1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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%

7. 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)

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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