A Model for Partnerships: Critical Steps for Successful Collaborations Pamela L. Eddy DIT Fulbright Scholar The College of William and Mary We have been working on a study of partnerships across educational sectors for the last several years. This area is of interest because: Policy makers promote partnerships as a means to invoke change in education HEA Goals Policy is filtered through social and organizational capital of leaders and others involved in partnering Today, I focus on the partnership process with PRTLI

Agenda Critical Incident Partnership Model Case Study Examples Application and Training Needs Summary

Critical Incident In considering the MMI collaboration, what would you describe as a critical incident for the partners? What is positive in the MMI story? What challenges exist? How could these challenges be leveraged for opportunity? Key Points? Themes? Commonalities—use to define goals

Research Question How do the strategic initiatives in tertiary education in Ireland impact university partnerships? What were institutional and faculty motivations for participation? What supported the partnerships? What challenged the partnerships? “leaders” refers to key players in the partnership, whether or not they have positional authority or are seen as champions of the partnership - many different definitions of social capital, depending on the disciplinary orientation. In addition to the different ways of thinking about and using the concept in the literature, we also wanted definitions with applicability and utility when studying organizational issues in higher education.

Background Universities Act 1997 recognized seven universities Regional Technical Colleges Act 1999 designated 13 institutes of technology In 1998 the HEA launched PRTLI (Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions) Four cycles of PRTLI have occurred with review underway for cycle 5. After careful review, we opted for this definition by Adler. The definition lets us look at both internal and external factors that affect relationships upon which things like partnerships are built; it also remains useful when we focus specifically on members or leaders of partnerships and others within colleges and universities, which is important to the work we are doing. Adler and others identify key components of social capital resting on the idea of relationships and social networks. Density: strength and closeness of relationships High levels of density relate to trust. more trust at the beginning & throughout = partners likely to be more flexible with one another, leads to persistence in difficult times within the collaboration. is also likely to be important in developing norms, mutual expectations have to have enough interaction with each other to establish/maintain the norms and level of trust strong ties are those that are more credible and trusted sources of information (or other resources) Centrality: extent to which person is central to overall structure. Not an individual attribute but a function of the structure of relationships and likely the culture of the org. One’ s position in the social network affects how one is viewed as a leader [and hence the ability to “see” informal leaders] centrality gained by 1)

PRTLI Summary Goal: Strengthening national research capabilities via investment in human and physical infrastructure. Total awarded is €865,273,117 Total number of projects funded is 83 28 in Biosciences and Biomedicine 9 in Chemical and Physical Sciences 14 in Information and Comm. Technology 4 in Platform Technologies & Research Lib 17 in Humanities and Social Sciences 11 in Envir., Marine, and Natural Sciences Bio 48% Chem 9% Comm 12% Plat Tech 5% Res Lib 6% Humanities 11% Environment 9%

Case Study Selection Humanities Serving Irish Society (HSIS) e-INIS/Cosmogrid (Irish Nat’l Infrastructure) GradCAM (Graduate School of Creative Arts and Media Molecular Medicine Ireland Environment and Climate Change HSIS 8 partners (28.9 million) E-INIS 5 partners (12.4 million) emerged from Cosmogrid 8 partners (11.8 million) GradCAM 2 partners (2.1 million) plus art academy Molecular medicine 5 partners (13.5 million) Environment and Climate Change 6 partners (11.6 million)

Elements of a Partnership Social Capital of Individuals Density Trust Centrality Organizational Capital of Institutions Resources Power/Status Context Density: strength and closeness of relationships High levels of density relate to trust. more trust at the beginning & throughout = partners likely to be more flexible with one another, leads to persistence in difficult times within the collaboration. is also likely to be important in developing norms, mutual expectations have to have enough interaction with each other to establish/maintain the norms and level of trust strong ties are those that are more credible and trusted sources of information (or other resources) Centrality: extent to which person is central to overall structure. Not an individual attribute but a function of the structure of relationships and likely the culture of the org. One’ s position in the social network affects how one is viewed as a leader [and hence the ability to “see” informal leaders] centrality gained by 1) For various reasons, members of partnerships may have more/less social and organizational capital and be more/ less able to use social and org’l capital at any given point, which adds very dynamic feature to understanding partnerships In pre-partnership and early partnership development, Relationships (social capital) are key in the early phase to get partnership started and moved to institutional phase; Potential partners may be assessed based on their centrality to the main goal of the partnership as well as the network of “others” they can bring to the table; they may be selected because of their existing relationship with another member of the prospective partnership; and they may become viable choices because of issues of trust or shared espoused value in the objectives of the project. This is different than assuming that partners are selected because of their organizational resource base; we aren’t ignoring this piece but suggesting that people may be initially interested or sought out because of social capital contributions Social capital also suggests that the partners don’t have to be in senior positions but has to have access in their network to those higher up or who have other bases of capital necessary to accomplish the tasks of the partnership After careful review, we opted for this definition by Adler. The definition lets us look at both internal and external factors that affect relationships upon which things like partnerships are built; it also remains useful when we focus specifically on members or leaders of partnerships and others within colleges and universities, which is important to the work we are doing. Adler and others identify key components of social capital resting on the idea of relationships and social networks.

The Developing Partnership Partnership Model Power/Resources/ Intention Centrality Trust Density Partnerships Motivation Outcomes Network Shared Beliefs Shared Norms #1 #2 #3 Context Context Potential Partners Within the partnership—elements of power, rank/status, resources, and intentions exist. Power/Resources/ Intention Stage I Antecedents Stage II The Developing Partnership Stage III Partnership Capital

Role of the Champion Understands organization – culture, resources, politics Acts as resource broker and networker Transformational leaders develop extensive external networks to diverse set of contacts Understands own organizational and social capital Leadership is bringing together the right people at the right time in order to get the job done When you can bridge diverse groups, you get different information and insights, and maybe even resources; [different groups still have to be relevant to the task though, or else it’s a resource drain] In thinking about how change occurs, it is easy enough to see how the ideas of social capital come together with the way we usually think about organizational capital – what resources one has as a function of one’s place in the organization AND how all of this connects to leadership – bringing people together

Inviting People to the Partnership Development: Stage I – Antecedents Centrality Trust Density Motivation Antecedents Context Various levels of motivation—based on past experiences For example HSIS report on cultural programming—serve as umbrella group Motivations differ—Following a common vision versus following the money For various reasons, members of partnerships may have more/less social and organizational capital and be more/ less able to use social and org’l capital at any given point, which adds very dynamic feature to understanding partnerships In pre-partnership and early partnership development, Relationships (social capital) are key in the early phase to get partnership started and moved to institutional phase; Potential partners may be assessed based on their centrality to the main goal of the partnership as well as the network of “others” they can bring to the table; they may be selected because of their existing relationship with another member of the prospective partnership; and they may become viable choices because of issues of trust or shared espoused value in the objectives of the project. This is different than assuming that partners are selected because of their organizational resource base; we aren’t ignoring this piece but suggesting that people may be initially interested or sought out because of social capital contributions Social capital also suggests that the partners don’t have to be in senior positions but has to have access in their network to those higher up or who have other bases of capital necessary to accomplish the tasks of the partnership Potential Partners

Negotiating and Defining the Group Stage II – The Developing Partnership Intentions Resource Rank/ Status Partnerships Outcomes Power #1 #2 #3 At this stage, a critical element is the role of loyalities -- In order for the partnership to develop, have to move beyond strictly self-interest of the partners – get buy-in, ownership, and moving beyond mandates and expediency Intention ----shared meaning may occur on a macro level, but differences in intentionality/motivation may conflict w/ shared meaning at micro level. Can be threat to partnership (differences in why people enter and what they think will be gained) -- intentions of partners and as therefore, institutions play into relationships. If intentions are not aligned well, there may be a need for more capital Rank/Status – of individual and sometimes of unit/org - partners are likely not always at same level of authority/rank, so relationship may be affected as it evolves; What is the resource base? what kind of network does each partner have? And if the resource base doesn’t include enough to sustain the partnership, does the network include those people who do? Does each partners understand the impact of their own and others’ rank/status on how the partnership can move forward? Power/resources - --even though norms or meta goals may be the same, how each organization enacts the goals/norms may be different. institutional comparability: when k-12 and higher ed systems try to work together have to consider things like norms and culture of faculty and K-12 fac/staff, who controls curriculum, governing board involvement, etc. -- processes easily connected to the relationship may provide add’l org’l capital for one partner more than another (e.g., ease of transfer processes; non-union faculty) --more developed partnership becomes and when it comes into crisis, we may see social capital (relationships) providing glue for aspects of org’l capital related to sustaining the partnership In addition to understanding the intentionality, status, power and resources each partner brings to the relationships, it is important to remember someone or someone(S) is framing and communicating the meaning of the partnership and generating buy-in. Whoever is playing this role most clearly may be establishing a strong base of centrality Context Partners

Stage II—Conflicted Loyalties Partnerships Disciplinary #1 #2 #3 Institutional Pulls against the partnership What can leverage against this? External environment impacts the pulls. Group

Sustainability/Outcomes/Failure Stage III – Partnership Capital— Power/Resources/Intention Network Shared Beliefs Shared Norms Based on our research, we think the idea of partnership capital may be something that emerges as the collaboration evolves; this represents some early thinking on this idea Brings together the social capital of each partner though not necessarily equally or consistently over time; partnership capital helps with institutionalizing the partnership and creating a basis for sustaining it -- impact of sustainability is affected by champion’s position and capital (e.g., Lucian’s involvement would effect LCC, but not necessarily howell/chuck, but chuck’s involvement would impact both If even with partnership capital, not all partners contribute equally, capital differences have to be managed: this is where partners’ intent for relationship comes into play Power/Resources/Intention Power/Resources/Intention 14

Findings Motivations matter Social Capital of Champion/Partners Key Conflict resolution makes or breaks the day Context matters Money versus Common Ground—makes a difference in what holds partnership together Movers and shakers—relationship skills; negotiation; framing Conflict exists—how to manage Over meaning Over recognition Over goals

Key Roles Policy Makers Institutions Policy can impact institutional strategies Clarity is important Simple reporting central Enhanced feedback Address sustainability Workshops on conflict resolution Institutions Prioritize strategies—but still support broad range Risk of lone ranger stance Sustainability Policy can impact institutional strategies—needs to be stable and not constantly shifting Easy to follow application process and rules

Key Roles Partners Vision versus money Role of social/organizational capital Creation of meaning for group Framework and transparency Governance Long-range planning Gaseous nature of social and organizational capital that make them highly dependent on context, players and intent of what is unifying about the partnership Hence the importance of upfront and continuous needs assessment

Conclusion Money helps, but motivations differ Split loyalties lead to challenges Faculty rewards matter—need to address Risk of “one-shot” programming Consideration of partnering to what end

Case Study Analysis 2 groups for Case Study review “Haves”—Algonquin College; Mountain College “Have-nots”—Downstate College; Cabin State College; Northern College Review case questions—small groups Share larger group Lessons learned

Summary MMI best practices Framing the partnerships Conflict negotiation Lobbying efforts What does it mean to be the convener? A part of and apart from—or/and Role of power—what is there? Framing Benefits—role of time and symbolism