IPE experiences are essential to facilitate meaningful collaborations for pre-service professionals to learn with and from one another; however, this requires time, preparation and is most effective when teacher mentors and university professors lead with vulnerability and model flexibility. Investment in IPE is challenging but worth the effort when learning outcomes are realized.

Specific details regarding the structure of this experience are shared as well as future directional goals for programs hoping to implement IPE in their professional practice programs.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a Development and Research (D and R) approach to systematic and focused professional collaborative inquiry developed as part of an externally funded project, Disciplined Collaboration and Evaluation of Professional Learning (DCEPL), and highlight a model of professional collaboration that was aimed at generating meaningful teacher engagement within, between, and across schools. The “Disciplined Collaboration” (DC) approach was designed to prepare and equip teachers to work with a model of collaborative inquiry that was highly structured and had built-in assessment measures to help teachers judge the impact and progress of their collaborative work. The literature on professional learning highlights that superficial models of collaboration, unstructured approaches to collective learning, and a lack of adequate evaluation measures are some of the reasons why teachers’ professional collaboration may not have the impact anticipated or expected.

The DCEPL program was a D and R project that aimed to support teachers in generating their own local approaches to school-based innovation and change. As a D and R project, a framework for collaboration that became known as “DC” model was developed and shared. The project involved eight schools in different states and territories in Australia. In the first two years, the schools engaged intensely with the “DC” model, in ways that aimed to promote innovation and change. Subsequently, in a phase of consolidation, schools have refined and extended their collective work. From the outset, a range of data sources were available to schools to assist them with gauging the progress and impact of their collaborative inquiry. Data sets included a baseline assessment, a maturity model that charted progress against a rubric, documentary analysis, and an online portal. A sequenced data collection and evaluative approach, every six months, routinely captured the process and the progress of the inquiry work in each of the schools. It also illuminated progress across the D and R project.

The feedback from the project and data analyses suggest that all eight schools in the project engaged with the “DC” model; and in most cases, used a whole school approach to improvement. More generally, the findings point to several conclusions about working within a DC framework: first, that authentic collaborative inquiry, i.e., which makes a positive difference to learners, benefits from a clear operational model and consistent rules of engagement for teachers. Second, that the DC model, offered teachers clear guidelines about the process of active collaboration and its evaluative requirements from the outset. Third, while inevitably, the process of DC varied across schools, the focus upon improving learning and learning outcomes was central.

The DC model presents a new framework or a new approach in supporting teachers’ collaborative inquiry. The DC model emphasizes improvements in student learning as the main outcome of teachers’ collaborative work. In addition, it has feedback and impact measurement within its design thus, allowing teachers to naturally evaluate progress and outcomes.