University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
AN EXAMINATION OF COLLABORATION AMONGST STUDENT AFFAIRS
AND ACADEMIC AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS IN AN ACTION RESEARCH
PROJECT

by

Seema Gaur
_______________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Seema Gaur

ii
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this educational accomplishment to my grandparents:
Kartar Gaur and Gauran Gaur who made many sacrifices by uprooting to a
foreign country in the hopes of creating a brighter future for us.
Jatinder Pal Vasisht and Kanta Vasisht, for instilling a solid foundation of
learning and constant encouragement that has allowed me to pursue my dreams.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to begin by thanking my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Alicia
Dowd, for her support, valuable input, and thoughtful attention throughout the
dissertation process. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Estela
Bensimon and Dr. Robert Rueda, for their insight and guidance.
I would like to thank my parents, who always taught me to strive for my
goals and to pursue excellence. Their love of learning and hard work ethic motivated
me to finish and to never be satisfied with the status quo. I would also like to thank
my brother and sister  Ash and Jyoti  for their continuous support in all areas of
my life.
I would like to give special thanks to my professional colleagues Dr. Julio
Fonseca and Sonia Rodarte-Llamas. Thank you for your patience, confidence, and
constant encouragement so that I was finally able to finish.
I also wish to thank my thematic group for all of your support. A special
thanks to Cristina, Martha, and Roberto for the many collegial exchanges!
My heartfelt gratitude goes to Amber for all of her love, sacrifice, and
support during this time. She has been there to celebrate all of the small milestones
and sat with me through every re-write. She never waivered once in her belief of my
ability and I could not have completed this journey without her.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ……………………………………………………………………….. ...ii
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………… ...iii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………. ...v
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………... ...vi
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………… ...vii
Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………………………………… ...1
Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework ………………………………………… ...21
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ……………………………………….. ...44
Chapter Four: Findings ………………………………………………………... ...61
Chapter Five: Summary and Conclusions ……………………………………. ...105
References …………………………………………………………………….. ...119
Appendix A: Interview Guide ………………………………………………... ...126
Appendix B: Supplemental Interview Questions ……………………………. ...129

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Description of Student Affairs Professionals Responsibilities versus … ...5
Description of Academic Affairs Professionals

Table 2. Action Inquiry Project Meeting Schedule with Sunny College ……… ...49
Table 3. Data Coding ………………………………………………………….. ...57
Table 4. Strength of Ties Prior to Start of the Action Inquiry Project ………… ...67
Table 5. Strength of Ties After the Completion of the Action Inquiry Project .. ...68

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Development of Collaboration …………………………………. ...63
Figure 2. Number of Strong Ties Prior to Start of an Action Inquiry Project … ...69
Figure 3. Number of Strong Ties After the Completion of an Action Inquiry ... ...69
Project

vii
ABSTRACT
Individuals within higher education institutions play a critical role in creating
an environment that is conducive to promoting student success. Yet, these
institutions struggle with promoting collaborative relationships specifically between
individuals on campus such as academic affairs and student affairs professionals. To
address the need for collaboration the most effective institutions fully integrate
student and academic affairs and focus all of the resources on the shared goal of
student success. Using a qualitative case study approach, this study examined the
factors that promoted collaboration among academic affairs and student affairs
professionals participating in an action inquiry project. This study offers a rich
description of the experiences and perspectives of professionals within student
affairs and their participation within the project. The study revealed that hierarchical
relationships existed within the community college that led to role ambiguity within
the action inquiry project. Yet, the use of an external facilitator within the action
inquiry project assisted in minimizing the hierarchy by creating opportunities for
physical proximity such as inquiry team meetings and informal activities. The
physical proximity created opportunities for trust to arise through repeated
interaction, shared vision, and validation which resulted in the development of
collaborative relationships. This study has multiple implications for practice
concerning the development and sustainability of relationships between academic
affairs and student affairs professionals.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
“Only when everyone on campus—particularly academic affairs and student
affairs—shares the responsibility for student learning will we be able to make
significant progress in improving it.”

—American Association for Higher Education, American College Personnel
Association, and National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(1998, p. 1)

A common goal for higher education institutions is to prepare students by
assisting them in acquiring skills to promote their professional endeavors, civic
responsibilities and personal challenges (Schroeder, 1999). This holistic approach of
supporting all aspects of a student has been conceptualized in various ways.
According to the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA, 2004) student success that is defined both through an educational and
developmental perspective utilizes four dimensions to define that success: “cognitive
competence, intrapersonal competence, interpersonal competence, and practical
competence” (p. 3). These various components comprise the complexity of each
student and the need for higher education institutions to address each of those
aspects. Yet, there are organizational barriers within higher educational institutions
that prevent individuals from addressing each of these components. The literature
provides little guidance and results to institutions to evaluate their own shortcomings
and initiate their own efforts in promoting student success.

2
One solution that is discussed in the literatature to promote a holistic
approach towards student success is the collaboration of student affairs and academic
affairs professionals (Baxter Magolda, & King, 2004). Research conducted about
how students learn emphasizes the importance of connecting both the cognitive and
affective domains (Baxter Magolda, & King, 2004). Hence, collaboration between
academic affairs and student affairs is viewed as an endeavor worth pursuing
because it can lead to a potential connection to students as they experience learning
both in and out of class (Dale & Drake, 2005). This study investigates the factors that
promote a collaborative process amongst student affairs and academic affairs
professionals within a community college. In the following sections I will examine
the ongoing push for collaboration from professional organizations despite minimal
movement in that direction. Due to the focus on student affairs professionals a brief
historical background of the profession is presented. This is followed by a discussion
on the barriers to effective collaboration, despite the positive effects collaboration
may have for students. Lastly, I discuss the use of collaborative research traditions,
specifically action research, in promoting collaboration within community colleges.
Many Calls for Collaboration Yet Little Evidence of Change
Despite recommendations for a collaborative process there is little evidence
of substantive movement in this interactive direction (Kezar, 2001). For the past 50
years student affairs professional associations have been generating publications
promoting student affairs and academic affairs professionals working together to
enhance student learning (Bourassa & Kruger, 2001). Professional associations

3
representing both student affairs and academic affairs professionals have called for a
collaborative reform within higher education institutions. This began with a joint
publication in 1998, developed by the American Association for Higher Education
(AAHE), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) called Powerful
Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility for Learning. This report outlined 10
principles of student learning that should be incorporated and implemented by both
academic and student affairs professionals. Within the report a commitment to
collaboration by all stakeholders within an institution is strongly encouraged. The
report provided examples of collaborative practices that worked best on a number of
campuses emphasizing the benefits for students. In 2002, a response was provided to
Powerful Partnerships called Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a
Nation Goes to College, created by the Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AAC&U, 2002). The findings of this report further promoted the use
of collaborative techniques and challenged higher education to provide an education
that would prepare students to focus on learning and student engagement that occurs
within and outside of the classroom.
Subsequently, both NASPA and ACPA prepared a joint report entitled
Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the Student Experience (2004),
which was a response to Greater Expectations. In this response, they advocated for
“transformative education—a holistic process of learning that places the student at
the center of the learning experience” (2004, p. 3). This report was further followed

4
by Learning Reconsidered II (2007) in which NASPA and ACPA partnered with
numerous associations: Association of College and University Housing Officers-
International (ACUHO-I), Association of College Unions-International (ACUI),
National Association of Campus Activities (NACA), National Academic Advising
Association (NACADA), and the National Intramural and Recreational Sports
Association (NIRSA) to develop a comprehensive blueprint for action. This
comprehensive report provides tangible tools for stakeholders within institutions to
implement the collaborative-based recommendations provided by the original report.
All of the various joint reports have provided suggestions for practices, however,
there is little evidence of their use and how they impact practice.
Despite the agreement by professional associations for the need of a holistic
approach to student learning, the educational realm has been slow to change (Kezar,
2001). As time has progressed the participation of faculty in student affairs matters
has transferred from complete involvement to complete detachment (Nuss, 2000).
Historically, student affairs professionals worked closely with academic affairs with
respect to particular students and their behavior within the classroom. Yet, currently
the focus has shifted so that each profession focuses on a particular aspect of the
student. Engstrom & Tinto (2002) have differentiated the two realities of academic
affairs and student affairs in Table 1 below:

5
Table 1. Description of Student Affairs Professionals Responsibilities versus
Description of Academic Affairs Professionals

Student Affairs Professionals Academic Affairs Professionals
• Greater number of student
services personnel, several
colleagues on the campus share
interest in student services
• Preference to work in teams
• Establish and administer
institutional policies &
procedures
• Focus on the whole student
• Practice experience is important
in combination with higher
education degrees
• Access to variety of resources to
facilitate program development
• Knowledge about the campus
• Closest colleagues being at
another university sharing the
same research interest
• Independent and self-directed
work environment
• Differing compensation based
upon research and
academic/scholarly achievements
• An academic “Food Chain”
based on academic credentials
and rank
• Peer review of work
• Job future/security based upon
tenure
• Focus on:
o Teaching-evaluations,
o Research-funding or
freeze and publish or
perish,
o Service
Adapted from Engstrom & Tinto (2002)

According to the description in the table above there are specific differences
between professions, especially as it relates to working together. Collaborative
relationships are recommended to academic affairs professionals despite their
characteristics of being an isolated profession that tends to work independently. A
growing concern among researchers is the increasing separation and specialization of
academic affairs and student affairs professionals relegated to specific areas of

6
student success (Kezar, 2001). One of the primary reasons for a push towards more
collaboration is that while most institutions share a common mission the various
factions and departments are working towards them in separate silos. Yet, “by
understanding more freely how well its various parts work together [academic,
student, and administrative affairs], an institution should be able to reduce the
dissonance it does not mean to have and, thereby, increase its effectiveness in
accomplishing what it truly means to accomplish” (Lunsford in Dickerson-Giffard,
1990). In order for these various parts to reduce dissonance it is important for
academic affairs to understand the work and culture of student affairs, and vice versa
(Magolda, 2001). For the purpose for this study, academic affairs professionals are
individuals who interact directly with students in the classroom, who are also
identified as teaching faculty.
On the other hand, as members of a relatively young profession, the role and
expectations of student affairs professionals are constantly changing. Due to the
multitude of roles that student affairs professionals play within community colleges,
there is not a universal definition for this group of individuals. For the purpose of
this study, student affairs professionals are individuals who work directly or
indirectly with students in a variety of roles ranging from assisting with financial aid,
academic and mental health counseling, articulation, transfer, and retention services
(www.naspa.org).
According to Swartz, Carlisle, and Uyeki (2006) the field of student affairs
has been constantly evolving since its inception based on the demands of

7
stakeholders within higher education institutions and from those at the state and
federal level. Yet, as a relatively new profession, student affairs have had a difficult
time establishing their role within higher education institutions (Swartz, Carlisle, &
Uyeki, 2006). The need for student affairs professionals developed from the desire
to address students who engaged in delinquent behavior within higher education
institutions (Swartz, Carlisle, & Uyeki, 2006). College presidents began appointing
individuals to support the needs of these students outside of the classroom, but did
not provide clear expectations as to their role. These positions became in demand
during the 1950’s and 1960s when higher education institutions were dealing with
racial tensions, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, as
well as the opposition to the Vietnam War on their campuses. These social and
cultural tensions on campus created the need for individuals outside of the classroom
to deal with the emotional stressors that students were dealing with to allow them to
focus in the classroom. During the 1960s, student affairs professionals began using
psychological developmental theories to understand their students and determine
what programs would be beneficial to their institutions. The theories were used as a
foundation to “answer the questions of why some programs, activities, policies,
procedures, or interventions were or were not working” (Swartz, Carlisle, & Uyeki,
2006, p. 111).
Student affairs professionals have diverse educational backgrounds that
influence their standards and the information they provide to their positions. There
are minimal regulations for this field with respect to what they learned in college or

8
whether they have a degree associated with student affairs. In recent years the
delineation between the classroom and campus programs brought about a split
between academic life and student life that has carried over into the twenty-first
century.
Barriers to Collaboration in Community Colleges
Many higher education institutions are organized for the efficient division of
labor and, while the parts of an organization may be interdependent, this does not
necessarily imply a tendency toward working collaboratively (Martin & Murphy
2000). According to Schroeder (1999) there are numerous factors that affect
collaboration such as:
fundamental, cultural differences between faculty and student affairs
professionals in terms of personality styles, educational preparation, values,
and purposes; the historical separation of the formal curriculum from the
informal co-curriculum; a prevailing view that the role of student affairs is
ancillary, supplementary or complementary to the academic mission of the
institution; competing assumptions about what constitutes effective
undergraduate learning, and, different institutional expectations and rewards
for faculty and student affairs professionals (p. 2).

There are numerous obstacles inherent in higher educational systems to
promote collaboration. The major categories of these barriers are the delineation of
specialized roles for both academic affairs and student affairs (Price, 1999), the
organizational separation of offices and departments (Winston, Creamer, & Miller,
2001), limited resources (Smith, Wolfe-Wendell, 2005), and the lack of knowledge
transferred from one part of the organization to the next (Goh, 2002). Traditionally,
student affairs professionals were “considered experts on who students are, whereas

9
faculty are regarded as experts on what and how students learn” (Price, 1999, p. 75).
This delineation is not much different now where each discipline has a unique
perspective on their roles for educating students. The delineation is further
exacerbated by the physical location of the various stakeholders within the
institution. It so happens, that in higher educational institutions, student affairs tend
to be organizationally separated from other units such as academic affairs (Winston,
Creamer, & Miller, 2001). An unintended consequence for this organizational
separation is that both groups of professionals essentially wind up working in silos.
Academic affairs professionals tend to focus on what occurs inside of the classroom,
whereas student affairs professionals focus on outside of the classroom despite the
need for the integration of responsibilities. The difficulty arises due to both faculty
and student affairs professions becoming isolated where there is minimal
collaboration with each other and other staff members (Darling-Hammond, 1999;
Fuhrman & Elmore, 2004).
The organizational barriers within institutions consists of limited resources or
reductions in budgets, calls for greater accountability, and a student population that
is more diverse than the individuals teaching them (Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005).
Community colleges are in constant flux when justifying the allocation of their
resources based on accountability measures. Due to tighter higher education budgets
individuals on campus are asked to provide evidence of student learning. Faculty
members are able to provide evidence of student learning through the display of
mastery of learning course content and concepts. Yet, student affairs professionals

10
must try to quantify their practices by assessing their impact on students, whether it
is through relationships they help create, student participation within organizations,
and/or measuring student personal development (Kezar, 2007).
The higher educational institutions are “among other things, knowledge
producing systems, [yet] it is not necessarily the case that universities have a very
clear idea about what constitutes relevant knowledge” (Greenwood & Levin, 2005,
p. 49). One of the characteristics of creating a seamless learning environment is the
transfer of institutional knowledge throughout the various units of an organization.
According to Goh (2002) “learning occurs when knowledge in one part of an
organization is transferred effectively to other parts and used to solve problems there
or to provide new and creative insights.” (p. 23). Therefore, an important
prerequisite of learning, or knowledge transfer, is the existence of a collaborative
environment (Goh, 2002). Through collaboration new information can be learned
and passed on throughout the different departments within an institution. In most
higher education institutions, faculty are responsible for educating students in a
specific field and have less interest in how students spend their time outside of class
(Nuss, 1996). In order to create an environment where learning is transferred from
one area in an organization and used in another with a positive end result, there must
be a high level of trust between the individuals involved in the collaborative process
(Levin & Cross, 2004).

11
Effects of Collaboration on Students
Much attention and exposure is given to public and private universities
regarding their role in educating students, yet it is community colleges that play a
crucial role in educating a majority of our students. This is particularly true in
California, which enrolls 20% of all community college students in the United
States. This student population is unique in that “today’s community college
students are more likely than those of past decades to be first-generation college
students, and unfamiliar with the structures and processes of higher education”
(Shulock, Moore, Offenstein, & Kirlin, 2008, p. 9). For many of these students these
structures and processes are necessary in order to have them successfully navigate
through their educational and career goals. Students’ unfamiliarity with the policies
and procedures of their community college institutions generates the need for
individuals on campus to assist students in making a smooth transition towards their
individual goals. Individuals on campus must be knowledgeable and able to assist
students in making a smooth transition towards their individual goals and familiarize
them with procedures. This is an important aspect to address due to the gap in
transfer rates for particular cohorts of students.
According to Lee, Mackie-Lewis, and Marks (1993) students who are
aspiring to transfer to a four-year institution from community colleges receive “less
encouragement, advice, and systematic academic preparation” (p. 84) than students
who had directly enrolled into four-year institutions. This lack of assistance from
individuals within the institution to a group of students not familiar with the process

12
and not equipped with the information necessary to navigate through the educational
system leads to difficult transitions. Given the lack of advising resources, community
college students often need to act independently to inform themselves and structure
their academic curriculum as necessary to transfer to their four-year institution. In
order to navigate through the system the student must be aware of the academic
expectations and requirements of the four-year institution to which they are intending
to transfer. They must determine which classes to take, how to enroll in them, learn
what the requirements are for the institution they are transferring to, and ascertain
whether there are any assessments they must necessarily complete. Therefore,
students who are not cognizant of the expectations of higher educational institutions,
which differ significantly from their K-12 education, must be able to learn and
internalize the intricacies of their respective four-year institution in order to
successfully transfer.
Presently, community colleges play a much larger role in the education of a
more heterogeneous population. Many community college students are older and
have families, many are attending school part-time while working, and the typical
community college student also tends to come from lower-income and
underrepresented minority populations (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Dowd,
2007; Shulock &Moore, 2005; Bragg, 2001). This increasing diversity in the student
population of community colleges presents many opportunities for collaboration
between academic affairs and student affairs professionals (Hirsch & Burack, 2001;
Martin & Murphy, 2000). Given the lack of faculty of color, some researchers

13
suggest that during collaboration, student affairs professionals become the
individuals providing academic affairs professionals with background knowledge of
their students to promote greater sensitivity while teaching (Opp, 2002; Philpott &
Strange, 2003). Also, due to the amount of time academic affairs professionals
spend with students they can provide insight to student affairs professionals
regarding the specific issues that students need addressed. This is particularly
relevant in urban colleges where student affairs professionals are more likely to
mirror the racial diversity of the student body.
Nevertheless, community college students who are able to navigate the
system and make the transfer to a four-year institution are as likely to succeed in
earning their bachelor’s degree as students who begin their educational career at a
four-year institution (Melguizo & Dowd, 2007). Therefore, it appears that if students
are able to navigate through the educational system to a four-year institution they can
succeed despite obstacles and barriers that are present in the transfer process. In
particular, for minority students, finding individuals who create a supportive
relationship positively attributes to a more successful educational outcome
(Bensimon, 2007). Specifically, individuals on campus who are faculty or student
affairs professionals serve as role models and mentors for minority students (Opp,
2002). These students are more likely to succeed in their education and persist to
higher levels of schooling when individuals are present with whom they can develop
a relationship (Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005).

14
In order to assist students in navigating the educational system both academic
affairs and student affairs professionals must collaborate to ensure all stakeholders
are providing support (Baxter Magolda, & King, 2004). This area has been relegated
primarily to student affairs, but research shows the importance of having faculty
involved in promoting student retention and student transfer (Tinto, 2000). This
sentiment was echoed by Martin and Murphy (2000) who argued for “a task force
focusing specifically and exclusively on retention [to] bring together student affairs
professionals, tenured faculty, coaches, and residence hall staff on an equal footing
to create strategies that make the campus experience more holistic and coherent” (p.
11). The collaboration of both student and academic affairs allows for the
development of cognitive, affective, and emotional skills and capacities that are key
to meeting the demands for learning placed on higher education institutions.
Some argue that institutions that capitalize on the complementary strengths of
each profession and focus on collaboration between both student affairs and
academic affairs might see an enhancement of student learning (Kezar, Hirsch, &
Burack, 2002). According to Roper (2002) “the quality of our relationships with
others has a powerful impact on our ability to progress and get things done” (p. 11).
Yet, we do not know about how collaboration works or how to structure it to bring
about better student outcomes.
Collaborative Research Traditions
Institutions of higher education by their very nature are complex and
intricate. Therefore, creating solutions becomes even more difficult because

15
“problems come up as complex, multidimensional, and often confusing congeries of
issues. To deal with them, their multiple dimensions must be understood, as well as
what holds them together as problems” (Greenwood & Levin, 2005, p. 52). The
expertise of individuals is one avenue that might be helpful to utilize within the
organization to develop solutions because of the need to have a solid understanding
of the culture of institutions.
This study examined the use of action research and action inquiry in the
development of relationships among academic affairs and student affairs
professionals. Action research is a “participatory, democratic process concerned with
developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes…It seeks
to bring together action and reflection, theory, and practice, in participation with
others, in the pursuit of practical solutions to issues of pressing concern to people,
and more generally, the flourishing of individual persons and their communities”
(Reason & Bradbury, 2001a, p. 1). In action research the roles of both the researcher
and the practitioner are reversed in that the researcher takes on the role of facilitator
and the practitioner takes on the role of researcher (Bensimon et. al, 2004). There
are a number of different variations of action research, including action science,
cooperative inquiry, and empowerment evaluation (Reason & Bradbury, 2001a).
The subcategory adopted for this project is known as the practitioner-as-
researcher model. This model is influenced by a term defined by Aristotle as
“phronesis” (Dowd & Tong, 2007, p. 18). A practitioner that has and uses phronetic
knowledge is “responsive to the particularity of situations and the contexts in which

16
they are embedded” (p. 18). This is an essential component of the practitioner-as-
researcher model because of the inquiry involved with this type of research. The
everchanging and complex nature of higher education institutions creates a constant
creation and revision of new knowledge and problem solving to address the
uniqueness of each institution. The practitioner-as-researcher model has “elements of
community, collaborative, and participatory action research in that the purpose of
inquiry is to bring about change at individual, organizational, and societal levels.
The methodology consists of outsider researchers working as facilitators engaged
with insider teams of practitioners in a process of collecting data and creating
knowledge about local problems as seen from a local perspective” (Bensimon et. al,
2004, p. 108). Using this method the participants collect or analyze data they deem
useful and then use these data to make informed decisions regarding how to address
issues in their respective institutions. Using this model allows for individuals, or
stakeholders, on the campus to produce knowledge and empowers them to take
ownership of their institutions to make decisions.
The desire to facilitate these relationships was created by placing both student
affairs professionals and faculty members within the same committee to collaborate
in an action inquiry project. This particular action inquiry project, facilitated by the
Center for Urban Education, was aimed at utilizing expertise within the community
college by having practitioners conducting inquiry based activities to facilitate the
movement of basic skills students into the transfer curriculum (Dowd, 2008a).
Bringing about physical proximity, as created by these projects, through inquiry

17
teams of academic affairs and student affairs, does not guarantee that relationships
form and develop. Yet, when relationships do occur they can become pathways
through which resources, privileges, and opportunities flow (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
This study adds new perspectives on these partnerships, which can contribute to the
pursuit of seamless learning, an integrated college experience, and fully functioning
cohesive units within higher education institutions.
Research Questions
In an effort to further promote student success through collaboration between
student affairs professionals and academic professionals, the primary purpose of this
study is to determine how participation in an action research project facilitates the
creation of relationships between student affairs professionals and academic affairs
professionals. A specific objective of this study is to understand the factors that
influence collaboration. Such understanding may lead to institutional improvements
by promoting further utilization of action research to create institutional
improvements and informing other efforts to promote collaboration.
Importance of Study
There is an intense amount of pressure for higher education institutions to
meet the internal and external demands to create a learning environment for all
students. Individuals on campuses play a critical role in creating change within their
institutions. Yet, individuals on campus do not tend to collaborate unless they share
concerns and feel that that through collaboration their work will be completed more
effectively (Hirsch & Burack, 2001). The literature emphasizes that effective

18
education entails integrated experiences that complement each other (Schroeder,
1999; Kuh, 2003). For example, if student affairs professionals are educated on the
outcomes of a particular course, they can provide complementary programming that
gives students a fuller grasp on the material being learned. This strategy capitalizes
on each “group’s natural approach to educating students” (Ahren, 2008, p. 89).
Unfortunately, student affairs professors are not utilized due to the perception
among higher education professionals that the field of student affairs is not taken
seriously (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). This is further exacerbated by the fact that
student affairs do not have outcomes that are easily quantified nor accepted as valid
by many in the higher education community (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). In this sense,
student affairs must provide more and better evidence of how they contribute to
institutional effectiveness. By examining the role student affairs professionals play in
the collaborative process, this study helped demonstrate the importance of student
affairs in implementing programs that promoted student success. Unfortunately, the
outcome of collaboration is difficult to assess because it is difficult to define and
measure accurately. Love and Estanek (2004) note that “the struggle continues for
most student affairs professionals and programs to move beyond discourse and
beyond individual assessment projects or programs focused on particular problems to
integrating and incorporating assessment as a fundamental aspect of effective student
affairs practice” (p. 83).
To address the need for collaboration the most effective institutions fully
integrate student and academic affairs and focus all of the resources on a shared goal

19
which is usually student success (Winston, Creamer, & Miller, 2001). This notion is
confirmed by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA) which asserts that “realizing the full benefit of the application of principles
of learning…depends upon collaborative efforts between academic and student
affairs professionals-and beyond” (www.naspa.org). The project examined for this
study is an action inquiry project. The project was developed by the Center for
Urban Education, which has a mission to lead socially conscious research and
develop tools needed for institutions around the nation to promote equity. For the
past decade, the Center for Urban Education has developed major initiatives using
the CUE Equity Model, which utilizes CUE’s Equity Scorecard and other self-
assessment inventories to combat inequities in educational outcomes for
underrepresented students. The Equity Scorecard has been implemented by over
forty two-year and four-year campuses nationwide to assist practitioners by
providing a snapshot of institutional data disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The
Center for Urban Education facilitated numerous action research projects within
community colleges nationwide. Inquiry teams are utilized within the action
research projects with individuals from various departments across each institution:
administration, academic affairs, student affairs, and institutional research. One of
these action inquiry projects is the focus of this study. The overarching goals of the
“Action Inquiry Project,” a pseudonym, were to increase the transfer rates of African
Americans and Latino students by focusing on those students who began in basic
skills courses; to increase the effectiveness of the institution through assessment

20
tools; and to develop equitable transfer outcomes by utilizing practitioner knowledge
(Center for Urban Education, 2007). The Center for Urban Education’s action
inquiry projects address the Center’s goals by creating teams of individuals from
various disciplines and units. How the individuals within the team developed
relationships and created opportunities to share information with others is of
particular interest to this study.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. In Chapter Two I will provide
an overview of the literature on factors that contribute to the following key areas: (a)
the push for collaboration, the methods used to measure it, and characteristics of a
successful partnership program; (b) the benefit of weak ties in promoting
collaboration amongst individuals within an organization, and lastly (c) factors that
facilitate effective relationships. In Chapter Three I will provide the research design
and methodology for my study. In Chapter Four I will present the findings of my
data. In Chapter Five I will interpret the findings and offer recommendations for
future research.

21
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter provides a summary of the current research and the literature on
the practice of collaboration, the strength of ties, and factors that promote the transfer
of knowledge. The chapter begins with an overview of collaboration and focuses on
characteristics that are conducive to creating collaboration, the barriers that hinder
collaboration, followed by characteristics of an already successful collaboration
program. I then discuss the strength of ties and explore the literature regarding the
positive effects weak ties have on access to resources, specifically the benefits when
trust is involved. Finally, the chapter explores the literature on factors that facilitate
effective relationships. Specifically, how knowledge, access, engagement, and
safety/cost can assist individuals with reaching out to one another.
Collaboration
In recent literature there has been an emphasis on collaboration in higher
education institutions directed at improving higher education (Kezar, 2003a).
Researchers have varying definitions for collaboration ranging from “when a group
of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process,
using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act on or decide on issues related to that
domain” (Wood & Gray, 1991, p. 146) to “individuals and groups working together
toward a common purpose, with equal voice and responsibility” (Kezar, 2003a, p.
138). These varying definitions agree on the importance of creating a shared goal
where individuals are working towards a common end result. Despite the amount of

22
literature focused on the need for collaboration between student affairs professionals
and academic affairs professionals, there still lies a gap between the roles and
expectations of each division (Dale & Drake, 2005). There is also limited research
entailing the specific characteristics needed to develop an effective collaborative
relationship amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals (Whitt,
Nesheim, Guentzel, etc., 2008).
To examine how to implement changes despite the inherent barriers to
collaboration that exist in many institutions, Kezar (2003a) conducted a study
examining three models to create collaboration between both student affairs and
academic affairs professionals: Kuh’s change model, the planned change model, and
the restructuring model. Each model has a particular focus on various aspects the
institution must concentrate on to change. Kuh’s model focuses on changing the
values and beliefs of the institution through the creation of a common vision through
a systematic change. Planned change models focus on the support received by the
senior administrative staff and the role of leadership in implementing change through
assessments, goal setting, and guided conversations. The planning and
restructuring/re-engineering models focus on implementing structural changes
through organizational charts. These charts establish and delineate the roles played
by each division. The focus is for the leader to determine how to alter roles through
enlisting assistance from the various divisions to establish a collective restructuring.
The data was collected from a national study done by the ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, the National Association of Student Personnel

23
Administrators (NASPA), and the American College Personnel Association (ACPA),
where 128 chief student affairs officers (CSAO’s) completed an online survey. The
institutional characteristics of the CSAO’s included: 32 community colleges and
technical/vocational colleges, 38 private four-year colleges, and 58 comprehensive
colleges. This particular group of respondents was asked to complete the survey
because the researchers felt they would be most familiar with institutional processes
since the models focus on macro level decisions within the institutions. This
comprehensive survey examined seven broad factors; however Kezar’s (2003a)
study examined only the following three sections of the survey:
1. the factors that made student affairs and academic professionals
collaborations successful;
2. the new structures, processes, e.g., leadership, or values used to facilitate
collaboration; and
3. the strategies and models of change.
The study found that on most instances Kuh’s model is most closely correlated with
creating successful collaborations. The characteristics most conducive to creating
collaboration, when viewed through Kuh’s model, are creating cross-institutional
dialogue, generating enthusiasm, and creating a common vision. According to Kezar
(2003a), “organizational learning occurs by developing a common language and
engaging in on-going conversation about the work of the institution” (p. 141). In
examining community colleges the study found that a blended approach using Kuh’s
model and the planned change approach as the most beneficial. Therefore, in

24
community colleges the leadership aspect plays an instrumental role in promoting
collaboration.
Another survey based study was completed examining stakeholders at the
leadership level. Kollins (1999) conducted a study of the perceptions of Chief
Academic Officers (CAO) and Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAO) regarding
collaboration between academic and student affairs professionals. Data was gathered
from 444 Chief Academic and Chief Student Affair Officers representing 327 public
two-year colleges across the United States. A Likert scaled survey was given and
comprised of four sections. The first section asked information pertaining to
collaborative programming practices and collaborative decision-making policies and
practices. In this section respondents were asked to indicate their perception of each
item’s level of importance, if the practice occurs at their institution, and the level of
satisfaction they have with such practices. The data from the survey was grouped
into 23 variables and divided into two categories—collaborative programming
practices and policy decision-making and planning practices.
Overall, Kollins (1999) concluded that both Chief Academic Officers and
Chief Student Affairs Officers consider collaboration to be important for student
success to occur and were satisfied with the amount of collaboration that was being
done at their respective institutions. The study found that CSAOs rate the
importance of collaboration to student success higher than CAOs. CAOs rated
satisfaction with collaboration higher than CSAOs. Nine variables were identified
that were seen as influencing satisfaction with collaboration: a) the higher the

25
number of years in a position resulted in more satisfaction, b) collaborative programs
having funds designated, c) developing intervention programs for at-risk students by
both academic and student affairs professionals, d) allowing academic affairs
personnel to receive a load/release time to advise student organizations, e) president
values collaboration, f) both CAO/CSAO meet regularly to discuss issues of mutual
concern; g) both academic and student affairs are formally involved in collaborative
planning, decision-making, and programming practices, h) academic advising shares
collaboration practices, and i) instructional effectiveness (Kollins, 1999, p. 128).
The negative predictors for enhancing student success with respect to collaboration
for both CAO’s and CSAO’s were having an educational background in curriculum
and instruction and being a male CAO. In this study although CAO’s were more
satisfied with their collaboration practices, the CSAO’s rated collaboration as more
important to student success.
The survey method is widely used amongst the studies examining
collaboration; however there are a few studies that have utilized a case study
approach to collect information. Philpott and Strange (2003) conducted a case study
of faculty and student affairs professionals engaged in collaboration over a fifteen-
month period with a residential college program entitled “Cambridge Learning
Center.” There were six participants in the study: two campus administrators, two
full-time faculty, and two student affairs professionals. Observation data was
collected in two phases: (a) the Planning Phase in which the senior administrator
assembled a team of academic affairs and student affairs professionals to begin the

26
creation of the residential learning community, followed by the (b) Implementation
Phase where the first Cambridge Learning Center meeting was held with the students
until the last day of data collection. Data was collected using open-ended and focus
interviews with the primary six participants in the study. Also, observations were
recorded through participation in the field during meetings and trainings. The initial
findings from this study indicated that both academic affairs and student affairs
professionals had a difficult time initially working together because of the
established norms that had been historically developed in each of their respective
fields. Each field had their own expectations regarding which aspect of student
learning they were to specifically handle.
In the planning phase the analysis of the observations were grouped in the
following categories: (a) campus collaboration began only following a specific
charge from senior level administrators; (b) collaboration required the introduction
and re-acquaintance of campus faculty and student affairs cultures; (c) key
collaborators espoused values grounded in their respective but different professional
cultures; (d) expectations held by faculty differed qualitatively from those held by
student affairs staff; (e) roles assumed by faculty and student affairs were clearly
differentiated; and (f) both sides were unaware of each others’ cultures (Philpott &
Strange, 2003, p. 82). The implementation phase generated six additional findings:
(a) student affairs staff became the missing link between faculty and students; (b)
faculty members became apprentices learning about student in different ways; (c)
continued collaboration suffered from the limited proximity and access of

27
collaborators, (d) on-going collaboration proved time-consuming, (e) collaborators
still appeared somewhat separated by the institution’s bureaucracy, (f) collaborators
functioned from different value sets (Philpott & Strange, 2003, p. 83).
During the researcher’s observations the emerging finding was the
“hegemony of professional and organizational cultures in the shaping of expectations
and the defining of members’ roles…these participants in CLC retained their
fundamental professional values and brought divergent expectations to the process of
collaboration without fully realizing the control these forces had on them” (p. 90).
So, in the study despite the fact that student affairs were capable of participating and
assisting in various roles within the learning community, they withdrew to their
perceived role of coordinating the logistics of the learning community instead. The
study found that faculty served on the committee as more of the “thinkers,” whereas
student affairs served as “doers.” Thus, according to the researcher, faculty input was
more highly valued due to the inherent power differential in academic institutions.
One of the major implications that emerged from this study was the need to receive
consultation services from an independent entity to oversee the collaboration
process. According to the researchers this independent entity will more likely be
able to cross the professional boundaries of each group. An interesting finding that
emerged that had not been found in previous survey based research studies was the
importance of physical proximity to the facilitation of effective collaboration. By
placing both academic affairs and student affairs professionals within the same

28
location to meet and discuss the program many individuals discussed the ease in
which to develop relationships.
Although the research above has focused on characteristics of effective
collaboration, much research has not been done on identifying characteristics of an
already successful partnership program. One of the most recent studies that did
examine successful partnership programs was conducted by Whitt, Nesheim,
Guentzel, Kellogg, McDonald and Wells (2008). They conducted a qualitative case
study as part of the Boyer Partnership Assessment Project. The participants in the
study were chosen based on institutions that had participated for at least three years
with the Ernest L. Boyer Center and made a commitment towards implementing
institutional leadership for the program. Their sample consisted of 18 higher
education institutions: four community colleges, six public universities, three private
universities, and five private colleges. Data collection consisted of a three- or four-
day site visit to each institution by two to five researchers where individual and
group interviews were conducted with student, faculty, and staff program
participants. During this time they also attended and observed program events and
certain class sessions. Once the researchers returned back they began creating a list
of “good practices.” After completing half the site visits they began a cross-site
analysis so they were able to create categories inductively. Through discussions and
individual analysis a tentative list of good practices were developed and as more site
visits were completed they were able to refine the final list to seven good practices.
Once the seven good practices were finalized the researchers then conducted an

29
analysis of each site report by coding for each elements of the good practices. The
seven characteristics of good practices of partnership programs are that the
partnership: 1) reflects and advances the institution’s mission, 2) embodies and
fosters a learning-oriented ethos, 3) builds on and nurtures relationships, 4)
recognizes, understands and attends to institutional culture, 5) values and implements
assessment, 6) uses resources creatively and effectively, and 7) demands and
cultivates multiples manifestations of leadership. This study reinforced many of the
same characteristics listed in the previous studies for effective collaboration. A
major limitation of this study was many of the interviews were done retrospectively
after the institution had been involved in the program for at least 3 years. The
researchers chose “good practices” as opposed to best practices due to the need for
further research to measure the effectiveness of collaborative partnerships.
The most common variables associated with collaboration found in the
studies are the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships
developed amongst the academic affairs and student affairs professionals, support
from the leadership of the institution for collaborative activities, and partnerships
across organizational lines that advance the mission of the institution. Research done
on collaboration has focused on the need for both student affairs and academic
affairs to build relationships in order to create a seamless learning environment
where both sides obtain and share information regarding in- and out- of class
learning environments. The collaboration that is needed requires a relationship to
develop between both academic affairs and student affairs professionals. Due to the

30
inherent specialties that have been created for assigned duties and responsibilities
there is some difficulty in creating that relationship despite these benefits.
Engaging in a collaborative process is a major tenet of action research
(Creswell, 2005). Practitioners are placed together to “appreciate how their
interrelatedness created a power greater than a sum of individual powers” (Brydon-
Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003, p. 11). The power and resources held within
an institution are vast and difficult to permeate to create change. Yet, it is through
relationships between individuals working together that “help create attitudes skills,
and processes that truly challenge and unsettle deeply entrenched power
relationships and interests…” (Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003, p. 24).
By working collaboratively, this community of individuals reflect on their own
experiences to create organizational changes within the institution.
Action research is important in the process of collaboration because it allows
for the production of knowledge (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) and participatory
decision-making (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). This democratic process allows for
individuals to bring together their diversity of experiences to collectively generate
knowledge that results in collective action (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Action
research is important in the process of collaboration because it allows for the
production of knowledge (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) and participatory decision-
making (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).
Knowledge is created through the interactions between participants and their
efforts to solve problems through reflection and action. The knowledge gained and

31
developed depends on the involvement of the individuals (Greenwood & Levin,
1998).
A participatory democracy allows for individuals to participate in a decision-
making process and allows for their contributions to be heard. Participative
democracy allows for student affairs and academic affairs professionals to create
relationships in order to facilitate a “seamless learning environment where in-class
and out-of-class experiences are mutually supporting and where institutional
resources are marshaled and channeled to achieve complementary learning
outcomes” (Shroeder, 1999, p. 6). Greenwood and Levin (2005) find that using the
expertise of particular individuals within the institution can be a difficult prospect
because “academics tend to be less reflective” (p. 51). These researchers further
state that academics do not necessarily understand their role in the larger
organization and how this can impact and affect their ability to academically assist
their students (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). Yet, action research can be beneficial
because there is a facilitator present to assist the academic affairs professionals to
engage in collaboration and become more reflective so their expertise can be utilized.
This dialogue and ownership by all the individuals involved in the project allows for
everyone to work together thus minimizing hierarchies inherent in higher education
institutions (McTaggart, 2001).
Social Network Perspective
The importance of creating relationships is crucial for collaboration in that
“perceptions of another person are formed through direct interaction, observation,

32
and or third-party commentary” (Borgatti & Cross, 2003, p. 433). Therefore, there is
a need for institutions to promote a culture where individuals are able to engage in
direct interaction with one another. Research has found that individuals within
organizations tend to rely on each other when acquiring knowledge (Levin & Cross,
2004). Researchers have “consistently shown that who you know has a significant
impact on what you come to know, as relationships are critical for obtaining
information, solving problems and learning how to do your work”(Cross, Parker,
Prusak, Borgatti, 2001, p. 100). Studies have shown that one of the most effective
methods for providing and utilizing information and expertise within an organization
is through social networks (Granovetter, 1973). Studies are revealing the importance
of collaboration in promoting organizational effectiveness; therefore relationships
that are created during collaboration are important to scrutinize (Kezar, 2003a;
Philpott & Strange, 2003). Research conducted on who individuals form
relationships with and why individuals choose to form these relationships is limited,
but some have illuminated aspects such as “strength of ties” (Granovetter, 1982).
Strength of ties
A highly cited aspect of the social network perspective is the notion of strong
and weak ties. Tie strength is defined as “the closesness and interaction frequency of
a relationship between two parties” (Levin & Cross, 2004, p. 1478). According to
Granovetter (1982), strong ties are characterized by relationships with individuals
that share homogenous views. The creation of strong ties occurs because “the more
frequently persons interact with one another, the stronger their sentiments of

33
friendship for one another are apt to be” (p. 133). In contrast, weak ties are
composed of acquaintances or friends of friends. Research shows that weak ties
create a more heterogeneous network of individuals and groups. They play an
important role by facilitating access to more diverse information and ideas
(Granovetter, 1982).
In this section I will examine the literature regarding the importance of ties
and whether the strength of the tie creates an increase in the transfer of knowledge.
Granovetter (1982) investigated social networks and differentiated between strong
and weak ties, examined how these ties formed within networks, and how these roles
created or impeded the transfer of information and resources. This study drew its
conclusions based on a random sample of recent professional, technical, and
managerial individuals living in a suburb of Boston. In this sample 54 individuals
were searching for employment through their social networks. The study found that
the amount of contact with the person that assisted in providing resources differed
greatly. 16.7 percent of the participants reported frequent contact with the individual
that provided resources, 55.6 percent reported occasional contact, and 27.8 percent
reported rare contact with the individuals providing resources (Granovetter, 1973).
Also, individuals that reported less frequent contact with the individual that provided
resources tend to have a better outcome in receiving resources. Granovetter’s
research (1974, 1982) found that based on the strength of the ties this influences the
type and amount of information that is received within the interpersonal connections.

34
A common assumption regarding ties is that individuals with strong
interpersonal connections will gain access to more information through their strong
ties (Hansen, 1999). However, research has shown this to be untrue, Granovetter
(1982) suggests that individuals with solely strong ties are deprived of current
information due to fragmented social systems causing new ideas to spread slowly.
Further, this “deprivation may put them in a disadvantaged position in the labor
market, where advancement can depend” (p. 202) on who in your network has the
information you need. Much of the information that is held by individuals is
knowledge due to the homogenous views shared within the strong ties.
Very few studies have been conducted measuring both strong and weak ties
when discussing knowledge transfer. A study conducted by Levin & Cross (2004)
examined the transfer of knowledge amongst individuals engaged in weak versus
strong ties. They surveyed 127 employees in four different companies within
various divisions: a British bank, an American pharmaceutical company, a Canadian
oil, and a gas company. During the preliminary interviews they determined that all
of the employees were considered midlevel managers. The researchers had each
employee complete a two-part survey sent via email, with each section taking
approximately 20- to 30- minutes. They used standard egocentric network survey
techniques where employees were asked to think of a current project they were
involved in and to list 10 to 15 people who were instrumental in providing
knowledge to successfully complete the project. They were then asked to choose the
two most helpful and two least helpful advice givers on the list. They were then

35
asked on the survey to answer questions with respect to the four advice givers (ex:
how much did you trust this person?). After a week they provided the second part of
the survey which asked another set of questions with respect to the four advice givers
(e.g., how useful was the knowledge received from each person?). In respect to
these questions the researchers chose to survey only the knowledge seeker for
information as opposed to verifying the interaction with the other individual.
In this study the researchers focused on the benefits of strong ties in the
knowledge transfer process. Unlike in Granovetter’s (1982) study, they found that
strong ties were positively correlated with the transfer of knowledge. They
determined that this was particularly true in circumstances where a mediating factor
was present: perceived trustworthiness. They found that this was related to the fact
that strong tie relationships tend to be with individuals the respondents already
trusted. On the other hand, the authors found that weak ties were still seen as the
more beneficial relationship because the mediating factor of perceived trust was not
necessary for the knowledge transfer process to occur. They determined that despite
lower levels of perceived trustworthiness, weak ties were beneficial due to their
ability to provide “nonredundant” information. Therefore, although there was an
overall benefit for strong ties and the ability to transfer knowledge, the benefits from
weak ties were higher. Through their results the researchers introduced a new
concept coined “trusted weak ties, which — assumes the effects of perceived
trustworthiness and weak ties are additive — yielded the most useful knowledge of
all” (Levin & Cross, 2004, p. 1486). Therefore, the results determined that

36
relationships between individuals that have a weak tie were more beneficial in the
transfer of knowledge. If perceived trustworthiness was present in these weak tie
relationships then the “trusted weak ties” were the most beneficial in the transfer of
knowledge.
Weak ties “have a special role in a person’s opportunity for mobility  there
is a structural tendency for those to whom one is only weakly tied to have better
access to job information one does not already have” (Granovetter, 1982, p. 205).
This is established because a “weak tie frequently acts as a local bridge, connecting
the individual to someone outside the groups that he is most closely affiliated with”
(Goecks & Mynatt, 2004, p. 330). By placing individuals within a close-knit arena
such as in inquiry teams there becomes the potential for ties to occur that would not
have happened naturally.
More research needs to be conducted in the field of education with respect to
strength of ties. A majority of the literature conducted on strength of ties focuses on
organizations, corporations, and businesses. Also, the research regarding strength of
ties has not examined the type of information that flows from individuals and
whether it is simple information or complex information (Hansen, 1999). The
following section will examine the type of information that is passed to and from
individuals within different types of relationships.
Factors that Facilitate Effective Relationships
In one study conducted by Cross, Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti (2001) the
researchers interviewed 40 managers and found that an overwhelming majority

37
obtained critical information from other people as their knowledge source. From this
study four features were identified that enable us to distinguish between effective
and ineffective knowledge transfer in relationships. The four characteristics are: a)
knowledge: knowing what another person knows and thus when to turn to them; b)
access: being able to gain timely access to that person; c) engagement: willingness of
the person sought out to engage in problem solving rather than simply providing
undirected information; and d) safety/cost: a degree of safety in the relationship that
promotes learning and creativity without feeling incompetent in front of others.
Although all variables in this study are important for the transfer of knowledge, for
the purpose of this literature review the focus will be on the access and safety
component. The rationale for choosing these particular characteristics is the
importance of trust that arose from the discussion regarding weak ties.
Much of the research done in the field of education has focused on access and
safety as the primary factors of creating relationships and promoting knowledge
transfer (Coburn & Russel, 2008; Wang, Ashleigh, & Meyer, 2006). A study
conducted by Coburn and Russel (2008) examined teachers’ social networks in eight
elementary schools in two districts. An exploratory comparative case study deign
was utilized to examine the relationship between district policy and the promotion of
interaction amongst teachers. The researchers narrowed their school district
selection by choosing two districts that were implementing a commercial
mathematics curriculum. Four elementary schools were chosen in each district based
on recommendations by district directors of mathematics. At each school six focal

38
teachers were selected based on the recommendations of the principal. Data
collection included five interviews and six classroom observations per teacher, one
to two interviews per year with the mathematics coaches, two interviews per year
with the school principal, and one interview a year with six additional teachers.
During the interviews the focal teachers were questioned regarding the frequency
and content of interactions with other individuals regarding mathematics instruction.
They were also asked why they spoke with certain individuals and not others. This
data was then analyzed and an additional six teachers were interviewed who were in
the focal teachers’ social network. Data analysis was then focused on tie strength,
interpersonal trust, expertise, and access. The study found that the primary reason
teachers reached out to others for assistance was physical proximity. The data found
that over half of the focal teachers (25 of 48) disclosed they chose individuals to
discuss mathematics based on their physical proximity. The results also concluded
that repeated interaction fostered trust. Focal teachers trusted 53% of the individuals
they interacted with because of proximity as opposed to 32% overall. Therefore, 43
of the 48 focal teachers had placed their mathematics coach within their social
network. The mathematics coach’s role was established to provide access to
information regarding how the mathematics curriculum was to be taught in the class.
All focal teachers were to meet with their coach at least two times a month.
Therefore, 14 of the 22 focal teachers reported moderate or high tie strength with the
coach. The data also indicated teachers were more inclined to reach out to
individuals in which they had a trusting prior professional relationship. On average,

39
focal teachers trusted 54% of the individuals in their social networks that they had a
prior professional relationship as opposed to 32% for the overall group. Therefore,
the study found that trust and physical proximity were the primary mediating factors
in promoting tie strength and reaching out for assistance.
These relational qualities provide a means to assess why people choose to
seek information from others and also why they choose not to seek information from
others. The emphasis of safety in the transfer of knowledge is a factor acknowledged
by various researchers (Wang, Ashleigh, & Meyer, 2006). Coinciding with safety is
the notion of trust. In order for individuals to feel safe in sharing information there
must be some level of trust between the individuals (Wang, Ashleigh, & Meyer,
2006).
Much of the literature on trust concludes that trust directly correlates with the
desirable outcome of more knowledge shared (Andrews & Delahay, 2000). These
researchers examined individual factors that influenced knowledge transfer within an
organization. The study took place within a partnership that was conducting research
with five organizations (medical research institutes, government scientific
organizations, and a commercial partner). The data were gathered on 15 individuals
representing each of the partner organizations using semi-structured interviews. The
interview sample consisted of: seven senior scientists/managers, five scientists and
four technicians/assistants. During the data analysis, knowledge transfer was split
into sharing knowledge and importing knowledge. The major theme that emerged
from sharing knowledge was perceived trustworthiness. The two major themes that

40
emerged under importing knowledge were: social confidence and perceived
credibility. Perceived trustworthiness was a primary factor that was associated with
knowledge transfer when individuals were determining who to share information
with and when to share information. The ability to trust a “knowledge recipient to
respect the ownership of ideas” became the primary mediating factor for knowledge
sharing (Andrews & Delahay, 2000, p. 805).
In the area of importing knowledge they focused on social confidence, which
is the ability to approach others in order to initiate a working relationship. The
scientists revealed that for some subjects approaching others was difficult because of
their lack of comfort level with approaching a particular person. This concept is in
line with Cross, Parker, Prusak, and Borgatti’s (2001) notion of access in that if more
situations arose where there was a collaborative relationship there might be more
ease at developing a working relationship. The other factor associated with
importing knowledge is perceived credibility. In other words determining who to
approach was based on the perceived knowledge of the person as well as how they
engage in problem-solving techniques with other individuals within their
organization. Lastly, perceived trustworthiness was the factor that affected
knowledge sharing thus coinciding with safety in that information was not shared
with others if respondents did not feel that information was safeguarded from theft.
Much of the literature regarding knowledge transfer points to trust as being
an influential conduit to improved knowledge exchange (Levin & Cross, 2004).
Many of the studies focus on choosing to study a one-sided perception of trust

41
otherwise known as perceived trustworthiness or “the quality of the trusted party that
makes the trustor willing to be vulnerable” (Levin & Cross, 2004, p. 1478). In a
study conducted by Abrams, Cross, Lesser, and Levin (2003) the researchers
conducted 40 semi-structured interviews across 20 organizations. Through the
interview data they were able to generate categories of actions and behaviors that
they termed “trust builders, that helped create trusting relationships” (p. 65).
Through an analysis of their interview data the researchers were able to differentiate
between various trust builders: trustworthy behaviors, organizational factors,
relational factors, and individual factors. Trustworthy behaviors entail: a) acting
with discretion, b) being consistent between word and deed, c) ensuring frequent and
rich communication, d) engaging in collaborative communication, e) ensuring that
decisions are fair and transparent. Organizational factors entail: f) establishing and
ensuring shared vision and language and, g) holding people accountable for trust.
Relational factors include: h) creating personal connections and, i) giving away
something of value. Individual factors is comprised of j) disclosing your expertise
and limitations. The researchers found that creating trusting relationships requires
organizational and individual factors to be present. The common theme in the
literature is promoting trust in order for relationships to develop.
Research suggests that collaboration between both academic affairs and
student affairs professionals is worth pursuing due to the benefits that can arise for
students by connecting both the cognitive and affective domains (Baxter Magolda, &
King, 2004). The research examined for this literature review shared common

42
themes such as the methodological design, particularly in sampling and measurement
strategies. Much of the research conducted in the area of collaboration has been
done using senior administrative staff to speak to the relationship between both
academic affairs and student affairs professionals. Solely drawing on this population
of informants limits information between senior administration of either academic
and student affairs or what is observed in the institution. Therefore, it is important to
include midlevel professionals in studies to examine and understand barriers to
creating a collaborative relationship with academic affairs professionals at levels
below senior administration.
Another common theme amongst the studies is the way in which data are
collected. Many of the studies used a survey instrument to collect information from
their participants. This measurement provides limited information as to the reason
behind either collaboration or allowing for elaboration on a particular construct such
as knowledge transfer. Therefore, one of the data collection methods for this study is
semi-structured interviews to obtain more detailed information as to how
collaboration occurs and what characteristics promote knowledge transfer amongst
individuals.
An important dimension discussed in the research of social networks is the
strength of ties between individuals. The research examined discussed the benefits
of both strong and weak ties in accessing knowledge. However, weak ties provided
more beneficial information than strong ties. Two major factors emerged as
important characteristics for the transfer of knowledge amongst individuals: trust,

43
and proximity. Trust was determined to be a mediating factor for creating
relationships to promote collaboration as well as the transfer of knowledge. The
other factor, proximity, was also significant as providing for individuals to approach
others.
The studies measuring collaboration shared common findings of the
characteristics necessary to promote relationships amongst both academic affairs and
student affairs professionals. The three major characteristics of collaboration are
classified through an organizational, individual, and relational perspective. From the
organizational perspective there is support from the leadership for a shared vision of
expectations within the institution in promoting collaborative activities. From a
relational perspective, the studies indicated that the development of partnerships
across organizational lines advanced the mission of the institution. Lastly, from an
individual perspective, the studies indicate there needs to be a sense of perceived
trustworthiness for interpersonal relationships to develop amongst both academic
affairs and student affairs professionals.

44
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research conducted for this study was designed to examine factors that
facilitated how participants, specifically student affairs professionals, engaged in
collaborative learning through their inquiry team meetings. The individuals for this
study participated in the action inquiry project and engaged in an analysis of their
institution using the Cycle of Inquiry. Through this process the participants in the
inquiry teams assumed the role of researchers by working together to understand and
implement strategies for student success, specifically for those in Basic Skills
courses.
Prior Participation in Action Research Projects
The Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern California has
facilitated action inquiry projects at 43 four- and two-year institutions in six states
between 2001 and 2009. Individuals within the institutions participated in a multi-
disciplinary inquiry approach engage in the cycle of inquiry within their respective
institutions. Once again, Sunny College participated with the overarching goal of
this research project being enhancing institutional effectiveness and equity by
developing the basic skills levels for students so they are able to transfer to four-year
institutions (Center for Urban Education, 2007).
Sunny College is a large community college serving approximately 27,000
students each semester. The college campus serves a diverse student population. The
largest ethnic group is of Hispanic/Latino descent and comprises 36% of the student

45
population, Anglo identified students represent 26%, Asian, Pacific Islander, and
Filipino students represent 17%, followed by African students who represent
approximately 13% of the student body. Approximately 38% of the student
population wishes to attain a bachelor’s degree, whereas 21% are attending school
for vocational reasons (Interim Report). Within Sunny College over one-third of the
students are Hispanic, but less than one-fifth of the faculty and staff are Hispanic.
Over one-half of the faculty and staff are Caucasian, but only one quarter of the
students are Caucasian.
Sunny Community College participated in the Equity for All: Institutional
Responsibility for Student Success, a project of USC Center for Urban Education
that was funded by the Lumina Foundation for Education and the Chancellor’s
Office for California Community Colleges. The Equity for All project focused on
four institutional areas to examine student inequities within the college: Academic
Pathways, Persistence and Retention, Transfer Readiness, and Excellence. An
inquiry team was developed which used the “Equity Scorecard” to focus the inquiry
process on an institution’s educational outcome data to determine whether the needs
of minority students had been met. The inquiry team examined the data in relation to
the four areas through “college and course enrollment, performance, and
completion” (Missing 87 Report) and found disparities by racial/ethnic group.
The disparities found through the data collected in the Equity for All Project
created a need for the subsequent project which was developed at Sunny College.
The participants at Sunny College specifically examined two areas: Transfer

46
Readiness and Excellence and was coined the “Missing 87” project. The Missing 87
project was also done through the USC Center for Urban Education and funded by
the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The group identified a “transfer gap and
choice gap” in the number of students who were transfer ready and transferred and
those students who could have transferred to a UC yet chose a CSU or could have
transferred to a CSU and did not transfer to any college. The inquiry team
participated in a cultural and resource audit and discovered barriers to student
success and created possible solutions in a report provided to the President.
The inquiry tools used to examine the institution in the Missing 87 project
created room for a larger scale assessment for the purpose of this study it will be
called the action inquiry project.
Overview of Activities
The president of Sunny College selected thirteen administrators, faculty
members, and support staff to comprise the inquiry team. Specifically, the
participants included: three deans, four student affairs professionals, five faculty
members, and one institutional researcher. Two of the professionals were nominated
to become the co-chairs of the committee. Also, members of the action inquiry
project included two research associates and three doctoral students from the
University of Southern California.
During the duration of the project there were a total of 10 team meetings held
with the individuals of the committee. These team meetings lasted for a period of
one year and began with a kick-off meeting followed by subsequent team meetings

47
held each month. The team meetings varied in their purpose from the collection of
data to the implementation of practices. The inquiry team began by collecting and
analyzing baseline data such as student completion and transfer success rates for
Basic Skills classes. The inquiry team examined these data disaggregated by race
and ethnicity and focused on pre-transfer courses. Through the examination of their
data the committee developed a set of hunches to explain the gap in achievement for
Latino and African American students. To further explore their hunches the team
explored one particular area they could address: course syllabi. The committee
created a syllabi review protocol and began examining and reviewing syllabi of a
range of courses at Sunny College.
The committee realized that the syllabus was a powerful tool used in the
classroom and could provide a pathway to observe the culture and teaching practices
of the instructor and classroom. Therefore, the inquiry team agreed to organize a
three-day campus-wide syllabus workshop entitled, Promoting Student Success
through Your Syllabus, to provide suggestions to other faculty members regarding
the importance of the syllabus. The workshop was organized around promoting the
use of equity-minded statements, clarity and completeness in expectations, and
providing student support services and assistance.
The Center for Urban Education held a symposium for all of the community
colleges that were involved with the project as well as those that showed some
interest in becoming involved. This allowed Sunny College to present their findings
and activities to other colleges and receive feedback from consultants from CUE

48
regarding future steps. Also, during this time period, three site visits were conducted
at various community colleges to observe how certain programs were developed and
implemented to assist Basic Skills students at other colleges.
My commencement with the action inquiry project began three months after
the project began. Since then I have been present at all of the team meetings. I was
present at a Symposium and attended one community college peer site visit with
Sunny College. For those meetings that began prior to my arrival I was able to use
notes taken by other research associates. For the site visits I was unable to attend I
consulted with the other doctoral students that were present. Table 2 below is the
timeline for all of the activities that Sunny College participated in with the action
inquiry project during the academic year.

49
Table 2. Action Inquiry Project Meeting Schedule with Sunny College

Date Activity
August Collected “Baseline Data” regarding migration through basic skills
course sequence in Math, Composition, Reading, and English as a
Second Language
Integrated data with Curriculum Maps that show pathway from
“gateway” basic skills to “benchmark” transfer-level courses in key
departments
Developed “hunches” to provide preliminary explanation of inequitable
outcomes to jumpstart practitioners’ investigation
September 11
th
Developed protocol for syllabus reflection exercise
October 8
th
Reviewed basic skills syllabi and identified recurring elements that
promote or hinder student learning
Developed protocol for “I Learn Best” assessment
November 13
th
Discussed team’s recommendations based on findings from syllabus
reflection exercise
Administered “I Learn Best” assessment to students enrolled in basic
skills courses
December 11
th
Reviewed findings from “I Learn Best” assessment and identified
instructional practices that enhance student learning
Discussed team’s recommendations based on findings from “I Learn
Best” assessment
January 17
th
Discussed report to the President; talked about ideas for developing a
model syllabus
January 29
th
Prepared for Syllabus Workshop
February 12
th
Prepared for Syllabus Workshop; Presented work to the Academic
Senate
February 26
th
Syllabi Workshop 1: Why is examining syllabi relevant to basic skills
courses?; faculty members as agents of change; equity-minded practice
March 4
th
Syllabi Workshop 2: Culturally-responsive pedagogy; assessing student
learning; constructing the ideal syllabus
March 11
th
Syllabi Workshop 3: Active learning; constructing the ideal syllabus
March 14
th
Benchmarking Symposium
April 15
th
Discussed Syllabus Workshop reactions from colleagues; reviewed
consultant reports and benchmarking goals
April 24-May 8 Site Visits to Partner Colleges
May 13
th
Discussed team’s reactions to site visits; developed action plan on
preparing the president’s report; discussed dissemination plans of team
activities and findings

50
This chapter describes the research methodology used, justifies the research
design, and identifies the protocol used for data collection and analysis.
Research Design and Research Questions
The research questions for this study were investigated by conducting a
qualitative case study examining student affairs professionals engaged in an action
inquiry project at Sunny College. The inherent complexity in higher educational
settings promotes the use of qualitative case study research because it allows for
freedom with respect to data collection that is not “constrained by predetermined
analytical categories” (Patton, 2002, p. 226). Instead it allows for the researcher to
take a “sincere interest” (Stake, 1995, p. 1) to “build a complex, holistic picture,
analyze words, report detailed views of informants, and conduct the research in its
natural setting” (Creswell, 1998, p. 15). The goal of this type of research is for an
objective interpretation to be made based on the realities of those being observed as
opposed to the researcher’s interpretation (Stake, 1995).
In action research, the researchers acknowledge the expertise and knowledge
the practitioners have and assist them in using their expertise and knowledge to
engage in action inquiry to improve practices (Noffke, 1997). Yet, while accessing
their own knowledge practitioners are challenged to “question the basis of their
work” (p. 329) which can “encourage and support efforts to challenge trends within
the educational systems” (Noffke, 1997, p. 329). In the design of action research,
questioning and challenging that participants are engaged in is intended to create

51
continual movement within the committee on the focus of activities within the team
meetings.
The constant flux of decisions, demands, and uncertainty within the
institutions, more specifically the inquiry groups, created a need for flexibility in
terms of creating a research question in advance. According to Case (1995) “the
researcher makes a flexible list of questions, progressively redefines issues, and
seizes opportunities to learn the unexpected” (p. 29), also called “progressive
focusing” (p. 9). I began participating in the project with overarching questions, this
allowed for a cursory overview of all aspects of the inquiry group. As I continued
my involvement with the project I was able to narrow the focus to determine how
participation in an action research project facilitates the creation of relationships for
student affairs professionals with academic affairs professionals in hopes to provide
benefits for further utilization of action research and how to promote collaboration.
The type of information needed for this qualitative case study was gathered using
semi-structured interviews, participant observations, and document analysis.
Sample
In this study, convenience sampling was used, with a focus on “selecting
information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions under study”
(Patton, 2001, p. 230). Each team members’ involvement with the action inquiry
project created a situation in which only they could provide an account of their
experience within the project as support staff professionals. To avoid respondent
burden we did not interview all team members. My focus was on the student affairs

52
professionals and their experience within the action research project. My
observational data included all the team members participation within the inquiry
activities.
Background Information of Participants
All proper names used are pseudonyms and any identifying information has
been removed to respect the identities of the participants. All four student affairs
professionals have been working at Sunny College ranging from shortly before the
start of the action inquiry project to over 10 years. Three of the participants had
worked on the Missing 87 Project and found the experience beneficial to their work.
All of the student affairs professionals interact with students, faculty, and
administrators on a regular basis in order to fulfill their duties and responsibilities on
the campus. The ethnic background of the participants I interviewed was of Asian
American, African American and Latino descent.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The following section describes the data collection instruments and the
procedures utilized to collect data for this study. The data sources included:
documents, observations, and interviews.
Documents
Documents provide a rich source of historical data for organizations and
programs. Documents “provide the evaluator with information about many things
that cannot be observed. They may reveal things that have taken place before the
evaluation began” (Patton, 2002, p. 293). They are also essential in providing

53
valuable information “as stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued only
through direct observation and interviewing” (Patton, 2001, p. 294). The data
examined for this study included the team meetings notes, consultant reports, the
interim and final report to the President, student information databases, website
information with respect to student services, student services brochures/handouts,
and previous committee information such as the Missing 87 Report and the Student
Success Initiative report. The reports from previous CUE facilitated action inquiry
projects at the college were examined to understand the progression that resulted in
the evolution of the current action inquiry project as well as the context of
institutional practices. Also, some of the material in the Missing 87 Report was
utilized during interviews due to the major role some of the participants played in the
committee. The respondents that participated in prior projects were asked to specify
elaborate on why it appeared they appeared to provide more input into the prior
projects as opposed to the current action inquiry project.
Observations
In general, observations are critical to collecting meaningful interactions
amongst specific team members and research associates. This type of data collection
allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the participation and interaction
of team members within a natural context (Patton, 2002). According to Taylor-
Powell and Steele (1996), “observation provides the opportunity to document
activities, behavior and physical aspects without having to depend on peoples’
willingness and ability to respond to questions” (p. 1). Observations during the

54
inquiry team meetings allowed for a firsthand experience of behaviors and actions in
various settings. By observing the team on an ongoing basis it allowed me to note
changes in behavioral participation such as attendance during meetings, verbal
participation in which team members began to say less or more in the meetings, and
lastly internalized participation in which team members appeared to reflect on the
information in meetings and verbalize how that information is used in their
professional lives. During the observations I was documenting everything through
field notes and reflections. Field notes were utilized during observations due to their
descriptive nature. They contain what people say either through direct quotes or
summarizing, and they contain the observer’s reaction and reflections regarding what
was observed (Patton, 2001).
Interviews
Interviews are necessary to gather information that might be interpreted
differently during observations; therefore situations of interest can be clarified. The
interview allows for individuals to share their “unique experiences” and “special
stories” so the researcher’s role is to create questions that evoke these responses
(Stake, 1995, p. 65). The interviews were conducted at two separate times: while the
individuals were still participating in the project (May) and eight months after the
project was completed (February). For the initial interview participants were
contacted for the interview via email. Prior to the start of the interview the
participants were given USC’s Center for Urban Education Informed Consent for

55
Non-Medical Research. After the consent form was signed I explained the purpose
of my study and asked permission to tape record the interview.
The standardized open-ended interviews were conducted for the following
advantages: (a) the instrument may be made available for those reading the findings
of the study; (b) the focus of the interview respects the participant’s time; and (c)
analysis is facilitated by making responses easily comparable (Patton, 2002, p. 346).
An interview protocol was developed by the Center for Urban Education (Appendix
A) this provided broad overarching questions that addressed job requirements, daily
activities, and equity practices. I developed supplemental questions to particularly
address relationships that developed within the committee, factors that promoted
engagement with others such as knowledge, access, engagement, and safety
(Appendix B). The interview guides that were developed had 10-15 primary
questions based on major concepts that were developed from the literature review
and also included probes to encourage clarification and expansion when necessary.
These additional questions were classified into the following categories: nature of
collaboration, social networks, and collaborative research traditions. The questions
regarding the nature of collaboration focused on the relationship between academic
affairs and student affairs professionals within the institution. The area was
examined due to the literature on the delineation between roles of academic affairs
and student affairs and the effect it had on how individuals would participate when
collaborating together. For example, in Philpott and Strange (2003) the expectations
of the roles of each professional limited their participation within the project. The

56
student affairs professionals, despite having the qualifications to assist with the
learning community, focused on their area of expertise and worked on the logistics.
The area of social networks was examined to determine whether relationships
within the action research project were considered strong or weak ties. This area was
examined to determine whether individuals developed relationships together and
whether this allowed for access to resources that otherwise would not have been
available without participation in the project. Lastly, collaborative research
traditions were examined to determine how participating in an action research project
differed from participating in other committees within the institution. Also, this area
was examined to determine what factors facilitated participation in the project, such
as the use of a facilitator. The interview was transcribed and the data was analyzed
for patterns. After the interview and analysis were completed each interviewee was
provided the data to confirm accuracy, also known as member checking (Stake,
1995).
Data Analysis
The inquiry team held collaborative meetings over the course of the school
year. Each team meeting was approximately 2 hours and was held in a faculty
lounge. I was present at a majority of the meetings as a participant observer as listed
in the previous table. My interaction with the team was limited. To bring order and
meaning to the data collected, the information was categorized and sorted.
Specifically, I thoroughly examined all of the material for patterns, specifically “
consistency within certain conditions” (Stake, 1995, p. 78). This process is referred

57
to as coding, where data is examined for key concepts and terms discussed in the
literature review. Appropriate analysis was crucial to finding patterns and/or
relationships of the words, perspectives, and behaviors of the research participants. I
began the analyzing process through the following: (a) examining the field notes
from the team meetings, the symposium, and the site visits; (b) documenting
observations of the institution, offices on campus, and interactions before and after
meetings; (c) reading the transcribed interviews. I began the coding process by
analyzing each interview transcript. On the margins of each transcript I notated
areas where collaboration was addressed and where factors were listed as to why
collaboration occurred. This was primarily done using codes for concepts taken
from the literature, as noted in the first column of Table 3 below:

Table 3. Data Coding

Initial Codes Final Themes
Knowledge Not included as a final theme
Access Physical Proximity (Coburn & Russel, 2008)
Engagement Not included as a final theme
Safety/Cost Trust (Levin & Cross, 2004)
- repeated interaction (Coburn & Russel, 2008)
- validation (Andrews & Delahay, 2000)
Collaboration Hierarchical Relationships (Philpott & Strange, 2003)

58
Once a code was developed, then all quotes and observations from field notes
were placed into a table by the assigned code. During my second round of coding, I
organized the codes into themes. The following themes emerged from the initial
coding of data and the literature review: physical proximity, trust, and hierarchical
relationships as noted in the second column in Table 3 above. These themes are
further discussed in chapter four.
Each of the participants discussed the culture of the institution and how
hierarchical relationships were present. As a result of the hierarchical relationships,
respondents described feelings of role ambiguity within the inquiry team meetings.
The second theme of physical proximity was similar to the concept of access in the
literature but access focuses on having to search or locate the person you need. In
this project the interaction was established by virtue of participating in the activities.
Therefore, physical proximity was created by the facilitator through inquiry team
meetings and informal activities that occurred during formal activities such as eating
dinner together during the syllabi workshop.
The most prominent theme that arose was trust. The concept of trust is
similar to the notion of safety but the literature primarily referred to safety as an
individual’s fear of sharing information with others and having the information
stolen or used against them. Therefore, I defined trust by drawing on the literature as
the presence of repeated interactions (Coburn & Russel, 2008), sharing similar
values through a shared vision (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003) of student
success, and validation of statements made by the student affairs professionals. The

59
factors of trust were facilitated through the action inquiry project. The use of a
facilitator and the various activities within the institution and outside the institution
allowed for the development of deeper relationships. All of the initial codes, namely
knowledge and engagement, were not retained as codes or final themes as they were
not prominent during the analysis of the data.
To determine whether the individuals in the inquiry team meeting at Sunny
College had strong or weak ties with one another, during each interview each
participant was asked the strength and nature of their relationship with each team
member. There were a total of 11 total number of possible ties between all of the
individuals within the team. This question was asked to determine whether there
was a strong or weak tie associated with either academic affairs professionals,
administrators, and/or other student affairs professionals. A strong tie was based on
whether the individuals had known each other prior to the start of the project and
whether there was a relationship in which the individuals considered themselves
friends. The major delineation between whether a relationship was considered to be
a strong or weak tie was based on whether the individual was considered a “friend”
or an “acquaintance.” The second round of interviews were completed months after
the final meeting, so changes in the strength of relationship were discussed based on
student affairs professionals reaching out to other members on the campus
subsequent to the period when team meetings were being held monthly.

60
Limitations
For this study there were many benefits to using the qualitative case study,
yet it is not without its limitations. The primary limitation is that this study was only
able to focus on the student affairs professional for the collaboration piece. Being
able to interview the academic affairs professionals would have provided a more in
depth picture as to why collaboration was or was not occurring. Another limitation
that arose was the attendance of one of the student affairs professional. She missed
over half of the inquiry team meetings due to personal reasons thus minimizing the
observational data for her participation.
To compensate for the limitations of using individual instruments this study
used triangulation by combining various methods. Using various methods, or data
source triangulation, allows for an examination to determine whether the
“phenomenon or case remains the same at other times, in other spaces, or as persons
interact differently” (Stake, 1995, p. 112).

61
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
The purpose of this chapter is to examine collaboration between student
affairs professionals and academic affairs professionals participating in an action
research project. This chapter presents the results through each participant’s
individual accounts through comments, behaviors, or actions observed during the
inquiry meetings or through their individual interviews. Three major themes
emerged throughout the interview: hierarchical relationships, physical proximity, and
trust. These themes were components that either promoted or hindered the process of
collaboration for the student affairs professionals.
Collaborative relationships are difficult to initiate within Sunny College due
to the hierarchal relationships that are embedded within the institutional culture. The
action inquiry project provided an avenue for student affairs professionals to engage
in dialogue with academic affairs professionals through various activities that
allowed individuals to be in physical proximity of one another. Placing individuals
in an environment to engage in problem-solving activities allowed for the
minimizing of hierarchical relationships and space for informal relationships to
develop. This collaboration was observed with some relationships becoming
avenues for student affairs professionals to request assistance on other individual
projects and activities that were later implemented within the college. Although
physical proximity created an opportunity for collaboration it was not enough to
create a relationship. Trust was a major factor in whether collaboration occurred

62
between individuals participating in the project. Individuals reached out for personal
projects within the inquiry team if a sense of trust was present. Trust was developed
and maintained through three avenues: repeated interaction, shared vision, and
validation. Repeated interaction provided instances where individuals were able to
interact over a long period of time allowing for relationships to develop. A shared
vision consisted of individuals having similar attitudes and beliefs when it came to
expectations of student success. Validation is established within the inquiry team
when information, suggestions, and/or comments are made by the student affairs
professionals and accepted by the other participants. For those who felt early on that
their feelings or thoughts were not validated, it became more difficult to develop
relationships and continue to share information with the group. The interrelationships
of the themes are displayed in Figure 1 below:

63

Figure 1. The Development of Collaboration

Hierarchical
Relationships

Existed as part of the
INSTITUTIONAL
CULTURE

bringing about

ROLE AMBIGUITY
in a new
collaboration
An action
inquiry
project
brought
about
Physical
Proximity

In INQUIRY
TEAM
MEETINGS

and through
INFORMAL
ACTIVITIES
Created
opportunities
for
Trust

Generated
through

REPEATED
INTERACTION,

SHARED
VISION,

and
VALIDATION
Resulted in
Collaboration

• HBCU FAIR
• “DON’T CANCEL
THAT CLASS”
• TRANSFER
ACADEMY

64
In the following sections I will begin by displaying the strength of ties
between student affairs, academic affairs professionals, and administrators. I will
show the change in perceived ties amongst student affairs professionals and others
within the inquiry group. I start here to illustrate hierarchical relationships within the
institutional culture of Sunny College and how perceptions transferred to the inquiry
team and inhibited the participation and the development of relationships within the
group. Three of the four student affairs professionals began to question their roles
within the inquiry group and whether they were helpful to the progression of the
project. Yet, physical proximity played a role in mediating the feelings of perceived
ineffectiveness within the inquiry team because student affairs professionals were
able to share the work they do with students. I will discuss how participating in the
inquiry team meetings allowed individuals an opportunity to share their values and
attitudes related to student success and how that developed into trust for student
affairs professionals. Also, I will examine how trust was a factor in determining
whether an academic affairs professional was reached out to for assistance.
Relationships between Participants
In order for this study to determine whether collaboration occurred as a result
of facilitated action inquiry, it was important to distinguish in what ways
partnerships were created and maintained. In order to measure these relationships the
strength of ties amongst participants was examined to determine whether
participation in an action research project facilitated collaboration or the sharing of
information with other individuals. Within the inquiry team meeting various

65
professionals participated from academic affairs, student affairs, and administration.
In most institutions these individuals normally do not interact with one another
within their day-to-day operations. Therefore, placing individuals that have “weak
ties” together in an inquiry group meeting allows for access to more diverse
information and ideas (Granovetter, 1982). Table 4 below depicts the relationships
between the student affairs professionals and administration, academic affairs
professionals, and other student affairs professionals before the project began. The
relationships are further designated by strong tie relationships or weak tie
relationships. The relationships are self reported and reflect each student affairs
professional’s perception of their relationship with others within the inquiry team.
Sidney had not worked long at Sunny College so she labeled many of her
relationships as weak ties. She described all of her relationships with the
administrators and academic affairs professionals as weak ties. She also labeled most
of her relationships with student affairs professionals within the team as weak ties.
Her only strong tie within student affairs was with an individual she worked closely
with due to their similar duties. Overall, prior to the start of the project Sidney had
10 weak ties and one strong tie relationship.
Teagan described his daily interactions as being primarily with
administrators. Therefore, as shown in the first column of Table 4 he had two strong
ties and one weak tie with the administrators within the inquiry team. His one weak
tie was with an individual who had recently been promoted as an administrator, so
there had been minimal interaction. He does collaborate with faculty members but he

66
explained this relationship rarely occurs unless faculty members approach him.
Within the inquiry team he considered his relationship with all the faculty members
as weak ties. He considered two of the other student affairs professionals as strong
ties because he had participated in numerous committees with them during his time
at Sunny College. Overall, Teagan had seven weak ties and four strong tie
relationships.
London’s primary duties are interacting with and assisting students on a daily
basis. Therefore, she described her relationship with administrators as weak ties
except for the administrator who had chosen her to become a part of the team. She
also had weak ties with all of the faculty members. Her relationship with two of the
student affairs professionals was strong due to participation in prior committees
together. Overall, London had eight weak ties and three strong tie relationships.
Riley also had only one strong tie with the administrator who chose him to be
a part of a previous action inquiry project and the current inquiry team. He described
his relationship with the other administrators as weak ties. Like the others he had
weak ties with all of the faculty members. He considered all of the student affairs
professionals to be strong ties. Overall, Riley had seven weak ties and four strong tie
relationships.

67
Table 4. Strength of Ties Prior to Start of the Action Inquiry Project

Administrators
Academic Affairs
Professionals
Student Affairs
Professionals
Strength of
Ties
Weak
Ties
Strong
Ties
Weak
Ties
Strong
Ties
Weak
Ties
Strong
Ties
Sidney III IIIII II I
Teagan I II IIIII I II
London II I IIIII I II
Riley II I IIIII III

Any reaching out by student affairs professionals to others within the inquiry
team was based on their own accord and with respect to their own projects. Table 5
below shows the change in the strength of ties after working on the project for ten
months. The new strong ties are indicated below in italic type. Any transitions in
relationships that occurred during participation in the project were from weak ties to
strong ties. The largest difference came from student affairs professionals’
perceptions of their relationship with academic affairs professionals. The four
student affairs professionals moved from labeling all five faculty members as weak
ties to each moving at least two faculty members to strong ties.

68
Table 5. Strength of Ties After the Completion of the Action Inquiry Project

Administrators
Academic Affairs
Professionals
Student Affairs
Professionals
Strength of
Ties
Weak
Ties
Strong
Ties
Weak
Ties
Strong
Ties
Weak
Ties
Strong
Ties
Sidney I II II III III
Teagan I II III II III
London II I II III III
Riley I II III II III

Figure 2 and Figure 3 below were created with the data above to showcase
the difference in the labeling of individuals from weak ties to strong ties. The graphs
below shows each participant and their relationship to other members within the
inquiry team prior to the Action Inquiry Project and after its completion. For
example, in Figure 2 none of the student affairs professionals labeled their
relationships with the academic affairs professionals as strong ties. Figure 3 displays
the increase in the labeling of strong ties for the academic affairs professionals after
engaging in the action inquiry project.

69
Figure 2. Number of Strong Ties Prior to Start of an Action Inquiry Project

Figure 3. Number of Strong Ties After the Completion of an Action Inquiry Project

70
Therefore, through participation in the action inquiry project it is apparent
that partnerships developed between student affairs and other members within the
inquiry team, specifically the academic affairs professionals. In response to the
interview questions a common discussion amongst the student affairs professionals
was the importance of participating in committees to network with other individuals.
This was considered an important component of their duties due to their need to
develop relationships with individuals on campus to garner assistance for programs
they are implementing. A positive outcome for the student affairs professionals
participating in the inquiry teams was that many relationships developed into
stronger ties with individuals with whom they had previously held weak ties.
Engaging in activities with individuals with whom one has weak ties is beneficial in
the process of sharing information (Cross, Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001). Riley
was able to recognize the benefits of learning from individuals that he normally did
not have contact with except for during the inquiry team meetings:
You could see the awareness within the faculty members that were in there
when we talked about the student services piece of it and on the flip side we
could see from the instructors point of view, some of the things that they
were going through. I think there was a discussion one time on Ipods in
class. I wasn’t even thinking that was an issue. I thought students would
automatically know not to be listening to music or podcasts while the
instructor is lecturing and then all of the instructors were like oh yeah that is a
major issue. So there was that learning going on between us.

Relationships with individuals with whom one has a weak tie that later becomes a
strong tie allows for learning to occur due to access to current information and new
ideas (Granovetter, 1982). The dissemination of information throughout an

71
institution is valuable due to the opportunity for current information to spread
throughout the campus. Unfortunately, a barrier to this process of sharing
information and creating collaborative relationships is the hierarchical relationships
embedded within the culture of the institution.
Hierarchical Relationships
Collaboration between student affairs and academic affairs professionals is
difficult to accomplish within higher education institutions. One of the barriers
discussed in the literature is the presence of hierarchal relationships (Kezar, 2005).
This study found similar results with hierarchical relationships that were consistent
with the literature on collaboration (Philpott & Strange, 2003; Kezar, 2003). For
example, the roles for faculty and student affairs were clearly delineated within the
institution. Also, both student affairs and academic affairs professionals were
unaware of the culture, roles, and expectations of each other within the institution.
This action inquiry project differed from other committees by creating a space for
relationships to develop. For some of the student affairs professionals, however, the
culture of the institution and the activity chosen within the project created feelings of
inadequacy in being able to contribute to the project.
Institutional Culture
All of the student affairs professionals spoke candidly regarding the
hierarchical relationships that existed within their institution. Teagan brought up the
issue of faculty versus student affairs in community college.

72
In the sense that you’re not a faculty member. It’s almost kind of like you’ve
got to constantly prove yourself, that you’re at the educational level…I don’t
know why but it seems like in education there’s always that different, that
line of you’re staff and you’re faculty and you’re administrators
(Teagan, I, p. 3)

In the community college system most of the student affairs professionals are
considered faculty per their union contract and this can exacerbate the power
differences. Although both groups are identified as faculty, the student affairs
professionals want status and recognition from their faculty colleagues despite
resistance from the culture of the institution. Teagan described this culture as
“faculty feel, well, why do we need a counselor to be a faculty member when they’re
not in the classroom, they don’t have the same expertise as we do and we can advise
anybody that comes.” This perception of the culture of the institution promotes an
environment where the role of student affairs is marginalized. These individuals
labeled as faculty yet working in a position that is also labeled as student affairs have
an internal struggle that one member recalled as:
So you have the brain and brawn and the student services is the brawns, they
have to process the students and get them and then the faculty teaches…I’m
here at student services and I’m going ok, well I take off my gloves and I get
my hands dirty, you know I’m in the trenches with the rest of the brawns and
at the same time I’m going well what am I doing, my hands shouldn’t be
dirty because I’m faculty and so I’m pulling back. (London, ii, p. 9-10)

Another team member went as far as to say that the hierarchy within the system
promotes boundaries:
You know in the institution we’re very hierarchical especially in community
colleges so you know what you can do and what you can’t do. You even
know what the vice president can do and what he can’t do. You know what
the president can do. (Sidney, ii, p. 8).

73
The need for collaboration amongst both student affairs professionals and
academic affairs professionals was discussed at great lengths in all of the interviews.
They all shared that the culture of the institution results in difficulty in doing so. The
benefits of participating in committees for student affairs professionals was brought
up by Riley who stated:
Yeah, just because counselors know we have to be on those committees or
else they never hear our side of the story. We know we have to be on those
committees, whether the administration or maybe the Dean thinks we should
be on those committees…if you don’t keep the big picture in perspective and
the big pictures is that we’ve [faculty and counselors] got to make this work
together (Riley, II, p. 6).

In the inquiry team meetings the student affairs professionals interjected whenever
appropriate regarding their specialization. For example, Teagan explained the
difference between the syllabus and the outline. He emphasized the fact that most
part-time faculty do not receive a course outline and many times are the ones asked
to create one. At another meeting Sidney brought up the importance of counseling
and having individuals on campus to assist students in creating educational goals.
She explained that in her previous position within a specialized department that 30%
of students dropped out because of lack of motivation or a goal. Therefore, referring
students to appropriate counseling services can potentially maximize retention and
lessen the number of students that drop out.
During the interview Riley explained the need to collaborate with academic
affairs rather than work in separate silos. His solution to collaboration is further

74
explained by the need to educate faculty members through participation in
committees because they:
Hear our stories, they know what we go through, they come to our flex
trainings, so like Larry [faculty member], they kind of know what we’re
doing and what our role is and other instructional faculty may not have had as
much contact with us and may not have had as much knowledge of what hats
we’re wearing, which are many, and I know sometimes there’s this feeling
that we just put folks into classes and that’s the last thing we do actually
(Riley, II, p. 8).

The desire was to not only educate faculty but also to learn from faculty:
You could see the awareness within the faculty members that were in there
when we talked about the student services piece of it and on the flip side we
could see from the instructor’s point of view some of the things that they
were going through (Riley, ii, p. 8).

Each student affair professional spoke about participating in numerous
committees. Besides participating in the Action Inquiry Project each individual was
involved in anywhere from two to eight other committees. Most of the participants
are involved with the curriculum committee and within these committees they
represent their respective offices whether it is transfer, articulation, or financial aid.
London emphasized the importance of collaboration and the need to work together.
She also discussed her major obstacle of time. Yet, she also understood the benefits
of collaboration in committees as an opportunity to slow down from her daily duties
and interact because:
We don’t have time to get to know each other. Our peak season just ended
here and now is the peak season for instructors because of their midterms and
finals. Then it all ends and we go away to a break and when we come back
I’m too busy to talk to them and nine weeks into the semester they’re too
busy to talk to us and so the only way we really see each other is if we’re

75
appointed to be on a committee together or if we sign up for a committee
(London, ii, p. 3).

Teagan also emphasized the need to interact with individuals when discussing
whether there were benefits to having administrators, faculty, and student affairs
professionals within the same committee by stating:
Yes, I think that’s really important, especially just our whole structure at the
community college, that’s the way it needs to be. You’re always supposed to
involve all the different players in the decision-making…because that’s how
you make your network, how you meet people and how you bring ideas,
especially if you’re in committees with some of the VP’s or a director.
(Teagan, I, p. 11 & 20).

His thoughts are in alignment with the results produced by Kezar (2003a) in that
during the collaboration process, specifically in community colleges, the leadership
and major stakeholders play an instrumental role in creating any change within an
institution. When questioned about the importance of which individuals are on a
committee, Riley discussed the importance of having all the major stakeholders
involved in the decision-making process on campus. He felt that it allowed access to
all of these individuals where he could “tell them what we’re [student affairs] going
through, maybe share some student experiences that we have and kind of let them
know about the scope of what we’re handling in terms of students.” Within the
committees he felt it was the student affairs professionals that should take
responsibility of sharing student experiences. Nevertheless, he did emphasize the
importance of the instructional faculty to his position and to reaching students. He
stated “the instructional community, I need them. I need them to get me into their
classrooms. I need them to talk about transfers.” Sidney provided her beliefs on the

76
purpose of committees and in doing so alluded to the major tenet of participatory
action research by emphasizing the need for evaluation and brainstorming:
Ultimately, I always think that committees and stuff is to find out what your
challenges are and to address them by either evaluating what you have
existing or developing and brainstorming and being creative in new ways of
creating things to address those things or through collaborations.
(Sidney, p. 4)

The purpose of committees according to the participants is the ability to
collaborate with the committee members, create relationships with individuals on
campus, and provide information with respect to their duties. The definition of
collaboration provided by researchers entails promoting interaction with major
stakeholders and working towards a shared vision of student success (Kezar, 2003a;
Wood & Gray, 1991). Many of the responses by the student affairs professionals
were aligned with this definition specifically the need to have a shared vision. Riley
described the collaborative process as having a “common focus or common goal that
we are all shooting for…we’re in this project together, or this fight together, to find
out what’s going on and think of interventions or strategies together.” Kezar’s
(2003b) definition of collaboration encompasses an emphasis on working together
with “equal voice and responsibility”(p. 138). One area that was addressed by each
student affairs professional was the concept of equality with respect to the hierarchal
nature of higher education institutions. London differentiated between collaboration
in the action inquiry project and other committees with respect to hierarchy. She
enjoyed the ability to speak as she pleased as opposed to other committees where

77
you can speak “but you have to raise your hand and they say you can but you have to
wait your turn.”
Hierarchy is inherent in higher education institutions (Schroeder, 1999).
There are both positive and negative aspects of hierarchy depending on who holds
the power, what is accomplished with the power, and who benefits from the power.
Within committees there is a beneficial aspect to hierarchal relationships when the
power within the team is used towards making movement towards a shared goal
established by everyone within the committee. In collaboration if individuals do not
feel there is support at an administrative level or the collaboration is a priority then
individuals are less likely to become involved (Kezar, 2005).
This aspect became an issue with the individuals at Sunny College. As the
decision came to create a 3-day syllabus workshop there were concerns with whether
the Academic Senate was involved or was informed of the committee. At this
college the support would come from the “blessing” by the Academic Senate. One
participant described the difference as:
I think it [action inquiry project] would have gotten more support as far as
just what we are doing. Make it a stronger group as far as the voice that it
had, again because the Academic Senate would have made it more of this is
what we need to do in order to improve instead of this is what’s being
recommended that we do…with a project like this it could be isolated if
there’s not buy in (Teagan, ii, p. 11).

The Academic Senate was the basis for discussion for half of an inquiry group
meeting. The discussion of whether the committee was ever “blessed” by the
Academic Senate came up and it was believed that one of the co-chairs had followed

78
through on this aspect. This particular co-chair stopped attending the inquiry team
meetings after the beginning of the year so she was not able to address whether this
was accurate. There was concern over the committee not having been created with
approval by the Academic Senate and who should present to the Senate. The same
co-chair, who unfortunately was not present, was nominated to present the final
report that was given to the President.
One of the researchers stated that she spoke with the President and he was
supportive and approved the direction of the team. Some of the student affairs
professionals felt that getting the College President’s authorization was enough to
sustain the group and its legitimacy within the institution. Yet, there was some
hesitancy with his authorization in that the hierarchical relationships and power
distributed amongst the institution was held more by the academic affairs
professionals than the administration. Although two of the student affairs
professionals felt that the President’s authorization was enough they stated that the
academic affairs professionals did not support the administration. Teagan explained:
I think you have to ask yourself, you can’t just say I’m not getting support
and so a lot of times I think faculty tend to do that, they blame administration,
they blame somebody for them really, the way I see it is if you want
something done you’ve got to run with it (Teagan, i. p. 21).

Teagan went on to explain that any stagnation in the inquiry group was due to the
power that academic affairs had within the group of not wanting to move forward.
The desire to combat any power difference is a characteristic of participatory
action research where all participants are to contribute equally throughout the

79
process. However, one of the participants felt a hierarchal imbalance during an initial
inquiry team meetings articulated when he explained:
I kind of felt that I was just kind of sitting there, not really wanting to take
part in something simply because I didn’t have that experience. How can I
talk about giving out exams or whatever or assignments when I’m not really
doing that, so to me it was more like just sitting back and listening to them
because they’re the experts in what they’re actually doing. (Teagan, ii, p. 6).

Teagan did state that as the meetings progressed he became more comfortable with
participating when he felt he could contribute to the group. Another student affairs
professional on the team had a different experience when it came to the hierarchy
between faculty and student affairs and felt the way the project was organized
assisted in minimizing the power differential from the onset of the project:
In all the meetings it wasn’t as though they [researchers] were relying totally
on the instructional faculty and also you could see that the instructional
faculty were looking for our point of view and there were some aha moments
when we would tell them something about either the articulation side, or the
counseling side, or the student services side in general, or they would tell us
something about the classrooms, where I would go oh, ok, I never knew that
part (Riley, ii, p. 8).

The ability to learn from others is a key feature of participatory action research
(Reason & Bradbury, 2001a). The collaborative process engages individuals to
reflect on their own knowledge and create solutions to resolve a shared issue or
concern. Riley was able to gather this idea through the project:
That was an intentional piece of the Project was for us to work together like a
microcosm of the campus, which we could work together on this project, we
could work together on a larger scope or a bunch of smaller scopes that
eventually touches the students (Riley, ii, p. 8).

80
The facilitator was able to empower the participants so individuals in the inquiry
group felt they could take their results and promote practices campuswide. A few of
the student affairs professionals discussed the use of an external researcher in
promoting dialogue:
In the action inquiry project there was more of a facilitator, the back and forth
dialogue…it was more of an open dialogue…we facilitated as a group and
you had an outside facilitator/consultant I guess you could say that kind of
always put focus on it being an open dialogue and encouraging that open
discussion where it wasn’t as much political control or constraint…the
facilitator sees it from a fresh perspective. They’re not going to be controlled
by whatever their personal or political values entail, you know a what’s in it
for me, I think it’s like that anywhere (Sidney, ii, p. 8-10).

Yet, when it came down to actually implementing and presenting the syllabi
workshops many of the student affairs professionals felt the academic affairs
professionals led the group’s process and momentum.
I felt that was the whole part of the culture and the flavor of where we went
was all about that. There’s not any concern for what happens outside the
classroom. Like everything that we did, the syllabus, how you learned about
it, it was all about the classroom. They didn’t say anything about students’
stress anxiety, their sense of community on campus, their financial, personal,
psychological any of these support resources (Sidney, ii, p. 10).

These findings were similar to Philpott and Strange (2003) who found that within
collaborative groups with student affairs and academic affairs there were inherent
power differentials. One of the major implications that arose from this study was
that consulting with an independent entity assisted in combating and maneuvering
through the hierarchy. The institutional culture with the perceived power of
academic affairs created an environment where some of the student affairs
professionals questioned their role and contribution to the project.

81
Role Ambiguity
One avenue of maximizing the benefits of action research is to create inquiry
teams that combine a variety of expertise from within the institution in order to
address all aspects of the institution (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). This was done in
the action inquiry project with individuals from student affairs, academic affairs, and
administration in attendance. Yet, student affairs professionals within the inquiry
team did not necessarily understand their role in the project. Three of the four student
affairs professionals felt that discussions focused around activities that occurred
within the classroom with minimal thought regarding what occurs outside of the
classroom. Teagan questioned his role during the first interview by stating:
Well why was I put on the committee...because it really seems like it
probably should be for more people that are really in the classroom working
with basic skills students (Teagan, I, p. 14).

During the second interview not much had changed and he felt that he did not
provide much to the overall progress of the group:
I think that’s what makes it hard for me to be on this committee because its
not really, I’m just there sort of like a resource person and not anything else
(Teagan, ii)

The common feeling of not being able to contribute to the group was shared by other
members of the group specifically those that felt they played a major role in a
previous inquiry project. Riley shared his feelings regarding his contribution by
stating “I don’t have that much input because it’s just me supporting the basic skills
stuff” (Riley, i. p. 8). On the other hand, Sidney did not feel the same way about her
contribution and felt that she had:

82
A lot more experience and I’m coming with maybe higher level skills or
knowledge…You know I have some stuff that I feel I can add to it just
because of that excess in skills, maybe if it weren’t as or didn’t have as much
experience maybe I would feel not so inclined to participate or share (Sidney,
I, p. 6).

For Sidney she recognized that her knowledge and experience provided her
with confidence to contribute to the project. She stated that she felt everyone should
feel similarly because with this project everyone started with “the same body of
knowledge.” Here she refers to the initial presentation given to the inquiry team
regarding the research data and the gaps in transfer rates for the underrepresented
population. This information provided the inquiry team with background
information for the study and statistics for the students. Yet, as the meetings
progressed it became apparent that participants in the inquiry team were not familiar
with the role of student affairs professionals.
For example during the syllabi workshop Teagan presented on the student
resources available on campus and many of the faculty members commented on not
knowing the resources existed or where they were housed. One faculty member
stated that she had been working on the campus for over 20 years and did not realize
there were various counseling services available for the students. Teagan addressed
the need to educate faculty regarding the roles that student affairs professionals play
both on campus and within the inquiry team. He felt there was a need to educate:
When you put me next to somebody that’s in the classroom I don’t have the
same experience and I don’t have the same outlook that they might have. I
don’t think they really feel that they’re better than a non-teaching faculty, I
think part of it is well how can you be a faculty if you’re not teaching, but
they forget that you’re dealing with what they’re teaching, you’re helping

83
them create educational pathways of the course they’re creating. That way
students move forward in their educational plans (Teagan, ii, p. 4).

London’s concern about creating that relationship with faculty had to do with
faculty not knowing what her duties and responsibilities were and not caring to learn.
Although she feels it is beneficial to create relationships her concern within the
college is that:
If I developed a relationship with a lot of instructors, they would just be like
oh here you go. They could just give me the problem and I’m supposed to fix
it and so because of that I’ve kind of distanced myself a little bit from some
of the instructors because I find myself being dumped on…and these will be
the same instructors I have seen for the past ten years in the hall and they still
don’t speak…it’s kind of like I don’t even want to continue doing this for you
because you don’t even recognize me as an accomplished person (London, ii,
9).

Riley took on a different approach than the other two in regards to his role
stating as student affairs professionals:
We feel that we should be a part of those decisions being made throughout
the campus. We need to make contacts with those, whether they be
administrators, faculty members, deans, department heads, and kind of tell
them about what we’re going through or may share some student experiences
that we have and kind of let them know about the scope of what we’re
handling in terms of students and the roles that we have.

The student affairs professionals appeared confident and understood their
roles on the campus in terms of supporting students. When they were asked about
their roles on a day-to-day basis they were able to discuss at great lengths the many
“different hats” and responsibilities they held on campus. Yet, when it came to the
project there were discussions regarding who should present to faculty and whether it
should come from student affairs. During the syllabi workshop, Promoting Student

84
Success through Your Syllabus, the two groups were delineated by a majority of the
student affairs professionals in one group and academic affairs professionals in the
other group. Sidney appeared to have been more intensely involved in the workshop
so when she was asked about the delineation between student affairs and academic
affairs she stated:
Yeah, because that was part of the curriculum when we laid out the themes,
part of it was more strategic to come from faculty and then there was a
developmental part where student demographics was covered by and us, and
then it was all about assigning people according to what would be more
strategic from a faculty talking to a faculty (Sidney, I, p. 11).

Despite not fully comprehending their role, the student affairs professionals were
still able to gather valuable insight. Teagan questioned his role within the project
during the initial and subsequent interviews; yet after probing the benefits of syllabi
for his department he realized the benefits if faculty had a template for syllabi.
Teagan recognized that for his particular position having syllabi that were uniform
allowed for articulation to be a smoother process for his students. He explained that
each college/university has specific transfer requirements. Many courses share the
same content, yet have different titles, therefore in order to determine whether the
course requirement is satisfied it is helpful to have a detailed syllabus. If a detailed
syllabus from the community college entails similar material to the
college/university course despite having a different title, the course can still be used
to satisfy the transfer requirement. Unfortunately, he mentioned that oftentimes
although the community college course appears to satisfy the transfer requirement,
the syllabus is not detailed enough to justify the request.

85
The other benefit he went on to discuss was the importance of relationships
that were developed through the project with individuals on campus he had heard so
much about:
Through this project I really got to see him [Jesse] in action so then I
understood what people were talking about…I think everybody has got
something to bring to the table and I think through this project I was able to
see a little bit of that it kind of just made me realize again that we all have our
own expertise in what we do (Teagan, ii, p. 8).

The opportunity to create relationships with individuals within the institution was
done so by placing individuals together. Hierarchical relationships and role
ambiguity were present within the institution, yet minimized for those individuals
that participated in the action inquiry project.
Physical Proximity
Placing individuals within physical proximity of one another provides the
opportunity for interaction and collaboration that does not naturally occur on
campus, especially at Sunny College. One of the reasons is Sunny College is divided
into two separate campuses located approximately six miles from one another. All of
the inquiry team meetings were held on the primary campus. In total three of the
participants in the inquiry team  two academic affairs professionals and one
student affair professional  were housed on the other campus. The attendance of
those participants who were not housed on the primary campus attended less
frequently than those individuals who had offices on the main campus. These
participants were present on average about six of the 14 meetings and/or activities

86
held as opposed to the other participants who attended on average 10 of the 14
meetings.
One of the aspects that was discussed regarding creating and maintaining
relationships were the benefits of being in committees together with other individuals
at the community college. The ability to create relationships is difficult on campus
specifically at Sunny College because:
There aren’t a lot of avenues for interaction. Part of it because of our
construction that’s happening. I mean we don’t have like staff meetings or
anything that brings everybody together. I’m in the counseling area and there
are some people that work the morning shift, others work different days
(Sidney, ii, p. 7).

This sentiment was discussed by Teagan who agreed with the purpose and advantage
of working in committees because of the connection that can be developed:
There are so many people on this campus that you don’t really meet on a
personal basis. When you’re on these committees, it just opens that door. So
you see them walking by and you’re saying hi or how’s it going. With Leslie
[faculty member] she proposed a reading class for GE certification and I
think through this committee she knew who I was so then sent the course
forward to me (Teagan, ii, p. 3).

The specific benefits for participating in committees were an aspect that all
student affairs professionals spoke about in great detail. As quoted earlier, Riley
explained his rationale for the need to educate:
Yeah, just because counselors know we have to be on those committees or
else they never hear our side of the story. We know we have to be on those
committees, whether the administration or maybe the Dean thinks we should
be on those committees (Riley, II, p. 8).

87
Inquiry Team Meetings
Participation within this action inquiry project allowed for opportunities to
develop relationships more than other committees because of the time commitment:
This is a major commitment. We spent a lot more time on it. We met every
two weeks for two hours and we had this half day retreat. It was a lot more
open dialogue where you had a facilitator asking what do you think, what do
you think, there was a back and forth dialogue (Sidney, ii, p. 8).

Another difference is that in other committees there is a large number of members
and according to Teagan “unless you’re doing a presentation or speaking out you
really don’t see the expertise people have like in this project.” The other major
difference was the presence of a facilitator as opposed to other committees where:
The outcome of a committee is based on the committee chair. They lay out
the flavor, the culture, you know whatever that chair’s leadership styles going
to be they lay out the flavor for that. It ends up being political and hierarchal
but with the Action Inquiry Project there’s an outside facilitator with a fresh
perspective. They’re not going to be controlled by whatever their personal or
political values entail. I mean that’s why you pay a consultant you know
you’re investing some money you’re asking for a fresh set of eyes and
wanting an outside perspective (Sidney, ii, p. 8).

According to Sidney the constant interaction with one another coupled with an
outside facilitator that was constantly asking for opinions and advice from each
person allowed for a different type of committee experience. London also agreed
with how the structure of the action inquiry project was run and enjoyed the fact that
it “was not so structured where you know you can’t speak you know like the
Academic Senate or the Curriculum Committee where the chairperson says ok, now
you talk, now you talk, so it was a lot more inviting to get to know people in that
manner” (London, ii, 8). On average, within the inquiry team meetings, the facilitator

88
asked approximately 12 open-ended questions ranging from “what’s the best way?”
to “this is your meeting, how can we make this happen?” These types of questions
were not directed towards a particular person so it allowed for anyone within the
group to respond.
Informal Activities
Informal activities created unanticipated benefits for the individuals
participating in the Action Inquiry Project. The distance between campuses hindered
relationships from developing after the committee stopped meeting because some of
the participants were housed on the main campus and others on the secondary
campus. When the student affair professional who was housed on the secondary
campus was asked why she had not reached out to some of the individuals she stated
“because they’re on that campus over there, and I’m over here.” Yet, the distance
was also helpful for her because she and one other faculty member “were the only
ones from this campus so we developed a relationship because of that.” London took
the opportunity to carpool with the faculty member to the actual inquiry meetings
because she felt it was “good to get to know her during the drives because it
connected our worlds in a way where I know she’s doing great work” (London, II, p.
6). Another student affair professional felt similarly with a major benefit to working
in this committee was the ability to carpool to outside events such as the Effective
Practices Symposium and the Site Visits to the Alliance Colleges. She was strategic
in who she chose to carpool with and described those she chose being:

89
Based upon what I saw what my needs were going to be, and based upon
people that I thought would be good people to connect with either personally
or professionally or according to my responsibilities (Sidney, I, p. 9).

Engaging in activities where individuals were off campus tended to promote
dialogue outside of the educational realm and further deepened relationships. This
experience allowed for a deeper interaction amongst committee members. By
creating opportunities for individuals to interact outside of their respective campuses
individuals were able to develop a deeper relationship. For all of the student affairs
professionals their connection to faculty developed into friendships that led to
broader working partnerships. Sidney provided an example and stated that during
one of the carpool rides she and a faculty member:
Had some interaction and Caley shared that she did family genealogy on the
weekends where she volunteered at her church…so basically one Saturday
morning she helped me do research on my family” (Sidney, ii, p. 3).

At a later time this faculty member called on Sidney for assistance in a program that
Sidney had developed at the college, Don’t Cancel That Class. The program allowed
for professors to minimize the number of classes they cancelled by allowing student
affairs professionals to present to the classes and share some of their resources such
as financial aid, transfer, or counseling services. This faculty member utilized this
resource and did not have to cancel a class that she initially had planned on
cancelling.
Both London and Sidney had originally labeled the individuals they
carpooled with as acquaintances during the first interview, but called them friends
during our second interview. The inquiry team meetings provided opportunities for

90
informal relationships to deepen when individuals converged to the refreshment
table. These brief moments were used to ask additional follow up questions
regarding programs. Prior to one of the inquiry team meetings while filling up on
coffee one of the academic affairs professionals asked Riley about an email he had
sent regarding a transfer fair that was being held on the campus. Therefore, it is
important that individuals be provided opportunities to interact on campus.
According to Philpott and Strange (2003) one of the primary barriers to continued
collaboration was the “limited proximity and access of collaborators” (p. 90). Placing
individuals within physical proximity alone does not create relationships. Yet,
combining physical proximity with a sense of trust provides a foundation for a more
collaborative environment.
Trust
My analysis indicates that factors associated with building trust at Sunny
College were repeated interaction, a shared vision, and validation. Repeated
interaction refers to individuals engaging in the collaborative process frequently and
for a long period of time. A shared vision stems from sharing similar beliefs as the
student affairs professionals. The student affairs professionals describe their vision
as assisting all students to succeed. Lastly, validation refers to how statements made
by student affairs professionals were received by others within the inquiry team. In
order to promote a collaborative process it is important to build a sense of
community, in this case among individuals within the inquiry team. According to
Bryan, Negreeti, Christensen, and Stokes (2002) a sense of community is developed

91
through time and promoting activities that foster an environment of safety and trust
in the group. In the inquiry team the facilitator promoted both the amount of time
and type of activities.
Repeated Interaction
The action inquiry project was completed over a period of 10 months thus
allowing a considerable amount of time to begin developing a community. My
findings concerning repeated interaction were similar to Coburn and Russel (2008)
who also found that frequency and content of interaction promoted a trusting
environment. Riley felt that the length of time and number of meetings also
illustrated how the project promoted a collaborative environment:
I think we’re meeting twice a month maybe but I think it was an intentional
piece of the [action inquiry] Project for us to work together like a microcosm
of the campus, which we could work together on this project we could work
together on a larger scope.

Also, the length and time of meetings became an opportunity for relationships to
develop because the repeated interaction allowed for statements and actions to be
validated. For example, at first Riley questioned Jackie and her actions:
I didn’t know Jackie when we started the project and I didn’t really see that
excitement at first. Then I think as she started hearing about transfer and
working on projects, the two projects, the [previous] project and the [action
Inquiry] project that I started to see this kind of like awareness in her, in just
the things that she was saying. So it was not only just about maybe lets say
on the certificate or just learning, it was like a bigger picture, and of course
once you see that light turn on in someone, it excites you, like ok we can
really work with this person, maybe she could spread the word to other folks
too.

92
For Riley it took the combination of both projects in order for him to realize that
Jackie was an individual with whom he could develop a relationship and garner
support for his projects.
London, a student affairs professional, had a difficult time trusting
individuals within the inquiry team right from the beginning. She stated she only felt
comfortable with one faculty member after the initial kick-off meeting. The kick-off
meeting was attended by the community colleges participating in the action inquiry
project. The purpose of this meeting was to allow for the colleges to come together
and learn more about the Center for Urban Education and reiterate the overarching
goals of the project. During the meeting, the President from each college spoke and
she became “unnerved” when the President of Sunny College began speaking. She
felt the President referred to the exclusion of a particular minority group of students
when it came to learning and she disagreed with the statement. She felt that only one
faculty member provided a rebuttal to this comment and this was the only person
who she felt shared her “values.”
After this comment London felt she “became standoffish” because she did
not feel as though anyone else in the group shared her values. During that particular
meeting minimal participation was noted by a researcher for those individuals
belonging to an ethnic minority, who also happened to be the student affairs
professionals. As the inquiry team meetings progressed throughout the year, London
realized that not everyone felt similarly and began creating relationships with other
individuals in the inquiry team. Through participating in monthly meetings and

93
other activities, London was able to “put her guard down and listen to the beliefs of
other inquiry members.” For example, with two faculty members she reported she
developed stronger ties as a result of hearing faculty members make passionate
statements about their students and wanting all of them to succeed.
Shared Vision
Much of the literature on collaboration focuses on creating a common vision
that all individuals internalize and is aligned with the mission of the institution
(Kezar, 2003a; Whitt, Nesheim, Guentzl, Kellogg, McDonald, Wells, 2008). Three
of the four student affairs professionals in the inquiry group reached out to the same
individuals during and after the project. One individual, who they did not reach out
to was Logan, a faculty member. They all stated similar reasons as Teagan for not
reaching out:
I think with Logan I think I did kind of feel a little kind of like, we’re up here
and you’re down here kind of feeling and even now I don’t feel very
comfortable approaching [that faculty member]…the way Logan comes
across it’s kind of like you care about these people [students] but at the same
time you’re standoffish (Teagan, II, p. 9)

All of the student affairs professionals felt that Logan was not someone they would
be comfortable reaching out to. This stemmed from the perception many of them
had based on Logan’s demeanor presented at the inquiry team meetings. When
asked to elaborate even further, the participants stated they felt that there was not a
need for this faculty member’s support or advice based on their current projects;
therefore they felt no need to reach out.

94
However, during the inquiry team meetings I observed statements she made
that appeared to limit her professional accountability, her negative perception of
students, and her perceived value for resources within student affairs. During one
inquiry team meeting Logan expressed concern regarding any type of evaluation that
would require accountability, specifically a self-evaluation through in-class
assessments. She felt that this type of assessment would naturally arise in a collegial
environment. Any discussions that arose regarding professional accountability were
deferred; and Logan stated that it would occur by virtue of participating in
committees within the institution. She made various comments during meetings
regarding her students such as “basic skills students are taking classes that are too
difficult for them” and “discussion of language is political.” In another inquiry team
meeting she discussed the need for support for economically-disadvantaged youth to
come from the home and community and minimal support from the classroom. She
stated that she is a “firm believer in encouragement and family support.” Yet, she
does not discuss her role in the process. She went on to state that if economically
disadvantaged students attend below-average schools, they will likely succeed given
enough family support.
In this discussion, Logan also made a critical remark about parents who
expect their high school-age children to work 40 hours a week. These statements
appear to assume that all families have the background knowledge of higher
education institutions and how they work. The field of student affairs stresses that
many families are unaware of how to navigate the educational systems. Hence, the

95
support they provide to their children is augmented by student affair professionals on
campus. The interview results showed that statements such as these, made by
Logan, undermined her trustworthiness in the eyes of the student affairs
professionals.
Three of the four student affairs professionals mentioned the need to
collaborate with as many faculty members as possible in order to gain access to their
students. Therefore, it would seem that access to any faculty member would be
beneficial. There were two faculty members that all four participants reached out to
or felt comfortable enough to reach out to when necessary. There was one particular
faculty member, Jessie, that all of the student affairs individuals reached out to for
assistance whenever faculty input was necessary for their respective projects. Two
individuals reached out to this faculty member to assist in the Transfer Academy
program. The Transfer Academy is a new initiative that was the result of a prior
action inquiry project facilitated by the Center for Urban Education. The academy
was recently modified and implemented with the assistance of individuals,
specifically Jesse, in the current action inquiry project. All three participants shared
the same beliefs that this faculty member saw value in their work. All of them
commented on his eagerness to assist and perceived him as:
Enthusiastic. Jessie was like an automatic choice, of who we should invite
and Jessie was willing once again, to make time to go to those meetings
actually (Riley, ii, p. 11).

Therefore, in choosing a faculty member to work with there was a desire to find
someone who was willing to assist in projects outside of their own respective

96
classrooms. This particular student affairs professional had brought Jessie on to sit
on the advisory committee on the Transfer Academy. According to Riley, Jessie’s
assistance was instrumental in the success of creating a positive outcome for the
academy through his involvement in the planning stages and through the workshops
where he sat on panels and spoke of his transfer experience. Riley had not interacted
with Jessie prior to the action inquiry project but after the project ended he felt
comfortable enough to approach him and felt that he would assist with the Transfer
Academy.
The other faculty member that individuals reached out to or felt comfortable
to reach out to was Casey. Riley wished to develop a relationship with Casey after
participating in the project because he noticed that basic skills students “get stuck in
reading and they think they are never going to get from their basic reading course to
transfer.” Yet, he felt that Casey would “definitely be open” to him entering her
classroom and presenting on transfer. He stated he had not done so yet because he
had not had an opportunity to speak with her and set up a time to go to her class. In
the end Riley stated that the individuals he reached out to were based on his
participation in the inquiry team meetings because “it [action inquiry project] made
me more comfortable talking to them.”
London was another student affair professional that collaborated with Casey.
As a result of participating in prior action inquiry projects, London and Casey were
able to implement a successful Historically Black Colleges and University (HBCU)
Fair. During the interview, London had stated she was planning on implementing

97
the college fair and Casey had heard about it and approached London to assist.
London was able to utilize Casey’s resources such as her relationship with other
faculty members and students. Casey presented information for the fair at her
department meetings and in all of her classes to reach out to as many individuals as
possible. According to London, it was through Casey’s promotion of the fair that
made it such a huge success. London also stated that it was through participating in
a prior action inquiry project that she collaborated with Casey because she felt that
they shared similar beliefs when it came to the success of all students, specifically
African American students.
Overall, a faculty member was pursued for projects based on whether the
individual was trusted with respect to student success and said or did things in the
group that conveyed there was some appreciation for the work done by student
affairs professionals.
Validation
A component of trust and sharing information in meetings is feeling that the
“knowledge recipient respects the ownership of ideas” (Andrews & Delahay, 2000,
p. 805). This may have been the reason that Sidney felt that throughout the inquiry
team meetings the student affairs professional “folks were quiet and just didn’t really
care or didn’t give as much input or active engagement” (Sidney, ii, p. 8). She felt
that the faculty members within the group “laid out the flavor and whenever I
brought other ideas up, it was acknowledged, just kind of being the lone voice”
(Sidney, ii, p. 9). Other student affairs professionals within the group shared this

98
feeling of being the “lone voice,” specifically during the monthly inquiry team
meetings. My observational data provided at least 15 instances in which student
affairs voices were silenced. These were instances in which the student affairs
professionals brought up a suggestion or an explanation for a particular issue and the
comment was not acknowledged by anyone within the inquiry team.
For example, at one of the initial inquiry team meetings the facilitator
initiated a discussion on the culture of equity. The participants avoided discussions
regarding race and provided alternative explanations for disparate outcomes for
students, such as SES or cultural attributes. During the conversation London stated
that SES is certainly a component, but there is still “something in the system” that is
adversely affecting outcomes for minority students. This was the second time that
London had addressed race within the inquiry team and there was minimal response
to this statement. The sensitive topic of race is difficult to discuss and address, yet
not acknowledging when comments are made makes it difficult to continue
contributing. During another inquiry team meeting the Interim Report was discussed
and if it would be helpful to present the findings to the rest of the faculty. The group
discussed the “hunches” that were developed by the team as an explanation for the
data that was presented to the team showing an overrepresentation of African-
American and Hispanic students in basic skills courses. Teagan tried expressing
some concern over the wording of a hunch that stated “faculty members are
inaccessible to students.” The rest of the inquiry team’s response was that the group
had agreed upon the wording at a prior meeting. Yet, a faculty member offered

99
making the statement less accusatory by inserting “seems.” The group agreed with
this suggestion and the change was notated. The perceived lack of support for
suggestions made by student affairs professionals was observed throughout the
inquiry team meetings. In another example, Sidney asked if one of the
recommendations could be changed from “promoting awareness of resources” to
“promoting awareness of student support.” This change was not received by the
group and instead a faculty member’s suggestion was approved to change the
recommendation to “promoting awareness of campus resources.”
This invalidation from others within the inquiry team promoted an
environment where sharing information or making suggestions becomes difficult
when a person is not feeling heard. This prompted Teagan’s feelings, noted earlier,
of “not really wanting to take part in something simply because I didn’t have that
experience…it was more like just sitting back and listening to them because they’re
experts” (Teagan, ii, p. 6). Individuals rarely engage in collaboration unless they
share similar concerns and believe that their efforts will produce increased
effectiveness and efficiency (Hirsch & Burack, 2001). The feelings of
ineffectiveness were felt during the meetings for the student affairs professionals.
Teagan went on to further explain the need for collaboration and validation of
student affairs because:
I think maybe one of the things that they [faculty] don’t realize is that what
they’re doing in the classroom really kind of affects what we’re doing in
transfer because we want students that are well prepared, we want students
that are going to be able to move on to the different level type courses and I

100
think faculty forget that we’re all on the same team and I’m beginning to see
that (Teagan, i, p. 7)

The lack of validation appeared within the committee, but was also apparent
within the institution. Sidney encountered some difficulties that she discussed
during one of the inquiry team meetings. She had reached out to the head of faculty
development to post some of the material that was presented at the syllabus
workshop. She described the process as “unsuccessful.” First, she had a difficult
time getting in touch with the individual that is in charge or authorizing what
material is allowed on the website. She had initiated contact through email
numerous times and when she finally connected with him she was rebuffed. This
individual felt that her materials were inappropriate for the website and expressed
concern about impinging on academic freedom by posting syllabi checklist/template
materials.
Sidney felt that as a relatively new employee attached with student services,
she did not have enough “pull” to change this individual’s mind. As a relatively new
employee she had already become indoctrinated into the culture of the institution and
aware of the power that student services had in comparison to other professionals
within the institution. When one of the administrators within the committee heard
this she thought it was outrageous for the materials not to be posted on a faculty
development website and stated “that’s the most appropriate place for it!” Although
all of the student affairs professionals, academic affairs professionals, and

101
administrators were in agreement that the information was important for the
institution, the institutional barriers prevented the information from being uploaded.
As the meetings progressed throughout the year we began to see less
participation and more absences by student affairs professionals. In the last three
inquiry team meetings, the student affairs professionals averaged two participants per
meeting as opposed to an average of three during the first few meetings. This study
is not able to discern whether this change in participation and attendance was due to
perceived ineffectiveness felt by the student affairs professionals. When asked about
the absences, the participants stated that other projects or meetings were scheduled
during the same time as the inquiry team meetings.
Summary
This study sought to determine what factors facilitate collaboration amongst
student affairs and academic affairs professionals engaged in an action inquiry
project at a community college. Collaboration occurred for the participants during
the inquiry team meetings and after the completion of the project. In order to
determine whether collaboration occurred, the first step was determining whether
relationships developed. Prior to participation within the action inquiry project, all
of the student affairs professionals considered their relationship with individuals in
academic affairs as weak tie relationships. Yet, after the conclusion of the project,
all of the participants labeled at least two relationships with academic affairs
professionals as strong tie relationships.

102
The perception of student affairs professionals is that hierarchical
relationships are present within the culture of the institution. There is a need for
student affairs professionals to educate others regarding their roles within the
institution through participation within committees, within the inquiry team
meetings, the hierarchical relationships were confounded with the focus of activities
on the classroom, specifically the syllabus. This resulted in student affairs
professionals feeling secondary to the goals of the project because the focus was in
what occurred in the classroom. The lack of validation also hindered participation
because they became unsure of whether they could provide valuable input into the
meetings. However, the use of an external facilitator did assist in the desire to
contribute by the student affairs professionals because many individuals were asked
to partake in the conversation irrespective of whether they volunteered. Despite
feelings of uncertainty when it came to contributing, all of the student affairs
professionals stated it was beneficial to participate in the committee in the final
interview. The purpose of participating for student affairs professionals was to create
relationships with others within the committee and to learn and provide information
about their own respective positions within the college. The literature review
emphasized the role of knowledge, access, safety, and engagement when it came to
sharing information with others (Cross, Parker, Prusak, & Borgatti, 2001). These
four factors were present to some extent within the collaborative process. Access
and engagement were presented by virtue of being placed within the same inquiry

103
team and focusing on a particular issue. Knowledge and safety were created within
the project through the use of a facilitator and the presence of information activities.
The factors that promoted collaboration in this action research project were:
physical proximity and trust. The action inquiry project promoted physical proximity
in two ways: the amount and period of time and the type of activities. The number
of hours that each participant spent either during an inquiry team meeting, an activity
either on campus or held at another campus, and their planning meeting for the
various activities allowed for deeper relationships to develop. Participants found that
situations where individuals where engaged in activities outside of their respective
campuses tended to allow for discussions outside of daily duties and responsibilities.
This allowed for more intimate conversations regarding personal lives and more
information to potentially connect. Engaging in these personal discussions required
that individuals felt secure in sharing and relaying information.
Trust was a major component for developing relationships and sharing
information with others. Trust was developed through repeated interaction, shared
vision, and validation. Time played a role in the development of trust in the same
way as physical proximity. The amount and duration of time spent with the
individuals within the different activities provided a space where individuals felt they
could get to know one another over a long period of time. Student affairs
professionals were more likely to reach out to other individuals within the inquiry
team when those individuals were perceived to share similar beliefs with respect to
students and their positions. Student affairs professionals approached individuals if

104
they appeared to be working at the institution for the students and not for alternative
motives. They were also approached if the student affairs professionals felt that
these individuals perceived student affairs brought value to the classroom or to their
students. Lastly, validation was important in the development of trust specifically
when it came to comments made during the inquiry team meetings.
In chapter 5 I will discuss the significant findings of the study and provide
implications for practice and recommendations for future research.

105

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to investigate and determine how participation
in an action research project facilitated the creation of relationships between student
affairs professionals and academic affairs professionals. A specific objective of this
study was to understand what factors influenced collaboration amongst these distinct
groups of professionals. The motivation for this study is the belief that utilizing
these factors during collaborative opportunities will allow for institutional
improvements within higher educational institutions and that these improvements,
will lead in turn, to student success. In this chapter, I will address the significant
findings and implications of the study. This will be followed by recommendations
for further research and practice.
Discussion of Significant Findings
The significant findings for this study were that: a) relationships developed
amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals engaged in a facilitated
inquiry project, b) the primary barrier to collaboration was hierarchical relationships,
and c) physical proximity played a role in allowing relationships to develop and
minimize hierarchy, but trust among individuals was the primary factor in promoting
collaboration.
According to the literature, one of the primary barriers to collaboration for
higher education institutions is that departments have become “too fragmented by

106
disciplinary and functional specializations to educate students effectively” (Whitt,
Nesheim, Guentzel, Kellogg, McDonald, & Wells, 2008, p. 236). Yet, my findings
have determined that this same specialization creates benefits for students. By
having each department focus on a specific specialization this allows for a
collaborative relationship that encompasses various components of a students’
academic, social, and affective elements. Individuals with various specializations
allow for access to resources and individuals through their social network,
educational background, and/or experience. For example, with the HBCU fair, a
student affair professional was able to utilize connections and resources with other
colleges to have them present to the students on campus. The collaborating faculty
member was able to draw upon their relationships with other faculty members and
students to participate in the fair. Through each of their specializations, the HBCU
contacts made by the student affairs professionals and the student contacts made by
the academic affairs professionals, both groups were together able to put on a
successful fair.
Therefore, according to my study, the barrier to collaboration is not the
specialization of departments but rather the organizational boundaries that make it
difficult for student affairs and academic affairs professionals to interact with one
another. More important, the barrier to collaboration is a result of organizational
boundaries between individuals on campus rather than the specializations of various
departments. The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges (2000) describes this divide as “an intellectual landscape made up of

107
mineshafts, where most of the mineworkers are intent on the essential task of
deepening the mine without giving much though to the need to build corridors
connecting the shafts and the miners” (p. 41). These “corridors” were developed
through participation in this action inquiry project through the facilitation that
promoted the creation of relationships. Relationships were developed through the
collaborative process between two groups of professionals that rarely interact due to
organizational boundaries in place within the institution. Placing individuals
together in a collaborative setting who do not normally interact with one another on a
daily basis allowed for the development of weak-tie relationships. The application
of Granovetter’s (1983) theoretical lens in this study was useful because it provided
insight into the role of strength of ties in the development of relationships and the
benefits of particular ties. These relationships resulted in both groups of
professionals having access to new information, the ability to disseminate
information to others within their respective departments, and the utilization of
information for respective projects (Granovetter, 1983; Levin & Cross, 2004). The
promotion of weak tie relationships allowed for access to diverse resources.
Individuals were able to develop relationships with other participants and used this
new information to collaborate and implement new projects within the institution.
Collaboration is difficult to implement within higher educational institutions
due to the barriers present within various institutions. According to the literature,
barriers to collaboration were categorized by the following: the delineation of
specialized roles for both student affairs and academic affairs professionals, the

108
organizational separation of offices and departments, limited resources, and the
limited pathways for knowledge to transfer from one department to another (Price,
1999; Winston, Creamer, & Miller, 2001; Smith, Wolf-Wendell, 2005; Goh, 2002).
The most prominent barrier to collaboration revealed through the participants was
the presence of hierarchical relationships inherent within the culture of the
institution. This finding was supported in the literature; however it was labeled
differently. The literature used phrases such as “separation of the formal curriculum
from the informal curriculum” (Schroeder, 1999, p. 2), or descriptions such as
faculty input was more highly regarded because they were seen as the “thinkers” and
the student affairs professionals were seen as “doers” (Philpott & Strange, 2003, p.
82). Despite the presence of hierarchical relationships within the culture of the
institution, participating in an action research project with the assistance of a
facilitator minimized the power differential. My study expands on the
recommendations by Philpott and Strange (2003) regarding the use of an
independent consultant to assist in collaboration. They recommended using the
external consultation services and my study was able to examine and evaluate the use
of an external facilitator who was able to navigate the “transdiciplinary” environment
of various professional positions such as administrators, academic affairs
professionals, and student affairs professionals. The student affairs professionals did
eventually participate in the inquiry team meetings with the assistance of the
facilitator breaking down the hierarchical culture. The student affairs professionals
felt there was a sense of validation for their role within the inquiry team because they

109
were asked by the facilitator for input during activities and asked to take on roles
during particular activities. They also felt comfortable enough to approach others
within the inquiry team to assist them in their respective programs and activities
within the institution.
This study determined that placing individuals with no ties or weak ties
within an inquiry team allows for the development of weak and strong tie
relationships, respectively. It is through trust that collaboration occurs. The
participants in my study chose to reach out to others and share information within the
team if trust was present. Much of the literature focuses on trust as influencing
collaboration and knowledge processes within an organization (Andrews & Delahay,
2000; Cross, Parker, Prusak, and Borgatti, 2001). Individuals with various
specializations allow for access to resources and individuals through their social
network, educational background, and/or experience. Similar to my findings, the
literature discussed the factors that promote trust: repeated interaction (Coburn &
Russel, 2008), shared vision (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003), and validation
(Andrews & Delahay, 2000). My study differed from the literature by suggesting
avenues for trust to develop such as through inquiry team meetings, informal
activities, and the use of an external researcher to facilitate the collaborative process.
The previous studies did not examine the benefits of inquiry team meetings or
informal activities with respect to collaboration. Also, much of the literature focused
on trust being a factor in collaboration, but not how or what activities can facilitate
the development of relationships that build trust. Additional differences from this

110
study and the literature on collaboration were the participants and the methodological
design. The participants in my study were student affairs professionals working
directly with students versus the administrative student affairs professionals. The
methodological design used was a case study method that allowed for a more
comprehensive look into how collaboration was developed.
Implications for Practice
This study has multiple implications for practice concerning the development
and sustainability of relationships between academic affairs and student affairs
professionals. The following are implications for further practice:
1. Create avenues for dissemination of student affairs resources at an
institutional level. In order for information to circulate through community colleges,
colleges should be intentional in their facilitation of information between student
affairs and academic affairs professionals (Goh, 2002). According to the literature,
many academic affairs professionals are unaware of the various resources within
their respective campuses and the role of many student affairs positions (Engstrom &
Tinto, 2002). The results of the case study at Sunny College show that student
affairs professional’s primary reason for attending committees was to explain their
role and purpose within the institution and how they serve students. Therefore,
informational meetings and/or workshops should be conducted where teaching
faculty are informed of the various resources on campus rather than student affairs
professionals having to reach out. Since both professionals are aware of what
comprises academic work, it seems appropriate that academic affairs learn about

111
student affairs. This would allow for a reduction in hierarchical barriers because
academic affairs professionals would understand the responsibilities and resources
that the field of student affairs can provide for their students. Therefore, rather than
student affairs having to reach out to academic affairs, the relationship can be
reciprocated. Another vital use for these informational meetings is creating avenues
for informal relationships to occur within the institution. Many relationships
developed within the inquiry team during activities where discussions revolved
around personal lives thus allowing for deeper relationships to occur.
2. Promote the use of an external facilitator or committee chair. Hierarchical
relationships can inhibit individuals from participating in committees within higher
education institutions. There is a desire amongst individuals within the institution to
create an “egalitarian collegiality” (Greenwood & Levin, 2005, p. 45) when
participating in committees together. Yet, this type of relationship is not evident on
campuses where each individual works in their respective silos. The participants in
this study discussed the critical role of the committee chair in the progression of the
various campus committees. The concerns centered around the power held by the
committee chairs and how they were able to steer the committee in the direction they
desired.
Philpott & Strange (2003) address this power differential in their discussion
regarding further research by recommending the use of an independent facilitator.
The presence of a facilitator at Sunny College helped promote dialogue and sharing
for some of the student affairs professionals in this study. The use of the facilitator

112
was intentional in that “the professional researcher’s knowledge [was] combined
with the local knowledge of the stakeholders in defining the problem to be
addressed” (Greenwood & Levin, 2005, p. 51). The facilitator created an
environment for participation through the validation of student affairs professionals.
Acknowledging the contribution of comments and the knowledge that student affairs
bring to the inquiry team is one way to facilitate validation. In order to minimize
hierarchical relationships it is helpful for the independent facilitator to navigate
amongst the various stakeholders within the “transdisciplinary environment”
(Greenwood & Levin, 2005, p. 61). Within a transdisciplinary inquiry team meeting
there are administrators, academic affairs professionals, and student affairs
professionals and a facilitator must steer between the various professional positions
and assist in minimizing hierarchical boundaries.
3. Promote the use of weak ties throughout the institution. Individuals within
an institution tend to interact with other individuals that they already have a strong
tie relationship with and that reinforces the homogeneity of information that
circulates within the various departments. According to Huy (2001), interpersonal
ties are an important avenue to acquire skills and network with individuals to fulfill
job duties and responsibilities. Through participation in informal activities
individuals are able to develop informal relationships that become a pathway for the
dissemination of resources and knowledge. Many of the individuals within the
inquiry team, in this study, were able to elicit assistance from other participants
within the team for their own individual projects. The findings of this study show

113
that as a result of the student affairs and academic affairs relationships, there were
immediate benefits to the institution such as programs like a college fair focusing on
Historically Black Colleges, a Transfer Academy for incoming students, and a
program for faculty where student affairs professionals would make presentations in
classes that would otherwise have been cancelled.
4. Vital role of student affairs professionals. Much of the literature on
collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals focuses on
senior level administrators (Kezar, 2003b; Kollins, 1999; Whitt, Nesheim, Guentzel,
Kellogg, McDonald & Wells, 2008). Within these studies, collaboration tends to
occur in upper administration where the decisions are made and it is the student
affairs professionals that are delegated the responsibility of executing particular
tasks. Yet, in this study, the sample of professionals were individuals working more
intensively and directly with students and faculty. These individuals had a choice
within the inquiry team of whom to work with and whether they would continue to
have a relationship after the project was completed. The participants in this study
were the ones that reached out to academic affairs professionals to elicit assistance in
implementing programs or activities for students. This is important because such
critical out-of-classroom experiences allow for the development of cognitive,
affective, and emotional skills and capacities for students to meet the demands of
higher education institutions (Martin & Murphy, 2000).

114
Recommendations
In this section I will begin by providing recommendations for further
research. This study contributes to literature regarding what activities assist in the
development of relationships and to what degree these relationships can be sustained
outside of the immediate setting in which they were formed, in this case an action
research project.
The following are recommendations for further research:
1. In-depth faculty and student affairs assessment. This study was conducted
with only the student affairs professionals as the primary sample. Therefore, any
relationships described were from one side and not confirmed or discussed with the
academic affairs professionals. A study conducted examining both groups of
professionals would allow for an in-depth assessment and confirmation of
relationships. This would also provide some insight into factors that might encourage
academic affairs professionals to seek assistance from student affairs professionals.
Also, further research regarding the benefits of collaboration towards student
learning would help both academic and student affairs understand that partnerships
are worthwhile endeavors.
2. Methodological design. This study examined collaboration with
individuals working within an inquiry team and did not examine collaboration
between student affairs and academic affairs on a larger scale. A larger sample
would allow the researcher to see more variations in experiences and determine
whether the sentiments and thoughts expressed by the sample might be generalizable

115
to the institution as a whole. Also, it would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal
study with a sample of the professionals that participated in the initial collaboration
to determine whether relationships were maintained and whether further projects and
activities were implemented within the institution.
3. Role of race. Racial equity is still a major hurdle for higher education
institutions with respect to students and faculty (Smith & Wolf-Wendel, 2005). At
the community college in this study, as is the case at so many across the country,
there is a gap between the ethnic composition of students versus faculty. The
predominant composition of faculty is Caucasian, whereas the predominant
composition of students is Latino (Opp, 2002). In order to effectively minimize
some of the effects with respect to race the Caucasian faculty must “encompass an
understanding of the power and privilege…” (Reason and Evans, 2007, p. 71) they
hold. This difference in racial composition was also present within the inquiry team
between the academic affairs and student affairs professionals. This might have
further contributed to the power differential and the perception of hierarchical
relationships by the participants. In this study, minimal verbal participation was
noted by the student affairs professionals especially when the discussion of race was
raised. Further research is necessary in order to determine whether this is a factor
that needs to be addressed in the collaborative process.
Conclusion
For the past thirty years, colleges have been nationally criticized by
professional organizations and reports for the decline in the quality of education

116
(Kellogg Commission, 1999). A factor that has been presented as contributing to the
decline of education is the specialization of academic programs and student affairs
fields due the disjointed educational experience for students. This is in contrast to
the literature which suggests that student learning is heightened when both cognitive
and affective activities are interconnected (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
According to much of the literature, both student affairs and academic affairs
professionals have begun to isolate themselves from one another through “highly
specialized hierarchical” departments (Schroeder, 1999, p. 9). These departments
have differing focal areas when it comes to education. Student affairs professionals
have “advocated a holistic view of education, the traditional bifurcation of the
curriculum and cocurriculum separates students’ minds and identities. Traditional
pedagogy has been centered on students’ acquiring knowledge without regard to how
their own lives and experience mediate their beliefs” (Magolda, 2003, p. 17). This
study reinforces the views that the issue is the isolation of the professions not the
specializations of the units. However, in order to embrace the potential of an
institution, all individuals within the campus “must embrace an integrated view of
learning and forge effective educational partnerships that advance student learning,
foster educational attainment, and reinvigorate undergraduate education” (Schroeder,
1999, p. 16). The desire to facilitate this collaborative relationship has been
encouraged by numerous professional organizations as one way to address
accountability pressures towards student success.

117
There are numerous accountability pressures being placed on higher
education institutions. This stress on accountability has created “an emphasis on
learning assessment by accrediting agencies and state mandates for more
accountability for student learning” (Shavelson & Huang, 2003, p. 11). The most
effective institutions fully integrate student and academic affairs and focus all of the
resources on a shared goal which is usually student success (Winston, Creamer, &
Miller, 2001). Student success is promoted where are there is a “seamless learning
environment-settings where in-class and out-of-class experiences are mutually
supporting and where institutional resources are marshaled and channeled to achieve
complementary learning outcomes” (Schroeder, 1999, p. 6).
An avenue to pursue a positive learning environment for students is the
development of effective relationships between faculty and student affairs
professionals to maximize the educational potential of colleges and universities
(Streit, 1993, p. 40). Yet the development of these relationships is more complex
than is stated. The difficulty lies in addressing the hierarchy that exists within higher
educational institutions. In this study the student affairs professionals provided
information regarding the student support resources available on campus and they
elicited assistance for many of these activities. In order for the individuals to reach
out to academic affairs professionals they must feel that there is trust.
This study focused specifically on student affairs professionals, who are a
group of professionals that are fairly new to the higher educational realm and still
establishing their roles. For the most, part their roles and responsibilities are for

118
“implementing the strategies, policies, and decisions made by top managers” (Ebert
& Griffin, 1998, p. 138) but they “rarely have the ability to change or develop the
regulations they must enforce” (Rosser, 2000, p. 319). Yet, their organizational
placement and their responsibilities place them in an optimal position to provide key
linkages between students, faculty, and other resources within the campus. These
individuals tend to coordinate the vision of top administrators into actual practices
that can be implemented within the institution. Over the next ten years, mid-level
community college student affairs professionals will acquire more authority as they
fill leadership positions that will become vacant by a large percentage of high level
administrators entering the age of retirement (Evelyn, 2001). Therefore, these
professionals will highly influence the implementation of policies and practices
within the community college that will have the potential to create institutional
change.

119
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal
trust in knowledge-sharing networks, Academy of Management Executive,
17(4), 64-77.

Ahren, C. (2008). Closing the gap with student affairs staff: From margin to
mainstream, New Direction for Higher Education, 143, 83-91.

American Association of Higher Education, American College Personnel
Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
(1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning.
Retrieved August 25, 2008, from
http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/taskforce.pdf.

Andrews, K. M., & Delahay, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in
organizational learning: The psychosocial filter, Journal of Management
Studies, 37, 797-810.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A
new vision of learning as a nation goes to college. Retrieved August 25,
2008, from http://www.greaterexpecation.org/pdf/GEX.FINAL.pdf.

Bailey, T., Jenkins, D. & Leinbach, T. (2005). Graduation rates, student goals, and
measuring (Paper)

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (Eds.). (2004). Learning partnerships:
Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge
in the scholarship on student success, The Review of Higher Education,
30(4), 441-469.

Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G.L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing
research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1),
104-126.

Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and
learning in social networks, Management Science, 49, 432-445.

120
Bourassa, D. M. & Kruger, K. (2001). The national dialogue on academic and
student affairs collaboration, New Directions for Higher Education, 116, 9-
17.

Bragg, D. D. (2001). Community college access, mission, and outcomes:
Considering intriguing intersections and challenges, Peabody Journal of
Education, 76(1), 93-116.

Brass, D. J. (1995). A social network perspective on human resources management.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources management, 13, 39-79.

Bryan, L., Negretti, M., Christensen, F., & Stokes, S. (2002). Processing the process:
One research team’s experience of a collaborative research project,
Contemporary Family Therapy, 24(2), p. 333-353.

Coburn, C. E. & Russell, J. L. (2008). District Policy and Teachers’ Social
Networks, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

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

Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., Borgatti, S. (2001). Knowing what we know:
Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social network, Organizational
Dynamics, 30 (2), p. 100-120.

Dale, P. A. & Drake, T. M. (2005). Connecting academic and student affairs to
enhance student learning and success, New Directions for Community
Colleges, 131, 51-64.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Standards, accountability, and school reform,
Teachers College Record.

Dowd, A.C. (2008a). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving
beyond the access “saga” towards outcome equity, Harvard Education
Review.

Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V.P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship
of “best practice”. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher Education (Vol.
22, pp. 57-119): Springer Publishing.

Ebert, R. J. & Griffin, R. W. (1998). Business essentials (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

121
Engstrom, C. M., & Tinto, V. “Developing Partnerships with Academic Affairs to
Enhance Student Learning.” In M. J. Barr, M. K. Desler, and Associates
(eds.), The Handbook of Student Affairs Administration. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2000.

Evelyn, J. (2001). Community colleges face a crisis of leadership, Chronicle of
Education, 47(30), A36-37.

Fuhrman, S. & Elmore, R. F. (2004). Redesigning Accountability Systems for
Education, Teachers College Press.

Goecks, J. & Mynatt, E. D. (2004). Leveraging social networks for information
sharing. In Proc. ACM CSCW, 328-331.

Goh, S. C. (2002) Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework
and some practice implications, Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1),
23-30.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of
Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In
P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp.
105-130). Beverly Hills: Sage

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of
universities through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing
knowledge across organization subunits. Admin. Sci. Quarterly, 44, 82-111.

Hirsch, D. & Burack, C. (2001). Finding points of contact for collaborative work.
New Directions for Higher Education, 116, 53-63.

Huy, Q. N. (2001). In praise of middle managers, Harvard Business Review, 79(8),
72-79.

Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and
the learning organization, New Directions for Higher Education, 131, 7-22.

122
Kezar, A. (2003b). Achieving student success: Strategies for creating partnerships
between academic and student affairs, The NASPA Journal, 41(1), 1-22.

Kezar, A. (2003a). Enhancing innovative partnerships: Creating a change model for
academic and student affairs collaboration, Innovative Higher Education.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21
st

century: Recent research and conceptualizations, ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report, 28(4), 1-177.

Kezar, A. & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A
synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship,
Journal of Higher Education, 75, pg 371-399.

Kezar, A., Hirsch, D., & Burack, K. (Eds.). (2002c). Understanding the role of
academic and student affairs collaboration in creating a successful learning
environment, New Directions for Higher Education, 116. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass.

Lee, V. E., Mackie-Lewis, C. & Marks, H. M. (1993). Persistence to the
Baccalaureate degree for students who transfer from community college,
American Journal of Education, 102(1), 80-114.

Levin, D. Z. & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: Mediating
role of trust in effective knowledge transfer, Management Science, 50(11),
1477-1490.

Martin, J. & Murphy, S. (2000). Building a better bridge: Creating effective
partnerships between academic affairs and student affairs. Washington DC:
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.

McTaggert, R. (2001). Guiding principles for participatory action research. In C. F.
Conrad, J. G. Haworth & L. R. Lattuca (Eds.), Qualitative research in higher
education: Expanding perspectives (2
nd
ed., pp. 263-274). Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing.

Melguizo, T., & Dowd, A. C. (2006). National estimates of transfer access and
bachelor’s degree attainment at four-year colleges and universities. Los
Angeles, CA and Boston, MA: University of Southern California and
University of Massachusetts Boston.

123
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College
Personnel Association. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus
on the student experience. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College
Personnel Association. (2007). Learning reconsidered II: A campus-wide
focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 1995, 2003.
Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1995, 2003.

Noffke, S. E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action
research, Review of Research in Education, 22, 305-343.

Nuss, E. M. (2000). The Role of Professional Associations. In M. J. Barr, M. K.
Desler and Associates (eds.), The Handbook of Student Affairs
Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Opp, R. D. (2002). Enhancing Program Completion Rates Among Two-Year College
Students of Color, Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
26(2), 147-163.

Oudenhoven, B. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues,
uncertain solutions, New Directions for Community Colleges, 117, 35-44.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings
and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Philpott, J. L. & Strange, C. (2003). “On the Road to Cambridge”: A case study of
faculty and student affairs in collaboration, The Journal of Higher Education,
74(1), 77-95.

Price, J. (1999). Merging with academic affairs: A promotion or demotion for
student affairs? New Directions for Student Services, 87, 75-83.

Reason, R. D., & Evans, N. J. (2007). The complicated realities of Whiteness: From
color blind to racially cognizant. In S. R. Harper & L. D. Patton (Eds.),
Responding to the realities of race on campus (New Directions for Student
Services, No. 120, p. 67-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

124
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001a). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search
of a world worthy of human aspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
Handbook of action research (pp. 1-14). London: Sage Publications.

Roper, L. (2002). Achieving successful academic-practitioner research
collaborations, Development in Practice, 12(304) 338-45.

Rosser, V. J. (2000). Midlevel administrators: What We Know, New Directions for
Higher Education, 111, p. 5-13

Schroeder, C. C. (1999). Partnerships: An imperative for enhancing student learning
and institutional effectiveness, New Directions for Student Services, 87, 5-18.

Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.

Shavelson, R. J. & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly: To the frenzy to
assess learning in higher education, Change, 35(1), 10-19.

Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2005). Diminished access to the Baccalaureate for low-
income and minority students in California: The impact of budget and
capacity constraints on the transfer function, Educational Policy, 19(2), 418-
442.

Shulock, N., Moore, C., Offenstein, J., & Kirlin, M. (2008). It could happen:
Unleashing the potential of California’s Community Colleges to help students
succeed and California thrive, Sacramento: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy, California State University.

Smith, D. G. &Wolf-Wendel (2005). The challenge of diversity: Involvement or
alienation in the academy? ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(1), 1-100.

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

Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational
Review, 67, 1-40.

Streit, C. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: Barriers to collaboration between
academic and student affairs, Journal for Higher Education Management,
9(1), 39-45.

125
Swartz, P. S., Carlisle, A., & Uyeki, E. C. (2007). Libraries and student affairs:
Partners for student success, Reference Services Review, 35(1), 109-122.

Taylor-Powell, E., & Steele, S. (1996). Collecting evaluation data: Direct
observation. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative
Extension. Available: http://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/G3658_5.PDF

Tinto, V. (2000). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college,
NACADA Journal, 19(2), 5-9.

United States Census Bureau (1998). Available: http://www.census.gov

Wang, J., Ashleigh, M., Meyer, E. (2006). Knowledge sharing and team
trustworthiness: It’s all about social ties, Knowledge Management Research
& Practice, 4, 175-186.

Whitt, E. J., Nesheim, B. E., Guentzel, M. J. & Kellogg, A. G. (2008). “Principles of
Good Practice” for academic and student affairs partnership programs,
Journal of College Student Development, 49(3), 235-249.

Winston, R. B., Jr., Cremer, D. G., & Miller, T. K. (2001). The professional student
affairs administrator: Educator, leader, and manager. New York: Brunner-
Routledge.

Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162.

126
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE
(adapted from Action Inquiry Project)
Introductory Script: Project Overview
The goal of this study is to investigate factors that promote success in basic skills
education at your campus. Our interview today will last approximately one and half
hours during which I will ask you about your roles and responsibilities and
instructional views and practices.

All information you share with me during our interview will be kept in strictest
confidence. For example, your identify will not be revealed, nor will the information
you share with me be used against you or influence your teaching assignments. Your
participation in this study is voluntary. How much you decide to share with me in
the interview is completely at your discretion. You may decline to respond to any
questions I pose throughout the interview and you may withdraw from the study at
any point.

Do you have any questions for me before we begin?
I. Roles and Responsibilities
Let’s begin with some questions about your roles and responsibilities on campus:
1. What is your current position/title?
• How long have you been in the position? Full-time or part-time? What
schooling was necessary?

2. What responsibilities do you have at the transfer/financial aid/
articulation/student support services center?

• What activities do these responsibilities entail?
• Are these activities expected of you in your job title? If not, how did you
come to do them?

127

II. Instructional Views & Practices
3. Can you walk me through what an average day looks like?
• If applicable, when a student arrives how are they greeted? What
information are they given about the center? How are their needs
assessed?

4. What are the demographics [race/ethnicity, gender, age, parents] of students
who utilize the center/lab? Are the support services offered in the center
provided with these demographics in mind? [If yes] How?

5. What are the different ways you work with students at the center?
6. In your experience, what practices do you do at the center that promotes
student success?

7. What types of instructional training is provided for faculty/counselors who
work within the center? What types of training or orientation is provided for
faculty regarding the resources at the center?

III. Contextualizing Basic Skills/Developmental Education and Equity
8. How do you view the problems of student success in basic skills education at
your campus?

[Probe: rates of student success in the different basic skills levels courses?
Racial/gender gaps in achievement
Number of students who migrate from basic skills into college credit
coursework
Number of basic skills who transfer to 4-year college]
9. What institutional factors do you feel help do your job?
[Probe: prompt for institutional practices: departmental structure, course
curriculum, etc.
Resources: such as professional development, counseling, administrative
support
Policies: grading, assessment, campus initiatives]
10. What institutional factors create barriers for student success?

128

11. The notion of “equity” in educational settings can have many different
interpretations.

[What does it mean to you? How you explain achieving equity on your
campus?]

IV. Impact of Assessment and Evaluation
12. How are the activities assessed/evaluated?
• How often does the evaluation occur?
• Were you involved in the assessment process?
• Do you see a connection between the evaluation processes and student
success?

13. Have there been any students’ reaction to any changes at the center that were
created by the assessment process?

14. What would you say are three things that still need to occur to improve
student success in basic skills education in the center/lab?

129
APPENDIX B
SUPPLEMENTAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
IV. Interview Questions (Part II)
Social Networks
This question is to establish whether relationships occurred before/after
participation within The Action Inquiry Project. Also, to determine who in the
project each individual was able to develop a relationship with and whether the
project created access to other individuals.

1. Ask each interviewee whether they knew each team member prior to the
project.
(If they do know team members ask about nature of relationship and how
relationship developed?)

These questions are to determine whether relationships that have developed are
generalized to other arenas. For example, to determine whether rapport has been
developed where student affairs professionals feel comfortable enough to approach
faculty members for other projects.

2. Have you been in contact with any team member outside of the project?
3. Are there people that you spend most of your time with?
4. Can you tell me who they are by role/title?
(Ex: so if they don’t mention faculty-I notice none are faculty-why is that?)

Collaborative Research Traditions
These questions were developed to determine how participating in an action
research project allowed for relationships to occur within and outside of the project.
Also, to determine the nature of the relationships and what about the project allowed
for the relationships to flourish.

5. Can you tell me about a recent time/situation that brought you into contact
with faculty?

6. In the other committees you participate in do you come into contact with
faculty? How is it different from AIP?

130
7. Do you feel that relationships were facilitated in the AIP?
8. Can you speak about your collaborative involvement with other team
members? (Did it break down status barriers)

9. You spoke about times you reached out to faculty can you tell me about it?
10. What are some obstacles to creating relationships with faculty in action
research and outside group?

Nature of Collaboration
The purpose of these questions is to understand the nature of relationships between
student affairs professionals and faculty within higher education institutions as well
as at LBCC.

11. What are relationships like in general between student affairs and faculty
members within the institution?

12. How do faculty members view student affairs on campus?
13. What is it like to be (list position) here at LBCC?
14. Can you describe in general the relationship between faculty and student
affairs professionals?

15. If a friend of yours asked what is the relationship between faculty and student
affairs professionals what would you say?

The purpose of these questions is to understand whether the individual’s relationship
was a strong/weak tie? Also, to determine the level of trust within the relationship.

16. Have you sought out any person from the project for advice/information?
17. Can you speak to why or how you sought out a particular person? Ex: person
shared similar interests, person looked out for your interests, felt like the
person was competent?

18. Prior to seeking information/advice from this person would you have felt
awkward talking to this person?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Individuals within higher education institutions play a critical role in creating an environment that is conducive to promoting student success. Yet, these institutions struggle with promoting collaborative relationships specifically between individuals on campus such as academic affairs and student affairs professionals. To address the need for collaboration the most effective institutions fully integrate student and academic affairs and focus all of the resources on the shared goal of student success. Using a qualitative case study approach, this study examined the factors that promoted collaboration among academic affairs and student affairs professionals participating in an action inquiry project. This study offers a rich description of the experiences and perspectives of professionals within student affairs and their participation within the project.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors

PDF

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

The role of student affairs professionals: serving the needs of undocumented college students

PDF

Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM

PDF

Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment

PDF

Reframing the role of transfer facilitators: using action research methods for new knowledge development

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college

PDF

Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach

PDF

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

PDF

A grounded theory study on the academic success of undergraduate women in science, engineering, and mathematics fields at a private, research univerisity

PDF

Measuring professionalism in second-year medical students

PDF

Exploring ethnic and academic identity in resilient African American students: an in-depth analysis of the USC TRIO program

PDF

Twenty-first century skills and academic student achievement: a case study of Provence Polytechnic Charter School Organization

PDF

The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs

Asset Metadata

Creator Gaur, Seema (author)

Core Title An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/20/2009

Defense Date 04/27/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag action research,collaboration,community college,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Bensimon, Estela M. (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email docgaur@gmail.com,sgaur@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2381

Unique identifier UC1212018

Identifier etd-Gaur-3158 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-561687 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2381 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gaur-3158.pdf

Dmrecord 561687

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gaur, Seema

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu