Reinvention Center  
 
 
Our Goals
Who We Are
Events
Resources
Spotlight
Reinventions
Boyer Report
Brochure

Home

 
Boyer Report
 
  Stony Brook Logo  
  Contact us Join our network Level up  

Conference Proceedings
Index of Speakers and Session Leaders
Biographical Statements
Pre-Conference Meetings


  Integrating Research into Undergraduate Education: The Value Added
 

Forming Multi-Campus Partnerships

Leaders: Jeffrey Roberts, Professor of Chemistry, University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, and Robin Tanke, Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point

Recorder: Amanda Nienow, Graduate Student, Department of Chemistry, University of Minnesota at Twin Cities

Presentation:

Multi-campus partnerships offer the possibility of increasing the quality and quantity of research experiences that an institution can offer its undergraduate students. They also provide a mechanism for invigorating and energizing faculty members, particularly those from departments that are small or lack a research-friendly environment. Using the Research Site for Educators at the University of Minnesota (MN RSEC; www.chem.umn.edu/rsec) as a starting point, this session examined goals and strategies in setting up multi-campus partnerships between a research university and institutions whose primary mission is undergraduate education. The two session leaders are both involved in the MN RSEC, which is designed to bring together faculty from undergraduate institutions (i.e. community colleges, baccalaureate colleges, and universities that offer master’s degrees) and faculty from research universities to enhance the research and educational opportunities in chemistry at both the undergraduate and research universities. Dr. Robin Tanke is a professor of chemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, a small comprehensive university with an average of fifteen chemistry majors, and Dr. Jeffrey Roberts is a professor of chemistry at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, a large research university. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the MN RSEC involves approximately 35 undergraduate colleges. The University of Minnesota benefits from the partnerships by enriching the schools’ undergraduate education in chemistry and attracting their students to Minnesota’s graduate program. The other participating institutions benefit by gaining funds and other resources, by having access to experiences that are not available on their own campuses, and by getting important advice.

The session leaders posed four questions for the group to discuss:

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of building multi-campus partnerships? What specific benefits do undergraduates gain? In deciding whether to partner with another institution, when do you say “yes” and when do you say “no”?
  • How do you ensure partner equity, especially when a broad range of institutional types are involved? How do you accommodate widely varying needs, capabilities, and resources?
  • How do you design a partnership for permanence? What are the best strategies to employ to avoid making success dependent on the leadership of one or two people? How are new leaders best recruited?
  • What are the most significant hurdles to building new partnerships? How do you convince administrators and colleagues to see value in a multi-campus partnership that provides modest financial benefits to any one institution?

Discussion:

Participants had three main interests in wanting to learn about multi-campus partnerships: To learn how to overcome problems and establish real partnerships with area schools (including K-12 schools), to develop successful NSF undergraduate research centers, and to form successful relationships with the larger community. In all three instances, establishing productive partnerships requires first, identifying the goals driving the alliances and then devising strategies for initiating and sustaining them so that they retain their effectiveness and vitality.

Partnerships provide a useful way to bring together resources from a variety of sources to solve specific problems and to build community-wide relationships. Benefits from such partnerships can be plentiful, but the road to success is often filled with challenges. The first challenge is often how to initiate a successful partnership. Several conditions must be present:

  • Successful partnerships must begin with good relationships among the prospective partners. These relationships allow for the growth of trust, respect, and knowledge of each other’s programs. Often, these relationships begin before any formal partnership exists. Through these relationships, program needs and individual strengths can be accessed. All sides can see how they can benefit themselves and their partners by formalizing a partnership.
  • Once the decision is made to form a partnership, the specific goals of all the partnership must be articulated and presented to the group so that from the outset there is an openness to the process. This openness facilitates trust among the various partners, as well as a sense of ownership.
  • A plan of accountability and flexibility, are essential.

A major challenge in developing successful partnerships relates to funding. While funding is needed to sustain and govern successful partnerships, it is only part of a partnership. A partnership must have a deeper reason than funding to exist if its programs are to endure. In addition, funding is often provided by agencies that have specific goals that may or may not match all the goals of the partnership. It becomes important to keep all partnership goals in mind when working with a funding agency. When searching for funding for a specific partnership initiative, sustainability needs to be addressed. One must ask, “are we looking for an enduring program or enduring effects of a program?” At the outset, the partners must determine whether the ultimate goal is to establish a long standing program or to produce effects which will improve all of the partners.

Institutions face many barriers as they attempt to form effective partnerships. One challenge is to convince colleagues to become involved. Often, faculty and administration do not see the benefits they would derive from the association, nor do they feel that the benefits are worth the time they would be expected to commit to the project. It was suggested that skeptical faculty members and administrators be invited to join the partnership once evidence of success can be demonstrated. “Converts” often become the biggest advocates of partnership programs. A second barrier is funding, particular after the initial grant that has supported the development of the partnership runs out. A third, more persistent challenge is establishing equity among the partners. Despite their different needs, capabilities, and resources, all partners must have a sense of ownership of the program and contribute equally, though the nature of their contributions may vary. In order to succeed, a partnership must find ways to ensure equity. There is no precise formula for this. Every partnership is likely to find its own way of balancing interests.

The session concluded with participants talking about the lessons they learned as they attempted to establish successful partnerships:

  • Partnership members must be willing to travel to other partner institutions.
  • Faculty and administrators at a research institution must be sure that programs offered by the partnership are sensitive to the different needs of all the partners and include an educational process through which other partners learn about such matters as obtaining external funds, writing grants, and becoming involved with collaborative projects.
  • Many colleagues will become involved in a partnership program after the partnership is established and successful. Regardless of their level of involvement, they will most likely expect the faculty member or administrator who initiated the partnership on their campus to solve all of the program’s problems.
  • Although everyone may agree on program/partnership goals, the bottom line for participating members may differ. In a partnership made up of research universities, K-12 schools, and science museums, for example, specific program goals were set at the start of the project. When the members however started to initiate activities to achieve the goals, it became apparent that they had different interests. The researchers were concerned that the program be accurate and impart factual information. The K-12 educators had to follow educational standards, and the museums were eager to get more people through the door. Once these differences were identified, it took time and a concerted effort by numerous parties to address them. Moreover, some of partners ultimately dropped out of the partnership.
  • Equity is key to a successful partnership. All partners must see the benefits of involvement and must be involved 100%.
  • A core of committed people is needed for every successful partnership, though the make-up of this core may differ widely.
  • Accountability and flexibility allow for success.

Recommendations:

For Individual Campuses

Session participants identified five requirements of successful partnerships:

  • They must be organic and all partners must be equal.
  • They must bring the strengths of all the partners together.
  • Partnerships should be structured around needs, not funding. They should formalize and expand existing relationships.
  • A partnership is only worthwhile if it becomes greater than the sum of the parts.
  • An enduring effect of a program is not the same as an enduring program.” (Dr. Stephen May). At the outset, partners must determine whether the ultimate goal is to establish a long-standing program or to produce effects that will improve all of the partners. These ultimate goals will affect funding and program/partnership goals.

For The Reinvention Center

  • The Reinvention Center should compile an inventory of resources that provide models of good partnerships and partnership formation. These resources should describe successes and failures encountered while establishing partnerships.

Resources/References

Websites

  1. The Research Site for Educators at the University of Minnesota is a National Science Foundation-funded initiative that fosters scientific interactions between a large, Ph.D.-granting chemistry department and the departments of 30-35 primarily undergraduate institutions. www.chem.umn.edu/rsec
  2. The University of Colorado-based Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities uses interdisciplinary research and multi-campus partnerships in the research and development of innovative technologies to enhance the lives of people with cognitive disabilities. http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cue01/projects/coleman2.html and www.cu.edu/ColemanInstitute/
  3. The National Science Foundation Undergraduate Research Centers (URC) Summary of Program Requirements NSF 05-539 replaces NSF 03-595. The requirements can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsf05539/nsf05539.htm