More colleges are turning to inter-institutional consortiums for relief from rising expectations to educate all, an increasingly competitive education marketplace, tightening student resources, and overburdened college finances (USDOE, 2003). For consortium members, the need to overcome "transactional distances" (Peters, 1969) and connect practitioners who shared in consortium governance and operations but are otherwise involved in largely differing "life-worlds" (Berger, 2000) is evident. Curiously though, even some consortiums with strong beginnings and initially enthusiastic members fail to thrive and fall victim to coming undone (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b; U.S. Department of Education/USDOE, 2003).
Wanting for strategies that would create "common ground" (Brennan & Clark, cited in Resnick & Levine & Teasley, 1991, pp. 127–149) sufficient to sustaining inter-institutional collaboration, the study investigated features comprising a consortium collaboration infrastructure. Influenced by field theory (Lewin, 1948), the phenomenological design incorporated concepts from sociobiology, anthropology and psychology, theories addressing learning, personal, community and organizational development, knowledge management, cooperation theory and cooperative business principles, socio-technical teams and communities of practice, and studies of two American consortiums (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005). Also considered was advice on education and action research, practices for involving insiders and participatory case study processes (Borg & Gall & Gall, 1996; Coghlan & Brannick, 2005; Elliot 1991; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005b; Kinchloe, 1991; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006; Stringer, 2004; Zuber-Skerrit, 1995).
Commissioned to illuminate participant understandings and extend knowledge needed to improve collaborative practices (Saavedra, 1994, 1996; Heron, 1996) the study resulted in actionable intelligence regarding the consortium collaboration infrastructure.
Data from surveys, interviews and open meetings were translated to thick descriptions of lived experiences and used in making comparisons to virtual teams and communities of practice, assessing the engagement, imagination and alignment facilities comprising the collaboration infrastructure and designing and testing a mechanism to promote networking (Hildreth, 2000; Owens, 1991; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Wenger, 2003). Integrity of results was protected by prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, participant debriefing, diverse case analysis, referential adequacy, member checks, ANOVA and application of "5 metrics" (Kimble, 1998).
|Advisor:||Rossman, Mark H.|
|Commitee:||Rossman, Maxine, Schreck, Richard|
|Department:||School of Education|
|School Location:||United States -- Minnesota|
|Source:||DAI-A 69/07, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Cultural anthropology, School administration, Mass media, Higher education|
|Keywords:||Collaboration, College, Consortium, Distance, Inter-institutional consortium, Online, Online consortium, Organization|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be