A Process Perspective of International Research Collaboration

Abstract

International collaboration on research projects i s becoming important as countries experience similar problems that need attention. The process of such research collaboration is discussed with specific reference to initiating collaborative research, evaluating the potential of entering into a research partnership, preparing for travel, developing and completing a project, and maintaining international collaborative research relationships. Factors that enhance and diminish such relationships are also discussed.The world is fast becoming a global village and the problems surrounding work in one country are often issues in other countries. Unemployment, career indecision, career decision making, work adjustment, and career education, among others, need attention in all countries. To assume that all of a country's work-related problems can be solved independently is shortsighted and provincial. People need each other and can all learn from each other. Certain strategies for resolving career problems are undoubtedly more pertinent to some countries than others but international research cannot be ignored. Developing theoretical and conceptual insights that are indigenous to one's context are worthwhile activities. An indigenous psychological approach refers to Yhose elements of knowledge that have been generated in a country or in a culture, and that have developed therein, as opposed to those that are imported or brought from elsewhere" (Sinha, 1997, p. 132). Conducting indigenous psychological research with international colleagues can serve to invigorate, enrich, and sharpen one's research practices and may extend our knowledge of psychological phenomena in a broad array of contexts. Career research in diverse contexts has the potential to provide theories, constructs, and assessment techniques with a more substantive and meanGraham B. Stead is aprofessor in the Department of Psychology at the Port Elizabeth Campus of V i t a University, South Africa. Thomas F. Harrington is a professor in the

Defining Interdisciplinary Research: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature

“…The majority of these papers (30/42, 71.4 percent) were from the health and social sciences literature and had a mean of 2.8 (Table 1) (Allen 1992; Barnes, Pashby, and Gibbons 2002; Beersma et al 2003; Aram 2004; Cummings 2004; Hobman, Bordia, and Gallois 2004; Guimera et al 2005) authors/article, 59.5 percent of whom were from the social sciences. Of these papers, one‐third (14, 33.3 percent) were empirically based research about interdisciplinarity (Allen 1992; White 1999; Kone et al 2000; Sullivan et al 2001; Barnes, Pashby, and Gibbons 2002; Lattuca 2002; Beersma et al 2003; Morillo, Bordons, and Gomez 2003; Schulz, Israel, and Lantz 2003; Aram 2004; Cummings 2004; Hobman, Bordia, and Gallois 2004; Senior and Swailes 2004; Guimera et al 2005); the others were general discussions (Woollcott 1979; Jacobs and Borland 1986; Bloedon and Stokes 1994; Nissani 1997; Israel et al 1998; Lindauer 1998; Northridge et al 2000; Stead and Harrington 2000; Anderson 2001; Aagaard‐Hansen and Ouma 2002; Board of Health Care Services 2003; Frost and Jean 2003; Nyden 2003; Jacobson, Butterill, and Goering 2004; Slatin et al 2004), cases studies (Dodgson 1992; Rosenfield 1992; Bisby 2001; Higgins, Maciak, and Metzler 2001; Lantz et al 2001; Lattuca 2001; Cheadle et al 2002; Austin 2003; Baba et al 2004; Daniels 2004; Tennenhouse 2004) and one literature review (Berkowitz 2000). Eleven (26.1 percent) of the papers included an explicit definition of interdisciplinarity and only five papers (11.9 percent) described or cited any type of conceptual framework or theoretical underpinnings for their approach to interdisciplinary research (three distinct typologies, see Table 2).…”

International medical education research: highlights, hitches and handy hints

“…

‘International collaboration is an adventure – a walk on a tightrope in which the destination is not always clearly visible.’ 1

…”

“…International research has pragmatic, epistemological and political benefits 2,13 . Starting with the pragmatic, it shares the benefits of any collaborative research, namely intellectual stimulation leading to the cross‐fertilisation of ideas, and the sharing of expertise and labour among the team 1–3,14–16 . Extending the benefits of national collaboration, it explores cultural or country‐based differences, reduces researcher isolation in academically peripheral countries, and helps researchers for whom English is a second language to publish in leading journals 17,18 …”

“…International research can also be financially costly in terms of ICT, travel costs for face‐to‐face communication, or if translation is necessary 16 . As well as differences in language, different countries can have different values and ethics in relation to the conduct of research and international collaboration can lead to unequal power relations among team members, particularly for researchers from academically peripheral countries whose first language is not the dominant language of the team 1,16,18,20 …”

Factores críticos en los resultados de los proyectos de investigación de Convocatorias Públicas de un Organismo Público de Investigación (OPI): el caso de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

“…Según Sargent y Waters (2004) es importante identificar la naturaleza de la colaboración. Dentro del contexto académico se ha concentrado específicamente en la colaboración Internacional (Jonsen et al, 2013;Peterson, 2001;Stead & Harrington, 2000), transcultural (Easterby-Smith & Malina, 1999), colaboración entre profesionales (Amabile et al, 2001).…”