1. Collaborative Research and the Building of a Research Agenda

2. What is Collaborative Research? From Katz & Martin (1997): “… the working together of researchers to achieve the common goal of producing new… knowledge.”

3. Levels of Collaboration Discipline Institutional Individual

4. Communication – styles, dispersed teams Individual priorities – salience Personality Experience/Knowledge Career goals

5. Institutional Scheduling Organizational priorities (strategic goals) Resources (personnel, $, course/workload) Culture

6. Discipline Norms (co-authorship, ownership, etc.) Methods Standards (What is “good” research?) Tools (software)

7. Increasing Level of Institutionalization/Networking Burgeoning Research Topic Nascent Network Knowledge Value Collective Stable Research Field Discipline Corley et al. (2006)

8. AIM Alliance Research Collaboration Goals To provide a model of cost-effective, comparative, and replicable research for the field To agree upon a common methodology, conduct each state’s component concurrently, and disseminate the results jointly

9. AIM Alliance Research Collaboration The first collaborative research project identified was on giving and volunteering because: – Research on G&V was conducted by the three centers – Timing of survey in the Spring

10. AIM Alliance Process of Collaboration Unlike other regional studies, these analyses shared a common research protocol: –Used COPPS as the core survey questions –Common method for data cleaning –Common method for weighting processes –Common approach to empirical analyses –Common rules for identifying outliers –Collected data over the same timeframe (Summer 2007)

11. AIM Alliance Process of Collaboration Other shared personnel to facilitate comparability and collaboration: –Used the same telephone survey subcontractor in all three states (MCIC) –Used the same team to analyze and write up the results for the joint project (IU) –Used one team to negotiate and monitor all subcontracts (IU)

12. Methodological Considerations for IU Maintain the integrity and comparability of the regional studies by using COPPS. –Center on Philanthropy has invested over $5 million in developing, testing, and implementing COPPS in several national and regional studies

13. Methodological Considerations for IU Maintain the integrity and comparability of the regional studies by using appropriate econometric techniques that take into consideration the censoring or truncation inherent in giving and volunteering research (probit and tobit regressions)

14. Methodological Considerations for ASU Data that are consistent with previous studies Usefulness for local nonprofit community Over-sampling of Hispanic community for a better understanding of Hispanic giving and volunteering

15. Methodological Considerations for GVSU Data that are consistent with previous studies Comparability between both the state of Michigan and the county Inconsistencies in the methodology (i.e. the birthday rule) between this study and previous studies Over-sampling of Hispanic and African American community (needed for local partners) Inclusion of informal giving questions

16. Points of Collaboration Individual Collaboration –Styles/Personality –Experience and Knowledge Institutional Collaboration –Research Expertise –Efficient use of resources and personnel Alliance Collaboration –Overall coordination and responsibility –Common goals and expectations

17. Barriers to Collaboration Collaboration takes time and money Collaboration requires compromises Collaboration necessitates more communication Accountability is different in a collaboration Decision-making inherently is more complex and therefore more time-consuming

18. Barriers to Collaboration Necessitates balancing individual and institutional goals vs. those of the collaboration –Individual goals may not be consistent –Institutional goals may not be consistent Sharing credit and costs are inherently more complex Perceptions of fairness may not be uniform Timelines are extended

19. Outcomes Valid and highly reliable survey Larger sample that allows for more stratified analysis Regional giving data comparison as a contribution to the field Ability to compare with COPPS dataset Knowledge transfer among the partner universities

20. The Future of Research Collaboration At least two more papers from the collaborative research will be presented at ARNOVA 2008 –Informal Giving –Volunteering Hope that others will collaborate on comparable regional studies of giving and volunteering