_arquivos/image003.jpg)
One foot in and one foot out:
reflecting on international collaboration
Um
pé dentro e um pé fora: refletindo sobre a colaboração científica internacional
Arinola ADEFILA*
_arquivos/image005.png){kind=small}
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9759-0104
Gary SPOLANDER**
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2758-4555
Eduardo MAIA***
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9347-8841
Abstract: International
Research Collaboration has been steadily increasing as higher education has
become more marketized. Though there are many obvious benefits for
collaborating internationally, there are also several challenges that are often
not critically discussed. Beyond the issues inherent in unequal partnerships
between rich and low-income countries, these kinds of partnerships can be
problematic if they do not accentuate collaboration that permits enhanced
opportunities to improve and challenge our ideas and share various experiences
and knowledges. This paper presents a reflection of lived experiences by three
academics who have been involved in International Research Collaboration for
over forty years.
Keywords: International
Research Collaboration. Academic collaboration.
Resumo: A colaboração científica internacional em
pesquisa tem aumentado constantemente à medida em que o ensino superior se torna mais mercantilizado. Embora haja muitos
benefícios óbvios na colaboração
internacional, há também vários desafios que geralmente não são discutidos de
forma crítica. Além das questões inerentes às parcerias desiguais entre países
ricos e de baixa renda, esses tipos
de parcerias podem ser problemáticos se não acentuarem uma colaboração que permita maiores oportunidades
de aprimorar e desafiar nossas ideias e compartilhar
experiências e conhecimentos. Este artigo apresenta uma reflexão das experiências vividas por três acadêmicos
que estão envolvidos em processos de colaboração científica internacional há mais de
quarenta anos.
Palavras-chave: Colaboração científica
internacional. Colaboração acadêmica.
Submitted
on: 4/7/2023. Accepted in: 10/7/2023.
|
I |
nternationalisation of higher education has been
promoted by politicians, universities, and academics for a range of reasons,
including that of increased marketisation of education, along with academic
collaboration to resolve global challenges. The implementation processes of
collaboration are often dominated by neoliberal frameworks and a significant Eurocentric
skew due to reliance on funding from rich countries. Though formal agreements across
geographical, linguistic, and disciplinary cultures are entangled in complex
negotiations and differing perspectives, there is not much critical reflection
on how international research collaboration (IRC) influences the various
stakeholders – researchers, students, communities, as well as the institutions
and communities involved in research projects or knowledge exchange.
This paper reflects on the experience of two United Kingdom
based academics, both born abroad and a Brazilian PhD student who was
undertaking research for his Brazilian PhD in the UK. All three have experience
of working and studying within UK academic institutions in England and
Scotland, while also having significant experience of at least one other global
south international institutional environment which was not their own current
home institution. Based on our own work and personal experience of
internationalisation, we therefore reflect about and on the experience of
international collaboration between countries at the core and the periphery of
capitalism countries. We are interdisciplinary in our approach, with our
respective disciplines being social work, education, and political economy. So
too, we also collaborate in a successful international writing team, which has enabled
us to examine explore and utilise transdisciplinary concepts and
methodologies. Over the last 2 years we
have published in joint publications in two edited books and six publications
in high-ranking journals across our partnership.
Why Internationalisation is
important in the academy.
International research collaboration has been a significant
driver for UK based higher education institutions (HEIs) for the past decade in
terms of economic viability through international student recruitment as the
government has reduced the size of subsidies, along with global challenges increasingly
requiring international partnership and cooperation. Research collaboration
(RC) is considered a strategic approach to enhance the competitiveness and
economic wealth and prosperity of nations and communities of countries (Comissão Europeia, 2021). With
respect to higher education, internationalised institutions are increasingly
normalised (for the distinction between globalization and internationalization,
see Altbach and Knight (2007)). Tertiary institutions
are more conscious than ever of positioning courses of study globally to ensure
the competitiveness of their graduates (Lee et al, 2013). Metcalfe and
Blanco (2021) emphasise collaborative activities, shared interests, along with
societal and professional impact are key benefits of this form of international
collaboration.
IRC has several definitions depending on context,
complex institutional strategies, and wider geopolitical dimensions. Focusing
on the transnational nature of the partnership, Metcalfe and Blanco (2021),
have noted that prior to Covid-19 this form of collaboration already required long-distance
relationships, with few physical in-person meetings. This form of international
interdisciplinary approach to collaboration both promotes and has been viewed
by some scholars (see for instance Adams (2013), de Grijs
(2015), Specht and Crowston (2022)) as being an innovative approach to problem
solving, and capacity building.
It is also important to note how market forces have increasingly become established
as part of higher education (Teixeira; Dill, 2011). The marketisation
of higher education is aligned with overarching reforms of a strong corporate
bent (Brown, 2015). Though this has driven IRC exponentially, Bendixen and
Jacobsen (2017) argue that this has nullified quality in academia. Velayutham (2021) contends that though marketisation has
expanded access to higher education, it is also eliminating University
education’s value as discriminant
of talent and capability. Marketisation has led to reduced state funding and crevices
for income and wealth disparities to establish dominance in the societies, Velayutham (2021) highlights evidence that demonstrates
how higher education is now a blunt tool for social mobility.
Critical consideration of the role
of internationalisation in sharing ideas, ideology, and neoliberalism
Where exchanges occur between members of developing or existing
networks, there is a risk that any of the members could inadvertently develop
patterns of working which endanger existing working patterns and so threaten
their or the group’s ability to capitalise on the potential to work together. This
can occur if there is insufficient attention and commitment to the process of
joint working and relationships (Engelbrecht et al, 2014). Where
potential academic partners have taken a more isolationist perspective for a
variety of reasons be those economic, language disinterest or expectation that
others should lead can result in perspectives which draw distinctions between
domestic and international collaborations although it has been argued that
these distinctions are often illusionary (Lee, 2011).
Others (see for instance Manathunga
(2006), Lee (2011)) argue that international engagement may also take the forms
colonial and post-colonial, with the former being the form of engagement when
members of established networks view international colleagues as themselves but
at an earlier stage of research development. In an international context, the
colonialist mode of engagement is common in interactions between colleagues in
emerging and established networks. In this paradigm, representatives from
established networks view their international colleagues as like themselves,
only at an earlier stage of development and so need to be supported to be fully
engaged. While this does not imply any lens of domination, often recognises levels
of mutual expectations and collaborative roles, but is considered colonial as
at best it might imprecisely recognise or ignore cultural context and therefore
view the international colleague as other (Manathunga,
2006). This may result in little accommodation being provided to the international
colleague, with meetings often being dominated by stylised processes of
respect, hospitality and deference between the hosts and visitors, resulting in
little transformation (Manathunga, 2006).
The way knowledge
exchange is framed is typically influences any impact a project could have. Knowledge
ambiguity and specificity can hinder knowledge transfer, whereas knowledge
learning and sharing can enhance knowledge transfer (Khanna; Gulati; Nohria,
1988; Simonin, 1997, 1999). More critical engagement occurs
within the post-colonial perspective, which enables an exploration along with
an engagement of identities and so facilitating exchanges of culture (Manathunga, 2006, p. 21). So too, exploration of ontological
and epistemological rationales, along with professional practices are explored
and debated, facilitating academic debate and engagement (Manathunga,
2006; Spolander et al., 2016). Research and
academic language and teaching across languages increases complexity, requiring
ever greater exploration (Spolander et al.,
2016). Thus, effective collaboration enables adaptable educational practice,
supporting international collaboration to enable flexible and nuanced global
educational development practice (Lee et al., 2013).
Academic Culture and its legacies
Barriers to transferring knowledge are viewed by some
(see for example Brown, Chan and Lai (2006); Joseph, Laband
and Patil (2005)) as lowering a peer reviewed publications impact, which is
further exacerbated if authors do not take ownership of the paper. In contrast,
highly cited papers often have greater impact than those less cited (see for instance
George (2016); George et al (2016)), with her levels of citations and
readership. Vick (2019) in reviewing the impact of Brazilian higher education
institutions international collaboration reports this at a level double that of
papers from national collaborations. However, the complexity of author
attribution also increases, along with challenges in seeking to understand
research productivity and citation impact (LEE et al, 2013). So too, the
cost of open access publications while high also emphasises the correlation between
citation numbers and significance (Mcmannus et al., 2021). For Brazilian
HEIs the benefits of international collaboration have included increased
visibility of Brazilian research, improved numbers of international
collaborations, increased Brazilian academic mobility and encouraging greater
numbers of academics and students to Brazilian HEIs.
Reflections on international work
through a series of author reflections
The literature therefore
highlights the importance of international collaboration to facilitate
collaboration, publications and transdisciplinary knowledge exchange and
development. In this section we briefly reflect on our aspirations and
experiences of international collaboration particularly between the UK and
Brazil.
Author reflections on context and
personal experience of international collaboration
1.
As a child of academics, I was immersed in academic
life from birth. I was born during my parents' postgraduate degree fellowships
and feel very much like a product of IRC. When my parents were sponsored by
national or international agencies to pursue degrees in the global north, the
expectation was one of collaborative working. There was a healthy dose of
capacity building from the more established universities in high income
countries, including funding for developing programmes and institutions. Set
against the backdrop of the Cold War, many first-in-family students studied and
conducted research in the United States of America/European governments or The
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Academic pursuits were mixed with
sociocultural and political interactions, resulting in rich relationships and
extended interactions which expanded IRC networks in the participating
countries.
Political funding in the cold war
era was simultaneously a recruiting exercise; funders wanted to spread their
political and economic ideas and exploit the IRC for maximum political benefit.
Some low-income countries took funding from both sides, though the unequal
partnerships drew long shadows on the research landscape in many low-income
countries. Over the last three decades, the alignment of IRC involves a separate
set of political dynamics. IRC is still funded by governments; the aims of these
collaboration have also tended to have distinct political and economic
undertones. Many countries have conditions on the IRC funding they allocate
which inevitable shape the type of IRC and the kinds of people who can
participate. When I collaborate with colleagues on IRC projects, I am aware of
the power dynamics evident in the funding criteria and how this may shape
reporting and opportunities for future research. In the same vein, industry-led
funding has similar economic-framed interests, leading to IRC projects bounded
by an underpinning need to meet the stringent deliverables.
The positive impact of IRC is mired
in many ways by the human entanglements of exploitation, skewed onto-epistemic partnership
and poor funding models.
2.
I was the first generation in my family that went to
university, with my family being deeply committed to education. I completed my
honours degree at the University of Cape Town and immediately after graduation
left the country as I did not want to undertake military service during the apartheid
period. I was faced with a choice of either leaving the country of serving
eight years in prison as a contentious objector. I moved to the UK, but in validating my
professional qualification I was surprised that although the UK profession
qualification was a 2-year diploma, that overseas qualifications needed to be degree
level and of four years duration to be recognised as equivalent. I initially
worked for a large Japanese multinational, which involved extensive travel with
all the complications of not having a UK passport. I returned to my practice
background and then recommenced my studies completing several master’s degrees before
my doctorate. In moving into academia, I was once again able to undertake work
in IRC within a collaborative framework, rather than being in a more competitive
commercial environment.
Of interest to me has always been the way in which we
can collaborate and develop transdisciplinary understanding of challenges,
support student and staff development, and share ideas, understanding and
challenge our thinking and understanding as colleagues. My discipline is
relatively young, with the majority of those in the profession not engaging
directly in international practice or learning, and this creates challenges as
to how we build capacity within the profession on an international basis, learn
and share learning with colleagues and critically explore contemporary
challenges.
3.
From my teenage years attending an English course to
my late twenties, when I relocated to a different city to pursue a PhD, my
family's support played a crucial role in my academic journey. With their
encouragement, I completed my undergraduate and master's degrees, despite the
demanding dual commitments of working in a bank and in research.
The PhD presented the first opportunity for me to
immerse myself in research fully, and it opened the doors to the possibility of
studying abroad. Fortunately, I was in a postgraduate program surrounded by
senior researchers who consistently provided guidance and encouragement for IRC
projects. This support was vital in helping me establish initial contacts and
bridge the gaps that would have otherwise been challenging to navigate.
Previously, my interactions with international researchers had been limited to
Spanish-speaking individuals from Latin America and mostly not in terms of
international collaboration. However, in Scotland, I had the privilege of
engaging with doctoral researchers from places as diverse as Iran and Iraq,
Germany and Ghana, or India and Bulgaria.
While the possibilities for interdisciplinary
collaboration were limited due to the varying fields of Pharmacy, Engineering,
and Computing among the other researchers, this rich cultural mix offered
invaluable learning opportunities as well as significant adaptation challenges.
Individual Aspirations and Dream
1.
One of the motivating
factors behind my decision to pursue a part of my PhD studies abroad was the
opportunity for international collaboration and exposure to diverse research
practices. However, being a PhD student entails navigating a somewhat delicate
position. In addition to the challenges commonly associated with international
collaborations, working alongside more experienced researchers raises further
concerns. These concerns include the fear of not being able to make meaningful
contributions, feeling underqualified, and potential difficulties in
interpersonal relationships.
2.
Engaging in
international collaboration during the early stages of an academic career can
be a pivotal opportunity for a young researcher. Interacting with scholars from
various parts of the world, each with their own backgrounds and perspectives,
enriches academic life in numerous ways. On the one hand, there are
career-related benefits, such as publications, expanding the academic network,
and opening new collaborative or professional prospects. On the other hand,
broader advantages extend beyond academia, including a widened worldview,
increased confidence, and the development of new skills.
For a PhD student, the
first experiences of international collaboration serve as invaluable learning
opportunities. The pursuit of international collaboration itself is a goal in
mind. However, beyond being associated with a research group or publication,
there is a genuine desire to actively contribute and have a meaningful role in
the ongoing research. The recognition of a junior researcher can be
demonstrated in various ways; perhaps the most significant is creating an
environment that encourages the expression of doubts and opinions while
providing opportunities for junior members to contribute.
3.
My dream in terms of international participation is
that we have equity in the opportunities for participation. I am aware that for
many colleagues and students across the world that access to research, peer reviewed
journals and exchange opportunities are limited by access to funding, visa’s
(particularly to the UK where the current government has been restrictive on
access) or generally the opportunities to participate on an equal basis in
research and teaching opportunities.
Individualised ideal conditions for IRC
1.
Fostering a high level of cooperative teamwork takes
time and effort, particularly in international collaborations where cultural
and language differences may prove challenging. Developing trust, collegiality,
and a sense of fairness and accountability are at the basis of any successful
research collaboration, irrespective of the team’s geographical distribution (De
Grijs, 2015).
As planetary citizens we need to develop our
collaborative capacities to thing glocally about the
problems that we face. “Glocal” refers to local
thinking with a view of the global (Patel, 2020). One major barrier to positive
collaboration is our inability to communicate effectively. We use words in
complex and nuanced ways. Glocal communication is
central to effective IRC.
2.
In several of my IRC relationships, a key challenge
has been effective communication. Ideal IRCs need to develop shared language. This
expands beyond use of a language of communication, such as English or French,
which are widely used to shared understanding of the ontological, epistemological,
and axiological dimensions of the words and meaning.
Shared meaning is
important, especially as IRC relationships extend across national and cultural
boundaries. The meaning of words is steeped in cultural, political, and social
dynamics. There is a first to have a comprehensive understanding of the
contexts within which the IRC is taken place, including the historical
idiosyncrasies and relics of colonial or imperialist influence. Such a process
requires trust and a willingness to take risks, communicate with empathy and a
healthy dose of patience when understanding and meaning making are slow to
develop.
The IRCs have worked in
over many years have survived because of the investment in time, trust,
empathy, and development. We have partners who take on the role of driving the
partnership, encouraging us to communicate, work on joint writing and develop
activist-researcher personas. In a sense we all want to make a difference in
the real world.
Furthermore, IRC
dissemination events and outputs need to be decontextualised for the various
audiences we communicate with. More alternative format products are now readily
available in the form of poems, art, blogs, community events, etc. It is very
important to recognise the language and meaning-making the IRC team would have
developed, ensuring that the shared understanding is adequately translated to
the academic, civic, business or policy communities as we intend. It would be
prejudicial to require those not engage in the partnership will understand what
we have developed in the crucible of an extended IRC partnership.
IRCs that use
partnership language to communicate with others are often referred to as
elitist. This is particularly true where the funding for the IRC is dominated
by foreign agencies. The demand and possibly desire to make outputs discernible
to the funder negate accessibility by others.
In 2019 I engaged in an
IRC workshop funded by the British Council and FAPES in Brazil. I lead the
workshop with a colleague in Brazil with whom I had developed a longstanding
relationship. The first thing we sought to do was to develop shared
understanding of terminologies. We were using complex words like disadvantage,
poverty, and social capital. We knew these
had differing meanings.
3.
My experience of large international projects is that
there is a considerable investment in time and commitment to develop IRC’s,
which take time and are built on relationships and trust in terms of delivering
of research or project outcomes. Almost inevitably this requires that collaborators
continue their commitments to one another long after they are no longer
physically together, even when their employing institutions are both
encouraging and making conflicting demands. This also requires that employing
organisations bureaucracy are able to provide a facilitative role in supporting
this relationship and collaborative development, without demands for artificial
performance measures.
Individual reflections on cultural differences, personal
and cultural experiences, and funding
1. In my experience IRC are dependent on
the networks and good will of an individual. Where good relationships and
expansive partnership have flourished someone is responsible most of the
communication. In my work with colleagues in Brazil, Ghana and Finland I have
been responsible for majority of the communication. The advantage of joining forces and finding synergies
of expertise incorporates the risk of invisibility of single researchers within
the larger team. In some cases, younger researchers’ contributions may be
subsumed.
2. An
example of how cultural differences can influence a collaboration is the
project initiated with a librarian at a Scottish Institution. Over a month, we
had weekly meetings in which he introduced me to techniques and tools not often
used or easily accessible in Brazil. One of these was a data extraction method
relevant to my thesis. Through our discussions, I conceived a proposal for an
article that would greatly benefit from the librarian expertise. Although my immediate
thought was to propose a collaboration for this article, I was unsure how to
approach the situation. To avoid misunderstandings, firstly, I talked to my
colleague who is a professor at the institution, to better understand the
co-authorship processes in the UK, how to initiate such a conversation and
whether such a proposal would be of interest. Individually, these extra steps
may seem insignificant, however, their cumulative impact should not be
underestimated.
One aspect that had a major positive influence on the
cultural dynamics was the work environment. I was assigned a desk in a shared
space occupied only by PhD students. This environment allowed for interactions
with individuals from different disciplines and, more significantly, from
various countries and cultures, all adapting to the local academic culture. Although
not directly related to international collaboration, this exchange helped to
mitigate the impact of cultural differences during my time in Scotland.
3. In
general terms, the cultural differences between Brazil and the UK may go
unnoticed at first glance, as a common Western substratum results in similar
norms and everyday practices. However, as interpersonal relationships develop,
whether personal or professional, the subtle differences in academic culture
become apparent and may hinder international collaboration. Kwiek (2020) identifies
how IRC influences include academic discipline, the employing institution and
type, along with national reward structure. This is not particularly obvious.
Multiple factors, such as varying tools, programs, and
skills, as well as different approaches to organizing and dividing the
workload, require continuous adaptation, particularly in the initial stages.
Even something as simple as sending an email might pose a minor difficulty, requiring
additional time and effort due to the specific formalities one must become
accustomed to.
Reflections on Individualised
Barriers Experienced
1. IRCs
are time-consuming and require extensive administration, coordination, and
continuous exchange among teams. A major challenge for teams is intercultural
agreement. Too often our partnerships have first to untangle the various meanings
of words, layered purposes, and interpersonal goals. In a particular case, I
found that assumptions that prevail in the media and some cultures are brought
to the fore. Some colleagues were doubting the expertise and motivations of
colleagues working in an African country. I felt the colleagues from low-income
countries need to demonstrate their ability to complete tasks. The incredible
effort put into carrying out their duties is not often appreciated. It is for
such reasons that international exchange programmes support deeper appreciation
of contexts. This process takes time. If researchers are allowed to work on
building good relationships, colleagues come to value the epistemological and
socio-political circumstances their colleagues work in constantly applying a
homogenous, deficit lens. Tasks can then be distributed, and responsibilities
fulfilled, individually or in constellations which showcase proficiency.
2. Handling
communication challenges, especially when researchers work in different
locations over long time periods, demands clear communication styles to create
understanding, trust, and sensitivity; advanced social planning; and functioning
technological support. While establishing regional or domestic collaborations
may already be challenging for a variety of mundane reasons, these difficulties
might be amplified in an international context. For instance, conflicting
research paradigms in different national settings, disagreements on conventions
or standards of practice, as well as a lack of compliance with international
research protocols may all affect the integrity of the joint research project.
In addition, collaborators may not share the same professional jargon, or even
speak the same working language sufficiently proficiently (De Grijs, 2015).
3. Geographically
dispersed research collaborations, however, impose additional coordination
costs for bridging geographic distance and institutional differences. In my
work, some good ideas have had to be shelved due to costs that could not be
borne by partner institutions. For example, researchers in Finnish institutions
have access to public engagement funding, allowing them to explore multi-institute
collaborations before they commit to long term projects. Where the cost and
time are not invested to build the IRC partnership, less frequent and less
effective coordination could lead to more conflict, lack of monitoring and subsequently
diverging interests.
IRC fundamentally require intense synchronisation,
‘spatially dispersed scientific collaborations’ (Cummings; Kiesler 2005, p. 704)
demand substantial coordination to effectively bring ideas and expertise
together. The key challenges highlighted by Dusdal and
Powell (2021) are: 1) Organization and structured management of work packages
and tasks, 2) Contrasting cultural and organisational expectations and norms,
3) Career stage differences in researcher needs, 4) Contrasting styles of communication,
(exchange of information) and work, 5) Team communications and language skills,
6) Distribution of labour, 7) Time constraints (limited project duration), 8)
Diverse theoretical and methodological strengths and weaknesses. It is
interesting that our reflections above have captured these features.
The Challenge of Completing this Paper: Conclusion
For the three authors completing this paper has been a
challenge to write, but reflecting on the reasons has been complex too. The
pressure to write has partly been an ongoing pressure, but we have struggled
with what might be useful and meaningful for the reader and how could it have
impact. We were three authors, with different perspectives and experiences of
international collaboration. We agonised over academic content, what would be
sensible and scholarly.
The neoliberal context of the UK has resulted in more
functional and managerial approach which is often focussed on the business that
this form of collaboration might achieve i.e., funding, international students,
and publications. Our institutions often speak and promote international work,
but despite these affirmations and aspirations there are problems within the
academy and institutional difficulties which including appropriate funding, pressure
to publish in q1 journals, undertake and submit bids for external funding
raising on going questions about how we make an impact and have sufficient
outputs for the periodic Research Excellence Framework (REF), the next one
being 2028. International non-English
publications are not always recognised in institutional analysis of
publications and not always ranked. The language may be problematic for high
numbers of English citations along with conceptual, epistemological, and
ontological challenges. Differences in word length and ideological approaches
are just two simple differences we have found.
At times we find ourselves questioning why we put
ourselves under pressure for international deadlines when this process is also difficult.
Collaboration brings enormous benefits including that of comradeship, personal
learning, and challenge, rethinking models and understanding, compromise and
needing to engage with transdisciplinary considerations and knowledge
development. Our personal commitments, friendship and ongoing curiosity for
discovery transcends the institutional frameworks which often shape our working
careers, supporting this work as a labour of love, friendship, and commitment.
Working with our Brazilian colleagues has enabled us
to reflect and consider again the person in the context of these challenges.
Our observations often involve considerations of how much greater their
professional discretion is, the depth of their theoretical analysis which
supports their passion for their topic, debate, and scholarship.
There are compelling reasons
for why international research collaboration is important and critical for the
development, sharing and dissemination of knowledge. We are struck that in much
of the literature how little is devoted to what elements make this life work,
with many long hours often undertaken in our personal time, but this is driven
by our commitment to one another and the importance and passion for scholarship.
Our work with our Brazilian colleagues is about a journey, for us that started
about 10 years ago, with no clear destination and it has brought the three of
us to work together with colleagues, widened our networks and encouraged and
consolidated our learning as colleagues, academics and as people seeking to
understand and support in our small way the problems of the world.
References
ADAMS, Jonathan. The fourth age of research. Nature, London, n. 497, p. 557- 560, 2013.
ALTBACH, Philip;
KNIGHT, Jane. The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, Amsterdam, v. 11, n. 3-4, p.
290-305, 2007.
BENDIXEN, Carsten;
JACOBSEN, Jens Christian. Nullifying quality: the marketisation of higher
education. Quality in Higher
Education, Oxford, v. 23, n. 1, p.
20-34, 2017.
BROWN, Christopher; CHAN, Kam; LAI, Pikki. Marketing journal coauthorships:
An empirical analysis of coauthor behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, California, v. 28, n. 1, p. 17-25, 2006.
BROWN, Roger. The marketisation of higher education:
issues and ironies. New Vistas,
London, v. 1, n. 1, p.
4-9, 2015.
COMISSÃO EUROPEIA. A abordagem global da pesquisa e inovação: A estratégia da Europa para a cooperação internacional em
um mundo em transformação. Luxemburgo, 2021. Available in: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2021:252:FIN.
Access at: 3 Jul. 2023.
CUMMINGS, Jonathon; KIESLER, Sara, Collaborative
research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, California, v. 35, n. 5, p. 703-722, 2005.
DE GRIJS, Richard.
Ten Simple Rules for Establishing International Research Collaborations.
PLOS Computational Biology, California, v. 11, n. 10, p. e1004311, 2015.
DUSDAL, Jennifer; POWELL, Justin. Benefits,
Motivations, and Challenges of International
Collaborative Research: A Sociology of Science Case Study. Science and Public Policy,
Oxford, v. 48, n. 2, p. 235-245, 2021.
ENGELBRECHT, Lambert. et al. Reflections on a
process model for international research collaboration in social work, International Social Work, California,
v. 59, n. 4, p. 1-14, 2014.
GEORGE, Gerard.
Management research in AMJ: Celebrating impact while striving
for more. Academy of
Management Journal,
New York, v. 59, n. 6, p. 1869-1877, 2016.
GEORGE, Gerard et al. Reputation and status:
Expanding the role of social
evaluations in management research. Academy of Management Journal, New York, v. 59, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2016.
JOSEPH, Kissan; LABAND,
David; PATIL, Vivek. Author order and research quality.
Southern Economic
Journal, Lexington, v. 71, n. 3,
p. 545-555, 2005.
KHANNA, Tarun; GULATI,
Ranjay; NOHRIA, Nitin.
The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic
Management Journal,
Lexington,
v. 19, n. 3, p. 193-210, 1998.
KWIEK, Marek. Internationalists and locals:
international research collaboration in a resource-poor system.
Scientometrics, Hungary, v. 124, p. 57-105, 2020.
LEE, Virginia et al. Enhancing international collaboration among academic developers in established and emerging contexts: moving toward a
post-colonial perspective. International Journal for Academic Development,
London, v. 18, n. 1, p. 89-103, 2013.
LEE, Virginia. Reflections on International Engagement
as Educational Developers in the
United States. To Improve
the Academy, EUA, v.
29, n. 1, p. 302-314, 2011.
MANATHUNGA, Catherine. Doing educational development ambivalently: Applying post-colonial metaphors to educational development? International Journal for Academic Development,
London, v. 11, n. 1, p. 19-29, 2006.
MCMANUS, Concepta. Profiles
not metrics: the case of Brazilian universities. Anais da Academia
Brasileira de Ciências, Rio de Janeiro, v. 93, n. 4, 2021.
METCALFE, Amy; BLANCO,
Gerardo. "Love is calling": Academic friendship and international
research collaboration amid a global pandemic. Emotion, Space and Society, United Kingdom, v. 38, p.
100763, 2021.
PATEL, Fay. Glocal development for sustainable social change. In:
SERVAES, Jan. (Ed.). Handbook of
Communication for Development and Social Change. [S.l.]: Springer, 2020. p. 501-517.
SIMONIN, Bernard. Ambiguity and the
process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances
Strategic Management Journal, Lexington, v. 20, n. 7, p. 595-623, 1999.
SIMONIN, Bernard. The importance of collaborative
know-how: An empirical test of the learning
organization. Academy of Management Journal, New York, v. 40, n. 5, p. 1150-1174, 1997.
SPECHT Alison; CROWSTON, Kevin. Interdisciplinary
collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes. PLOS
ONE, California, v. 17, n. 11, p. e0278043., 2022.
SPOLANDER, Gary et al. Reflections and
challenges of international social work research. Critical and Radical
Social Work, Bristol, v. 4, n. 2, p. 169-183, 2016.
TEIXEIRA, Pedro; DILL, David (eds.). Public Vices, Private Virtues?: Assessing the Effects of Marketization in
Higher Education. [S.l.]: Springer Science
& Business Media, 2011.
VELAYUTHAM, Sivakumar. Understanding How the Marketisation of
Higher Education Contributes to Increased Income Inequality and Decreased
Social Mobility. In: BRANCH, John; CHRISTIANSEN, Bryan. The Marketisation of Higher Education:
Concepts, Cases, and Criticisms. Cham: Springer,
2021. p. 371-395.
VICK, Thais. Research
in Brazil towards international collaboration. [S.l.]:
Elsevier, 2019.
Available in: https://www.aguia.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Report-
International-Collaboration-PRINT-Project.pdf. Access at:
3 Jul. 2023.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arinola ADEFILA
Worked on the concept and delineation,
data analysis and interpretation, redaction of the article and critical
revision.
Doctor in Education at the University of Warwick, UK. MBA in Community
Economic Development at the University of Cape Breton, Canada. Masters in
Global Ethics at the University of Birmingham, UK. Graduate in Scientific and Geographic
Education at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
Vice-director of the Centre
of Learning and Pedagogic Practice (SCoLPP) at
Staffordshire University, England. Develops Educational Cross-disciplinary
Pedagogies and investigates how to best ultilise
intercultural resources to develop educational practice that are transnational
and include multiple perspectives and epistemologies.
Gary
SPOLANDER Worked on the concept and delineation,
data analysis and interpretation, redaction of the article and critical
revision.
Batchelor
in Social Service and Psychology. Professor of Social Service at Robert Gordon
University, Scotland. Extraordinary Professor of Social Service a Western Cape
University, South Africa. Honorary Professor of Global Health and Social Care at
Keele University, UK.
Eduardo MAIA Worked on the concept and delineation,
data analysis and interpretation, redaction of the article, critical revision and
on the approval of the published version of this article.
Batchelor in International Relations from the Universidade
Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Masters in international Economic Policy Doctor
of Social Policy from the Universidade Federal do Espírito
Santo (UFES). Member of the Grupo de Trabalho
Crise e Economia Internacional (Crisis and International Economics Working
Group) (CLACSO) and the Grupo Estudos Críticos em Processos
Sociais (Critical Studies of Social Processes
Group) (Ufes).
________________________________________________________________________________________________
_arquivos/image007.png){kind=small}