SpringerLink
Log in

Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Employing phenomenological techniques this qualitative study investigates perceptions of collaborative relationships between instructional designers and faculty at an R1 university. While past research has considered the growing involvement of instructional designers in course development, and knowledge and skills expected from an instructional designer, little attention has been paid to what constitutes an effective collaboration and how it can be developed from the perspectives of both instructional designers and faculty. Based on semi-structured interviews of faculty and instructional designers, the following four thematic categories were uncovered: (1) reasons for collaborative efforts; (2) structure of collaborative relationships; (3) supports of and barriers to collaboration; and (4) essential competencies and strategies for instructional designers and faculty in a collaborative partnership. Our findings support the existing research on the importance of collaboration between instructional designers and faculty, and spotlights instructional designers in the higher education setting. They also outline key elements of an effective relationship, including understanding the role of an instructional designer, trust and rapport building (and its components), administrative support and faculty buy-in. Suggestions are made for to how overcome potential barriers to ensure an effective and collaborative partnership. Implications and future directions for research and training programs are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Wellesley MA: Babson Survey Research Group, e-Literate, and WCET. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/digtiallearningcompassenrollment2017.pdf

  • American Association of University Professors. (1994). The work of faculty: Expectations, priorities, and rewards. Academe, 80(1), 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Council on Education. (n.d.). Unbundling versus designing faculty roles. Presidential Innovation Lab. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Unbundling-Versus-Designing-Faculty-Roles.pdf

  • Anglin, G., & Morrison, G. (2000). An analysis of distance education research: Implications for the instructional technologist. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(3), 189–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashkenas, R. (2015). There is a difference between cooperation and collaboration. Business Insider (electronic edition). https://hbr.org/2015/04/theres-a-difference-between-cooperation-and-collaboration

  • Bakken, J., & Simpson, C. (2011). Mnemonic strategies: Success for the young-adult learner. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 7(2), 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T. (2005). Let the experiment be made. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Let-the-Experiment-Be-Made/45014/

  • Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R., Tamim, R., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: The general and the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 136–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonvillian, W., & Weiss, C. (2015). Technological innovation in legacy sectors. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bower, B. (2001). Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2) [Electronic edition]. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html

  • Brooks, C. D. (2016). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Louisville, CO: ECAR Research report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B., Eaton, S., Jacobsen, D., Roy, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Instructional design collaboration: A professional learning and growth experience. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3) [electronic edition]. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/brown_0913.htm

  • Campbell, A. (2011). Collaboration is misunderstood and overused. Harvard Business Review (electronic edition). Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/09/collaboration-is-misunderstood

  • Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 645–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, I., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNN Money. (2013). Best jobs in America. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/pf/best-jobs/2013/snapshots/76.html

  • Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle & K. Mark (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology (pp. 48–71). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlstrom, E. (2015). Educational technology and faculty development in higher education. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

  • Dempsey, J., Albion, P., Litchfield, B., Havard, B., & McDonald, J. (2007). What do instructional designers do in higher education? A written symposium. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 221–233). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries, D. L. (1975). The relationship of role expectations to faculty behavior. Research in Higher Education, 3(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, K., Lindner, J., Telg, R., Irani, T., Moore, L., & Lundy, L. (2007). Roadmap to measuring distance education instructional design competencies. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(2), 151–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erwin, R. (2016). How instructional designers can overcome faculty resistance. EdSurge News. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-05-11-how-instructional-designers-can-overcome-faculty-resistance

  • Fyle, C. O., Moseley, A., & Hayes, N. (2012). Troubled times: The role of instructional design in a modern dual-mode university? Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27(1), 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibby, S., Quiros, O., Demps, E., & Liu, M. (2002). Challenges of being an instructional designer for new media development: A view from the practitioners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 195–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J., Donnely, J., & Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behavior, structure, process (13th ed.). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2012). Instructional designer competencies. Retrieved from http://ibstpi.org/instructional-design-competencies/

  • Intentional Futures. (2016). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers. Retrieved from http://intentionalfutures.com/reports/instructional_design/.

  • Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2017). 2017 survey of faculty attitudes on technology: A study by Gallup and Inside Higher Ed. Washington, DC: Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2017-survey-faculty-attitudes-technology

  • Jones, S., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, Y., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). A job announcement analysis of educational technology professional positions: Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(3), 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. e-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Martin, B. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, La Revue Canadienne De L’Apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 31(1). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/147/140

  • Klein, J., & Fox, E. (2004). Performance improvement competencies for instructional technologists. TechTrends, 48(2), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Jun, S. (2014). Skills for instructional design professionals. Performance Improvement, 53(2), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, E., & Kalata, K. (2007). A model for enhancing online course development. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 4(2), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2017). Teaching online: A practical guide (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher education really do? International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 371–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, B., & Lawson, R. (2013). Dissecting word-of-mouth’s effectiveness and how to use it as a proconsumer tool. Journal for Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 25(4), 374–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lengel, J. G. (2013). Education 3.0: Seven steps to better schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lowenthal, P. R., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). An analysis of what instructional designers need to know and be able to do analysis of what instructional designers need to know and be able to do to get a job. Paper presented at meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/plowenthal/aect-2010-an-analysis-of-what-instructional-designers-need-to-know

  • Maitre, H., & Smith, S. (2009). Managing ID in the context of a training organization. In K. Silber & W. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, volume one: Instructional design and training delivery (pp. 658–719). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470592663.ch19.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S., & Stein, G. (2016). Finding our voice: Instructional designers in higher education. Educause Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/2/finding-our-voice-instructional-designers-in-higher-education

  • Mooney, L. (n.d.). The disadvantages of word of mouth advertising. Chron. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-word-mouth-advertising-26133.html

  • Morrison, G. (1988). The instructional designer-subject specialist relationship: Implications for professional training. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(2), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02905000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moskal, T. M. (2012). Instructional designers in higher education. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (No. 3546879).

  • Nafukho, F., & Irby, B. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of research on innovative technology integration in higher education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8170-5.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oblinger, D., & Hawkins, B. (2006). The myth about online course development. Educause Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2006/1/the-myth-about-online-course-development

  • Offerman, D. (2010). The collaborative approach to develo** online courses. Distance Education Report, 14(4), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, C. C., Deets, J., Phillips, W., & Cornell, R. (2003). Pulling tigers’ teeth without getting bitten: Instructional designers and faculty. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J., & Brooks, D. C. (2017). ECAR study of faculty and information technology, 2017. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/10/facultyitstudy2017.pdf

  • Puzziferrato, M., & Shelton, K. (2008). A model for develo** high-quality online courses: Integrating a systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3–4), 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2008). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach (4th ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubley, J. (2016). Instructional designers in higher ed: Changing the course of next-generation learning. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://results.chronicle.com/LP=1341?CIGNNGSLENSP?elqTrack=true

  • Russ-Eft, D., Bober, M. J., de la Teja, I., Foxon, M. J., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008). Evaluator competencies standards for the practice of evaluation in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammons, M., & Ruth, S. (2007). The invisible professor and the future of virtual faculty. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_07/article01.htm

  • Sanders, C. (2003). Application of Colaizzi’s method: Interpretation of an auditable decision trail by a novice researcher. Contemporary Nurse Journal, 14(3), 292–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattuck, K. (2013). Faculty participation in online distance education. In M. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 390–402). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leusen, P., & Millard, M. (2012). Interpersonal consulting skills: Building an effective relationship with our faculty. Paper presented at the 28th annual conference on distance teaching & learning, University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/955e/96c2f16760d0fe2a25e3b7d9b52a337e3fc2.pdf

  • Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weise, M., & Christensen, C. (2014). Higher education: Mastery, modularization, and the workplace revolution. Boston: Clayton Christensen Institute. Retrieved from http://www.christenseninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Hire-Education.pdf

  • West, R. E., Thomas, R. A., Bodily, R., Wright, C., & Borup, J. (2017). An analysis of instructional design and technology departments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 869–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1986). On collaboration. Political Science and Politics, 19(2), 237–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank our colleagues Dr. Hui-Ching Hsu, Dr. Papia Bawa, and Damji Heo for their work on this research project. Their efforts are greatly appreciated.

Funding

This study was unfunded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, BRNG 3142, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Jennifer C. Richardson, Iryna Ashby, Ali Nazil Alshammari, Zui Cheng, Brian S. Johnson, Terri S. Krause, Daeyeoul Lee, Anthony E. Randolph & Huanhuan Wang

Authors
  1. Jennifer C. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iryna Ashby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Nazil Alshammari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zui Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brian S. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Terri S. Krause
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Daeyeoul Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anthony E. Randolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Huanhuan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer C. Richardson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview guide for faculty group

Background

  1. 1.

    Could you tell us a little about how you usually design and develop your courses? (design = plan and can include learning objectives, syllabus development, choosing instructional strategies selecting relevant media).

    1. a.

      How do you design or plan for a new course?

    2. b.

      A course you are revising?

    3. c.

      What is your typical process for develo** a course (build out, create materials)

  2. 2.

    What types of courses have you designed/developed: online, face-to-face, blended, or flipped courses?

  3. 3.

    What types of challenges do you typically face when you design and develop courses? Can you describe them? (e.g. integrating new tools? narrowing the course content? Selecting the best instructional strategies for engagement and learning?)

    1. a.

      How have you handled these challenges?

  4. 4.

    Have you faced any challenges or issues after implementing a course that you designed yourself?

    1. a.

      Can you describe them? How did you handle these challenges?

Process/Working with an Instructional Designer

  1. 5.

    The job of an instructional designer and what they can do for faculty is often a well-kept secret. How did you come to learn about the possibility of working with an instructional designer? From a colleague? Program solicitation like IMPACT?

  2. 6.

    What prompted you to initiate working with an instructional designer?

    1. (a)

      Can you tell me about that experience? For example, can you describe the project you worked on with the instructional designer?

    2. (b)

      Was it for a course, a learning activity?

    3. (c)

      How long did it take to complete the project?

    4. (d)

      What were the roles or responsibilities that you had?

    5. (e)

      What were the roles or responsibilities that the instructional designer had?

    6. (f)

      How was this division of labor determined?

    7. (g)

      How was the project information communicated and shared among all the members of the team? Email, face to face meetings, etc.

    8. (h)

      How often did you meet with the instructional designer and for how long did you typically meet? (Duration of time)

  3. 7.

    How would you describe your working relationships with the instructional designer? In other words, what did you find as a positive outcomes from this experience?

  4. 8.

    What could have improved your experience working with an Instructional Designer?

  5. 9.

    What strategies do you use/could you use to work more effectively with faculty?

    1. a.

      Collaboration strategies

    2. b.

      Interpersonal strategies (person-to-person strategies)

Recommendations

  1. 10.

    What factors do you think are important to a successful collaboration between faculty and instructional designers?

  2. 11.

    What knowledge and skills do you think a good instructional designer should have? For example, what critical knowledge and skills did recognize as important element during your experience?

  3. 12.

    What advice would you offer to an instructional designer who is new to working with faculty?

  4. 13.

    What advice would you offer to a faculty member who works with an instructional designer for the first time?

  5. 14.

    In addition to personal investment, what other supports should be in place to ensure effective collaboration between faculty and instructional designers? (e.g., organizational supports, approval from the department?)

Closing out

Is there anything else you would like to share that may be related to effectively collaborating with instructional designers that I have not asked?

Appendix B: Interview guide for instructional designer group

Background

  1. 1.

    In your pre-survey, you have listed that you work as an instructional designer at __________. Could you please describe in more detail your role and responsibilities?

  2. 2.

    On what type of projects do you usually work with faculty? For example, are they entire courses, individual learning activities?

  3. 3.

    Based on your experiences with faculty how do you think they view the job of an instructional designer? In your opinion, what influences such perceptions?

  4. 4.

    In your pre-survey, you have listed that you work as an instructional designer at __________. Could you please describe in more detail your role and responsibilities?

  5. 5.

    On what type of projects do you usually work with faculty? For example, are they entire courses, individual learning activities?

  6. 6.

    Based on your experiences with faculty how do you think they view the job of an instructional designer? In your opinion, what influences such perceptions?

Process/Working with Faculty

  1. 7.

    How do faculty learn about your services? Word of mouth, program solicitations, or maybe you work for a particular academic program?

    1. a.

      Are there any department encouragement or requirements for either IDers and Faculty to work jointly on projects? Please Explain.

    2. b.

      In addition to personal investment, what other supports should be in place to ensure effective collaboration between faculty and instructional designers? (e.g., organizational supports, approval from the department?)

  2. 8.

    Tell us a bit about your typical projects.

    1. a.

      How are they usually initiated? For example, do the faculty members contact you individually? Please describe the process.

    2. b.

      What are your first steps to setting up a project with a faculty member?

    3. c.

      How do you collect information at the start of a project?

    4. d.

      How are roles and responsibilities generally divided between you and the faculty you work with? Other team members, if applicable?

    5. e.

      Did you work the instructional design process from start to finish? Please describe.

    6. f.

      How is the project information communicated and shared among all the members of the team? E.g., email, F2F meeting?

  3. 9.

    What is your preferred type of collaboration with faculty on course design? For example, equal collaboration? Faculty serving as SME? Other?

  4. 10.

    How would you describe your working relationships with the faculty? In other words, can you give us a few examples of projects that went well and projects that could have gone better?

  5. 11.

    What strategies do you use/could you use to work more effectively with faculty?

    1. a.

      Collaboration strategies

    2. b.

      Interpersonal strategies (person-to-person strategies)

Recommendations

  1. 14.

    What factors do you think are important to a successful collaboration between faculty and instructional designers?

  2. 15.

    What knowledge and skills should an instructional designer possess? What are your thoughts about instructional designer content knowledge levels for projects?

  3. 16.

    From your experience in completing a successful project, what characteristics should faculty possess to working on that project?

  4. 17.

    What advice would you offer to an instructional designer who is new to working with faculty? What advice would you offer to a faculty member who works with an instructional designer for the first time?

Closing out

Is there anything else you would like to share that may be related to effectively collaborating with faculty that I have not asked?

Appendix C: Data analysis procedures (based on Colaizzi 1978)

 

Stage of analysis

Steps taken to conduct analysis

Stage 1

Acquiring a feeling from the transcripts

General overview of transcripts

Gain a sense of the lived experiences of participants (Sanders 2003)

Stage 2

Extracting significant statements

Get a list of statements from the transcripts to form the whole meaning of the experience

Peer Review of statements (Sanders 2003)

Stage 3

Formulating meanings

Bracket assumptions and preconceptions

Explore ideas, themes, thoughts, and feelings throughout the data analysis process

Stage 4

Develo** themes

Establish meanings

Formulate meanings into clusters of themes

Develop cluster themes into emergent themes

Validate themes (e.g. negative case analysis)

Stage 5

Exhaustive description

A description of the processes and meaning derived through the previous steps of analysis

Stage 6

Descriptive identification of the phenomenon

Formulate the exhaustive description in as unequivocal a statement of identification of its fundamental structure as possible

Stage 7

Validation through member-checking

Member checking with research participants

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson, J.C., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A.N. et al. Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 855–880 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation