Faculty as Learners: Developing Thinking Communities

Pamela L. Eddy & Regina L. Garza Mitchell

Published online: 17 November 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The shifting demographics of faculty ranks, expansion of faculty work, and theexpectations of accountability and revenue production place new demands on today’sfaculty. Collaborating with other faculty members is one option for easing workloaddemands and reinvigorating faculty members in the conduct of their teaching and research.In this article we discuss the importance of collaboration among faculty members inderiving new strategies for the classroom and approaches to research, and we providesuggestions for moving beyond short term collaborations and toward the creation ofthinking communities that have the potential to re-energize faculty members and bringpassion back to their work.

Key words Faculty work . Collaboration . Thinking communities

Faculty work has received heightened attention over the past decade. First, the compositionof faculty ranks is shifting as more part-time and contingent faculty members are teachingin our higher education institutions. Second, the actual day-to-day work functions of facultymembers have expanded over time due to changes in teaching practices, disciplinary norms,

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296DOI 10.1007/s10755-011-9202-z

Pamela Eddy received her Ph.D. in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education from Michigan State University.She is Associate Professor of Higher Education at the College of William and Mary. Her research interestsinclude community colleges, faculty development, partnerships and collaborations, gender issues, andleadership development.

Regina Garza Mitchell earned an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from Central Michigan University. Sheis Associate Vice President of Student Learning at Texas State Technical College Harlingen. Her researchinterests include two-year colleges, technology, and teaching and learning.

P. L. EddyCollege of William and Mary, School of Education, P.O. Box 8795, Willamburg, VA 23187, USAe-mail: peddy@wm.edu

R. L. Garza Mitchell (*)TSTC Harlingen, 1902 Loop 499, Room I-116C, Harlingen, TX 78550, USAe-mail: regina.garza-mitchell@harlingen.tstc.edu

and globalization trends. Indeed, the average number of hours worked by faculty memberseach week has consistently increased since 1984, with the average faculty member working49 hours per week in 1998; at that time, it was also reported that the number of facultymembers working more than 50 hours per week had doubled since 1972 (Schuster andFinkelstein 2008). Today there are fewer full-time faculty members than before, and theyare working more hours and covering expanded roles.

Coupled with the changes in work are organizational pressures that leave institutions withfewer resources, changing student demographics and student demands, and public calls forincreased accountability. Gappa et al. (2007) pointed out that changes in faculty demographicsand expanded demands on faculty time result in a need to rethink the composition of facultywork. The authors posited five elements critical to faculty work, namely, equity, academicfreedom, flexibility, professional growth, and collegiality. Even though these points begin toaddress the central elements necessary for faculty members to be successful, they do notaccount for the ever increasing demand on faculty time and the feeling of constraintexperienced by faculty members (O’Meara et al. 2008). Changes in faculty work have led toan increased need for faculty members to garner research funding and other support inaddition to regular teaching, service, and research duties. The increased workload demandscan lead to dissatisfaction with the faculty role and a lag in productivity. Thus, there is a needto approach faculty work in a way that will attract new faculty members from the ranks ofdoctoral students and revitalize those already in faculty positions.

From a faculty development perspective, collaborating with other faculty members is oneoption for easing workload demands and for reinvigorating faculty members as they approachtheir teaching and research (Pifer 2010). In this article we discuss current expectations forfaculty members and the importance of collaboration to come up with new strategies for theclassroom and approaches to research, and we provide suggestions for moving beyond shortterm collaborations and toward the creation of thinking communities that have the potential tore-energize faculty and bring passion back to their work. Finkelstein (1982) argued thatfaculty members have particular collegial needs, and he defined five specific areas in whichfaculty desire support: 1) help in teaching; 2) help in research; 3) institutional linkage; 4)linkage to the discipline; and 5) general support, intellectual stimulation, and friendship (pp.15–16). Further, he found links between levels of colleagueship and research productivity.Yet, despite these findings, faculty members still struggle a generation later with these issuesand desire heightened colleagueship and connections (Pifer 2010).

Building Communities

Thinking communities may provide an opportunity to meet some of the current demandsfacing the faculty. These communities are reflective groups intentionally developed byfaculty members and often nurtured by faculty developers to create a synergy forknowledge creation. Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) are another mechanism used byfaculty members to create a collaborative learning opportunity, but thinking communitiesdiffer in several ways. First, the typical activity of a FLC is a yearlong program guided by acurriculum (Cox, 2004), whereas thinking communities are not grounded in a formalprocess. Second, the organization of FLCs usually involves a specific cohort of faculty (forexample, new faculty) or revolves around a particular topic. Both of these organizationalframeworks are temporal in nature and do not address the ongoing nature of thinkingcommunities. Both FLC and thinking communities involve faculty learning, but theyaccomplish this outcome through different means. Yet, even with these differences, a

284 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296

thinking community may emerge over time from the initial interactions establishedwithin a FLC.

Student learning communities also provide a forum for comparison. Often, studentlearning communities target struggling students using a structured support network. Recentresearch on the learning outcomes of students participating in a learning community fordevelopmental math, for instance, found that students in a learning community attemptedand passed their classes at higher rates than those not participating but that the positiveeffect of participation in the learning community did not result in persistence or completion(Weissman et al. 2011). Similarly, Russ (2010) discovered that underprepared studentsinvolved in a student learning community obtained significantly higher achievement rates,reported higher levels of social and academic integration, and declared their intentions topersist. Like faculty learning communities, those designed for students are structured and oflimited duration. The benefits of collaborative learning are apparent; but in the case ofstudents the outcomes target particular levels of achievement. Longer term collaboration isnot evident.

Like FLCs, the structure of thinking communities builds on faculty members meetingtogether. Groups form through a variety of means, but are rooted in shared researchinterests that are nurtured in an environment of reflection and group synergy. The groupprocess of a thinking community moves beyond mere contribution to joint projects andtoward the establishment of a true cooperative in which the tallying of contributions doesnot exist and lines blur regarding attribution of solo ideas or individual writing attributions.Instead, a forum is created that nurtures creativity and enhances knowledge production viathe questioning of underlying assumptions. The process of thinking in a group allowsfaculty members to re-engage in the learning process and places an emphasis on reflection,providing a greater connection to their students. It also aids in diminishing the isolation ofsolo teaching. Brookfield (1995) emphasized the importance of faculty reflection as ameans to improve teaching. This type of reflection serves as a critical linchpin (Schön1983) and point of distinction for thinking communities.

Faculty Work

Changes in faculty work have developed over time and exemplify changes in the externalenvironment. In particular, faculty work is impacted by the economy, technology, and thepolitical and business climate. Sorcinelli et al. (2006) chronicled shifts in professionaldevelopment by identifying “Five Ages of Faculty Development,” in which each erashowcases changes in the emphasis of faculty work. The Age of the Scholar, spanning the1950s and 1960s represents a period in time that focused on developing faculty expertise asscholars. The faculty role of researcher was emphasized. As the student body changedduring the 60s and 70s, a new focus on instructional improvement emerged resulting in theAge of the Teacher. The Age of the Teacher turned attention to developing classroom skills.This era (late 1960s and 1970s) was a time of faculty retrenchment and a resulting need toreinvigorate faculty members. The focus on teaching also helped address changes inthinking about curricula and program delivery and addressed student demands for changesin teaching practices. The traditional view of faculty work in which faculty members wereexpected to be scholars and researchers expanded to include the instructional process.During the 1980s, institutions experienced budgetary declines and changes in academic lifebut also saw an upsurge in the establishment of faculty development centers leading to theAge of the Developer. During this time period major foundations expanded funding to start

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296 285

centers to explore how to improve teaching and re-invigorate faculty members. Next camethe Age of the Learner (1990s). Here, focus shifted to helping support student-centeredlearning, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and incorporating technology intoclassroom teaching. Finally, the current era, the Age of the Network, developed with thenew millennium and connects the strands of previous eras.

Boyer’s (1990) concept of multiple forms of scholarship aligns well with the focal areasof the various faculty development eras outlined above. He concluded that multiple formsof scholarship exist for faculty including the scholarship of discovery, scholarship ofintegration, scholarship of application, and scholarship of teaching. Instead of viewingfaculty work as a choice between the various forms of faculty work, he argued for increasedintegration and value associated with the various forms of faculty activities, which heconceived of as a new kind of scholarship.

Despite Boyer’s (1990) argument for multiple forms of scholarship, the essence of adichotomy between teaching and research persists (Buch 2008). The ideals purported byBoyer continued to be addressed in new iterations of scholarship (Hutchings et al. 2011),yet the reality for faculty members indicates barriers to using multiple forms of scholarshipto obtain tenure and promotion (Kenny and Evers 2010). One mechanism to address thedisconnection between the reward structure in place for faculty and the calls for expandedways of thinking of scholarship involves looking at the professoriate as a meta-profession(Arreola et al. 2003).

Creating a model to provide a more complex way to think of the links between andamong reward systems, faculty work, and development programs allows for an expandedconception of rewarding a range of work by faculty, but the rewards for faculty membersdepend on their disciplinary homes (Kenny and Evers 2010). What remains unknown formany faculty members is how collaborative work is valued in their institutions. Themultiple kinds of expertise required of faculty members still remains vested in singularefforts and those focused predominately on the scholarship of discovery (Braxton et al.2006). As faculty roles have expanded, the need for collaboration and connections to meetincreased requirements on faculty time takes on heightened importance. A question remainsabout how faculty development offices, and institutions overall, can best support facultymembers in developing networks that lead to successful collaboration efforts.

The last 20 years, in particular, are witness to a movement toward a greater focus onlearning, particularly for undergraduate students (Boyer 1987; Pascarella and Terenzini2005). Technology has certainly been the greatest influence on faculty work in recent years,providing new methods for teaching and learning, conducting research, administration, andother aspects of faculty work. In the Age of the Network, technology has enabled facultywork to expand to meet heightened expectations that often require collaborative effortsamong many stakeholders in higher education. Collaborative work is not always valuedhighly in terms of tenure and promotion, but there is often a need to collaborate in order toacquire research funding, to complete large projects, and to develop interdisciplinaryteaching opportunities (Hart and Mars 2009; Lattuca 2001). While collaboration is oftenused as a means toward an end, it also provides the benefits of synergy and an expandedknowledge base when approached intentionally (Amey and Brown 2004).

The Shifting Sands of Collaboration

Collaborations exist at multiple levels and are looked upon differently depending onthe field of study. Hart and Mars (2009) used the cultural lens of academic tribes, which

286 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296

explained how disciplines have different norms and values that guide expectations, todescribe how faculty members with joint appointments faced the dualities of theirpositions. They found that tensions around professional identity and concerns over thetenure and promotion process detracted from the benefits accrued by crossing disciplinaryborders. The burdens faced by these faculty members mirror those in other forms ofcollaborations, namely justifying professional work and bridging academic sub-cultures.In the sciences, research collaborations are increasingly the norm as funding for labs andscientific research relies on the attainment of external funding that encourages andrewards faculty collaboration. Yet, even in areas where collaboration is expected, facultymembers often have to defend their participation in collaborative teaching or researchprojects. In regard to tenure and promotion, the notion of collaboration becomes tied tothe perceived level of contribution. Collaboratively teaching between disciplines mayhave an impact on how teaching assignments are tracked and accounted (Lattuca 2001).The importance of individual contributions also carries over to authorship of collaborativemanuscripts or joint teaching. A faculty member is deemed more important, and thereforecontributing more to the group, if her or his name appears first on an article or if thefaculty member is the lead instructor for a course. Thus, collaboration becomescompetition and remains focused on the individual as those involved strive todemonstrate their perceived importance to the group. Conversations about authorshipoften reflect underlying assumptions about power and prestige within a group (Morgan2006). For example, a faculty member running a lab or center may require that his or hername appear first in the author listing, that is, ahead of graduate students or junior facultymembers (McGinn et al. 2005). More formalized tenure and promotion policies can beginto address the codifying of joint efforts.

In this view, then, collaboration serves as a means for producing a distinct product suchas a research paper or a grant proposal and may be viewed as detracting from soloendeavors. The output of collaboration is viewed as a commodity of faculty productivityand valued differently than a solo authored piece of research or course taught.Collaborations are initiated because each member of the partnership or group bringssomething of value to the project, and that knowledge base is later assessed by others. Thus,individual contributions to a project become a form of currency within a traditionaldefinition of collaboration that may value one form of contribution over another.Knowledge, expertise, and other types of work are exchanged as transactions foropportunities that benefit participants individually, and benefits are realized in a tangiblesense.

Yet it is evident that varied motivations and outcomes exist for long-term facultycollaborations. Creamer (2004) noted four distinct outcomes of long-term collaborations,namely “efficiencies of practice, nuances in thinking, coming up with the big picture, andchallenging the gospel” (p. 30). In Creamer’s study, the majority of long-servingcollaborations focused on more than mere outcomes and instead relied on benefits accruedduring the process of collaboration. The beneficial outcome was that collaborators wereable to accomplish more together than they would have on their own. Traditional collaborationsinvolve working together until an end result is achieved although in some cases collaborationsmay continue with multiple projects that emerge from the initial joint venture. Goodcollaborations continue over time because of a developing synergy among group members.The group becomes more than a place to work; it is a place that inspires creativity, productivity,and energy so as to reinvigorate the idea of work. These longer-term collaborations provide theadditional benefit of placing the faculty member in the role of learner, a role which is all toooften overlooked once we become "expert" in our field. As faculty members engage in

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296 287

collaborative undertakings, they are expanding their own understanding about material as aresult of the interactions and helping to advance knowledge creation.

When thinking communities develop, the underlying foundation of faculty collaborationshifts from product to process; and a change occurs in which a unique thinking forum iscreated for participants. The synergy involved in the group process also alters over timegiven faculty members’ positions along the career pipeline. At the early stages of a facultycareer, more value is placed on research production for tenure and promotion, whereas inthe latter stages of a faculty career there is a stronger focus on reigniting the passion forfaculty work (O’Meara et al. 2008). The group process involves creating a frameworkwithin which all members can contribute, establishing a location in which joint work occurs—both in a physical sense by meeting together and in an intellectual sense. This environmentpromotes the formation of protocols that outline group expectations and helps build trust amongmembers. Group participation becomes easier as faculty members obtain higher rank. Fullprofessors need not worry about how publications or teaching count for promotion or tenure,and they may see collaboration as a means of reinvigorating their work. Because the focus is nolonger on product, higher ranked faculty members are not as constrained by time as are lower-ranked faculty members; and they have the luxury of being able to appreciate the process(Hinck et al. 2009). Struggles may remain for junior faculty involved in these collaborations,and conversations must occur to ensure a common understanding of expectations andagreement regarding the ebb and flow of individual contributions (Austin and Baldwin 1991).Ultimately, the creation of thinking communities can enhance the collaborative process andbegin to address issues of power imbalance, alignment of multiple forms of scholarship, andthe establishment of creative settings for faculty work.

Evolution to the Thinking Community Model

It is helpful to think about the development of thinking communities as a progressive process.John-Steiner (2000) used the term "thought community" to refer to "experienced thinkers whocollaborate with an intensity that can lead to a change in their domain's dominant paradigm"(p. 196). Thinking communities develop over time and can be a natural evolution of long-term group collaboration. However, there are distinct differences between joint projects orcollaborative groups and thinking communities. Collaborations are long or short-term, formaround a common goal, and hinge upon some type of end product. Likewise, communities ofpractice are defined as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something theydo and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger 2006, para. 3). The keydifference between a joint project, collaboration, or community of practice and a thinkingcommunity concerns the main focus of the group.

The goal of a joint project or collaboration is to produce a tangible output, whereas the focusof a community of practice is to improve an end product. In both cases, it is efficiency and finalresults that are the focus. Faculty learning communities represent one form of a community ofpractice with their focus on a specific facet of faculty work (Cox 2004). While products mayresult from a thinking community, the primary focus of a thinking community remains onprocess, deconstruction of current knowledge, and intellectual exploration by group members.These communities often produce tangible outputs, but the process and group forum are themost critical element for the faculty members involved. We have developed a modelto illustrate the evolution of thinking communities (See Fig. 1). The model illustratesthe progression from simple joint projects to collaborations to a thinking community, andit outlines key features of each stage.

288 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296

In a thinking community, the group and its processes evolve purposefully throughintentional reflection, both at the individual and group levels. Collaboration in a thinkingcommunity adds “a third dimension, a deeper view, to [group members’] knowledge ofthemselves” (John-Steiner 2000, p. 63), which allows group members to assume aperspective outside their own conception. These thinking communities have the potential totransform understanding and change established paradigms of knowledge through thequestioning of underlying assumptions and reflection on practices.

Joint Project

Many alliances arise from a pair or a small group of persons who agree to work together on aproject. This type of association generally involves two or more persons combining individualefforts that results in amutually beneficial product which has a timeline for completion. The projectmay involve guest lectures in another faculty member’s classes or partnering on the creation of anew course or a major overhaul of an existing course. Joint research projects may involve workingtogether on a single project or writing a research manuscript. These joint ventures are often short-term and cease when the project is completed. If the project outcomes are satisfactory and if thefaculty members find that their work complements each other, theymay choose to either extend theproject or to work on something else together. Over time trust develops, and the joint project mayprogress into a focused collaboration between two or more persons through which the workbecomes less individualistic and centers around shared outcomes.

Collaboration

If a joint project works well, then it may progress into a more established collaboration inwhich ideas are exchanged freely and the scope of teaching and research expands. This typeof collaborative stems from shared outcomes that develop through discourse among groupmembers. Collaborations of this type still tend to be term limited and product-oriented, butthey have the potential to result in increased dialogue around issues of interest to the group.A collaboration requires more investment from group members in terms of time, effort, andtrust. Collaborations occur because of mutual interest in a final product or products, but theamount of trust involved is greater than that of a joint project as ideas belong to and are sharedby the group. Collaborations may also result in communities of practice, in which people worktogether to learn how to improve a practice or product (Wenger 2006); or they may emergefrom FLC (Cox, 2004) focused projects. When the scope of collaboration expands, thenumber of members in the group may also expand as collaborators tap into their ownnetworks and invite greater participation. For instance, an interdisciplinary course may

Fig. 1 Evolution of thinking communities

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296 289

initially involve only two faculty members from different departments, but eventually expandto include multiple faculty and other departments. Likewise, a collaboration of researchpartners may grow to include others with complementary disciplinary contributions.

The Thinking Community

Thinking communities evolve when groups move beyond product orientation and focus insteadon the reflective process that includes changes in the way group members think or perceive whatthey know.While we may argue that all of us in academe are experienced thinkers, the deliberatenature of a thinking community results in a willingness to share and expand personal schemas(Senge 1990) to fit new conceptions and understanding. Rather than viewing issues through asingle lens, a thinking community examines the issue through a variety of angles in order tounderstand the problem better and to enhance individuals’ own thought processes. A thinkingcommunity functions as a means for expanding the role of faculty members as learners.

Thinking communities, then, are a means of enhancing faculty learning rather thansimply a means of increasing or improving output. From a learning perspective, a thinkingcommunity promotes double-loop learning (Argyris and Schön 1978; Schön 1983), inwhich feedback loops operate internally through deliberate self-reflection and externallythrough reflection within a group. In this regard, thinking communities focus on the processof creation (i.e., learning) as opposed to a sole focus on product.

Characteristics of Thinking Communities

Central to the development of a thinking community are changes in dominant or hegemonicthought schemas. Senge (1990) referred to mental maps that guide our thinking, but that also maypreclude individuals from seeing alternatives unless they reflect upon underlying assumptions(Argyris and Schön 1978). Involvement of individuals with diverse guiding epistemologies aids inprompting group members to question their own understanding of knowledge by deconstructingideas and exploring new areas of thought. A caution exists at this point, however, as differentials inpower may give favor to certain perspectives. Attention to underlying power inequities (Austinand Baldwin 1991) becomes a part of the group reflective process to aid in recognizing theseissues. Differences in group members’ positions, expertise, and individual power may createtensions in a thinking community if issues of power and privilege remain unaddressed.

Greater focus on process and less on product invite group members to be more open intheir collaboration because they move past merely thinking of the next product or teachingthe next class. Junior faculty members, however, may find that tenure requirements createpressures for products, namely publications and grant funding; and as a result they mayhave to reconcile the trade-offs in their involvement in longer-term thinking communities inwhich tangible products are not immediate or aligned with the tenure clock. Although thereis a focus on the group process, this emphasis does not mean that products do not exist orthat they are not important to the group. Products do emerge from the collaboration withinthinking communities, but instead of being the primary goal they are a significantbyproduct of the thinking community. Rather, by shifting attention to the process within thegroup, the questioning of group members' underlying theoretical frameworks and schemasallows for deeper exploration of ideas and potentially creates new ways of thinking. Thisprocess can result in transformational learning (Mezirow and Taylor 2009) for members—shifting how faculty members think about what they know, a distinct difference from acollaboration in which the goal is to learn more about a single element, such as a research

290 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296

project or realm as in a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). A thinkingcommunity results in meta-analysis of process and the questioning of disciplinaryassumptions (Creamer 2004).

The initial formation of a thinking community might emerge from a successful jointventure or collaboration. Moreover, a thinking community could develop based uponrelationships originally formed within a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991) orFLC (Cox, 2004). Faculty members seeking to develop a thinking community may look totheir existing collaborators and colleagues as a source of membership for creating this typeof group. Essential in this group formation are articulated and shared values to guide thegroup process and a commitment to ongoing reflection. Likewise, institutions canencourage the creation of thinking communities by creating a framework that fosters thistype of group formation. Seed grants can help jumpstart this process by producing anopportunity for faculty members to have time to devote to the effort. Also, specificlanguage in tenure and promotion policies that values collaborative work could serve toreward faculty members for group participation and ventures.

Thinking communities develop several critical characteristics that contribute to success withinthe group process. Groupmembers are focused on learning and expanding their understanding ofideas. In that regard, the group might set aside time for individual journaling on a given topic andlater discuss what each group member wrote, or the group might approach a project together andthen share their thoughts on how each group member approached the project, what their guidingassumptions were, and why those assumptions were held. It is the two-step process of reflectingindividually (what do I think and why?) combined with the group discussion of similarities anddifferences (how did others think differently about this and how does this impact my ownthinking?) that allow group members to understand, and possibly alter, their modes of thinking.Here, concepts of lifelong learning and adult learning theories contribute to understanding theinteractions within the group. Central to the learning process is the idea of tying new learning topast experience, in this case disciplinary knowledge; and self-directed learning guides the facultymembers. Members engage in critique and develop a shared vision of the function of the group.They prioritize the time dedicated to the thinking group, which can be as simple as making allgroup meetings and contributing to the process. These traits do not emerge instantaneously whenthe group forms, yet develop over time as trust within the group grows.

As noted by Creamer (2004), long-term collaboration involves dedication to the group.Commitment to meeting regularly and holding group work time as sacrosanct builds trust andrelationships among group members, another important element of thinking communities.Dedication to the group process also allows for the creation of shared meaning of goals andvision for the thinking community as well. As in all types of team work, norms are establishedin which members feel safe to criticize and critique one another to help advance the process.

Yet, addressing imbalances in power among group members will quite likely have tooccur. Tensions can emerge if group members do not have a system for discussing how tohandle disagreements, if members with more power due to rank or longevity on campustake over, or if individual goals and objectives do not align with the group vision. Issuesmay arise when a member of the thinking community is not an active participant and doesnot contribute. In this instance, the lack of involvement may be episodic due to otherpersonal or professional demands; and the member may become reengaged. Yet, long-termdetachment and lack of involvement by an individual can disrupt group dynamics and mustbe dealt with by the group’s members.

At times, thinking communities might have a champion of the process, but at other timesvarious group members may take on leadership roles. Thinking communities are not alwaysegalitarian, but they are based on the value of all members' contributions regardless of their

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296 291

roles or positions. Initially, some hierarchies might exist in the group, particularly oneformed when an individual is a graduate student working with a team led by a facultymember (Hinck, et al. 2009). To avoid potential problems, members should addresshierarchical issues at the outset by considering power differentials that may exist due togender, rank, or other factors and how potential problems of members feeling inferior orsuperior may be avoided. Once hierarchical elements are recognized, group rules may beestablished to ensure all members are provided equitable input and consideration. Forexample, the group may choose to have a different person lead the group reflection time; ormembers may be assigned to oversee different tasks. The best way to avoid issues ofunequal power is to develop relationships in which each group member is consideredindividually rather than by rank, position, or discipline. When someone feels that the unduepower of one member is influencing the group process, it is imperative to have a process inplace to discuss these issues. Over time, as relationships strengthen, these hierarchicaldistinctions blur to allow for more ebb and flow in leadership within the group.

One key milestone for faculty members is the tenure and promotion process. Newfaculty members in particular have concerns regarding what they often perceive as aconfusing and unarticulated pathway to tenure (Gappa et al. 2007; Sorcinelli 2000, 2002).They may be reluctant to take part in collaborative work, the value of which may not berecognized by review committees or departmental colleagues. In this regard, institutions canseek to provide clarity in tenure and promotion policies that indicate how collaborativework will be counted in the process. Faculty members can then create tenure and promotionnarratives that showcase how their collaborative work has advanced knowledge within theirdisciplines, in particular how preconceived knowledge and scholarship is challenged andthinking expanded (Creamer 2004).

Defining group processes and knowing the goals of thinking communities is important inestablishing a thinking community. Group processes involve the basic elements of teamcreation and team building, through which members come to understand their individualresponsibilities toward the group and patterns of behavior within the group. For some, initialcollaborative efforts may eventually shift to the creation of a thinking community. In thisinstance, working together over time creates a sense of shared purpose and sense of worth inworking together. Collaborators know whom they can trust to follow through on aspects ofprojects, and individuals become open to questioning their own underlying assumptions.

Intentionally seeking to establish a thinking community requires a few key steps. First,identification of an area of inquiry for research must occur through open discussion amonggroup members. The focus may be on project specific areas such as researching a particularecosystem, addressing a social issue such as college access for low-income students, orinquiring about the historical significance of the beginning of social movements. Anotherimportant element in the formation stage is the purposeful inclusion of individuals who maylook at the central issue differently. Differing perspectives may arise from disciplinarydifferences or alternative methodological approaches. The advantage of seeing a problemfrom multiple perspectives provides the central benefit to this type of group. Finally, aprocess for individual and group reflection must be included in the guiding principles forthe thinking community.

Sustaining Momentum

Thinking communities can only develop over time with intentional effort. Fostering acommunity that values the process of generating ideas forces group members to dig deeply

292 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296

into long-held assumptions, and reflection is a key element in this process (Schön 1983).Although the benefits are many, one major challenge remains, the same issue that ensues inany type of collaborative work: the means for sustaining this work as a thinkingcommunity.

Faculty development programming can support faculty work in thinking communities.First, faculty development programming can create space, both physical in use ofconference rooms in the faculty development center and temporal in the creation of timefor faculty to meet to collaborate. Second, programming can review tactics central to groupprocesses, such as how to establish group norms, discussion of communication practices,and training for dealing with conflict. Finally, faculty development leaders can work withinstitutional leaders to develop policies for tenure and promotion that acknowledge andvalue the collaborative process.

Sustainability of the group requires that members benefit from their involvement withinthe thinking community. Benefits, however, may mean different things for differentmembers. For some, a benefit is having a space that feels safe for testing out new ideas orhaving their concepts challenged and ultimately improved, whereas for others the groupprovides a professional network that shifts understanding of disciplinary knowledge. Ifinstitutional policies are in place that codify participation in collaborative work in tenureand promotion reviews, individuals seeking these key faculty milestones may obtainbenefits in a tangible manner. Members must also be comfortable with uncertainty as theoutcomes of the thinking community are unknown and often unpredictable. Individual andgroup learning often takes serendipitous routes that result in benefits for all members of thegroup, but these benefits are difficult to predict. As noted above, however, thinkingcommunities are not without outcomes; products in the form of new courses, creation ofinterdisciplinary degrees, publications, presentations, and grants will likely result from thegroup process even though the process of the thinking community is central. Thesescholarly products can translate directly to positive contributions in a tenure or promotiondossier.

Structured time is another necessary element of sustaining a thinking community.Trust is created through time spent together, open communication, and sharedunderstanding. FLCs use this tactic to allow faculty members to address issues in atime-bound fashion, typically an academic year (Cox, 2004). What FLCs andcommunities of practice build upon is the fact that relationship building takes time.Likewise, nurturing trust requires time; and group members must be willing and able tospend that time together. Typical faculty schedules offer summers as an opportunity forfocused group work; national or international conferences also provide times whenindividuals from different institutions can have face-to-face time for group gatherings.However, a thinking community can only develop through regularly scheduled time forinteraction and communication.

Technology now provides an additional and different way for collaborative work tooccur and for supplementing communication among members. Faculty members withaccess to a learning management system can create a virtual space that allows the groupto span the space and time continuum. Audio and video conferencing can create linksfor real-time connections for the group. More faculty members are using socialnetworking sites, such as Facebook, that also allow them to communicate whenschedules may not mesh. Wiki and blog sites are alternate spaces where facultymembers may collaborate. These systems provide a place for multiple individuals towork together through sharing ideas synchronously or asynchronously. The benefit toincorporating technology is that it also provides a means to track individual learning

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296 293

and changes over time. This article, for instance, was written collaboratively using awiki. When looking at changes over time, it is apparent that the writing was a jointeffort as few sentences can be attributed to one author. This format aids in removingthe risk of feeling like a single person has responsibility for the final writing and beginsto eliminate power differentials.

Critical reflection is the most important component in sustaining thinking communities.Meta-cognition, thinking about thinking, provides a central element of learning by requiringfaculty members to question assumptions about their thinking. Meta-cognition allows aperson to understand their own cognitive processes (Flavell 1976), which leads tounderstanding and processing information in ways that help us step outside of our preferredand usual schemas. In a group format, intentional reflection in this manner helps us alsounderstand the way that others process information. Intentional reflection is key to thelearning process and in encouraging faculty members to think differently. When facultymembers are learners, their own ideas as well as those in the group are able to advance inthe process. Ongoing reflection provides a means of generating feedback about learninginto the group process and individual faculty thinking processes, which helps groupmembers assess benefits, contributes to long term sustainability of the thinking community,and reawakens faculty members as learners.

Conclusion

Individuals are initially drawn to faculty work due to a passion regarding their scholarlyinterests (Neumann 2009). Training for the professoriate, however, focuses on theindividual pursuit of knowledge and the defense of new ideas. New faculty members areoften surprised by the levels of isolation faced when they obtain their first positions inacademe (Menges 1999). To help combat this solitude and to meet the shifting demands offaculty work, collaborations should be encouraged (Austin and Baldwin 1991), particularlyin the form of thinking communities which may help faculty sustain their passion forteaching and learning. The rewards of collaborative efforts such as thinking communitiescan be greater than the products generated. As Creamer (2004) noted, long-termcollaborations can move faculty members beyond individualistic thinking to globalperspectives that challenge preconceived notions of knowledge and scholarship.

The changing dynamic of faculty work has the potential to discourage new entrantsto the professoriate. Encouraging collaborations may be a way of repacking facultywork and keeping the initial spark that started individuals on the pathway to theprofessoriate. Reward structures for promotion and tenure need to be addressed, inparticular for the junior faculty, to lessen the unbalanced nature of the current facultywork role (Arreola et al. 2003). Organizationally, collaborative work should beencouraged. Current research on teaching and learning notes the benefits of cooperativeand collaborative learning (Grant-Vallone 2011; Millis and Cottell 1997). These benefitsshould extend to faculty as learners as well. On an individual basis, collaborative workhelps faculty members reclaim their passion. On an organizational level, collaborativework can increase productivity, expand the knowledge base, and encourage diversity ofthinking. Thinking communities and other types of collaborative work decrease facultyisolation, provide an outlet for idea generation, and encourage reflective practice whichwill benefit all aspects of faculty work. Ultimately, considering faculty members aslearners allows for a chance to reinvigorate passion within the professoriate and results ingreater contributions to the knowledge base.

294 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296

References

Amey, M. J., & Brown, D. F. (2004). Breaking out of the box: Interdisciplinary collaboration and facultywork. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Arreola, R., Theall, M., & Aleamoni, L. M. (2003, April). Beyond scholarship: Recognizing the multipleroles of the professoriate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, IL.

Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship andteaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, no. 7. Washington, DC: School of Education andHuman Development, George Washington University.

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. The Carnegie foundation for theadvancement of teaching. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W. T., Jr., & Helland, P. A. (2006). Ideal and actual value patterns toward domains ofscholarship in three types of colleges and universities. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Analyzing faculty workand rewards: Using Boyer’s four domains of scholarship. New Directions for Institutional Research, 129(pp. 67–76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Buch, K. (2008). Faculty perceptions of SoTL at a research institution: A preliminary study. Teaching of

Psychology, 35(4), 297–300.Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. In M.D. Cox & L. Richlin (Eds.), Building

Faculty Learning Communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 197 (pp. 5-23). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Creamer, E. G. (2004). Assessing the outcomes of long-term research collaboration. The Canadian Journalof Higher Education, 34(1), 24–41.

Finkelstein, M. (1982, March). Faculty colleagueship patterns and research productivity. Paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature ofintelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategicimperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2011). Successful group work: Using cooperative learning and team-based learning inthe classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(4), 99–121.

Hart, J., & Mars, M. M. (2009). Joint appointments and the professoriate: Two houses but no home?Innovative Higher Education, 34(1), 19–32.

Hinck, S. S., Garza Mitchell, R. L., Williamson, P., Eddy, P. L., & Bechtold, B. B. (2009). Reflection andresearch: Forming the perfect FIT. Teaching & Learning: Journal of Natural Inquiry & ReflectivePractice, 23(3), 120–133.

Hutchings, P., Huber, M. T., & Ciccone, A. (2011). The scholarship of teaching and learning reconsidered:Institutional integration and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Kenny, N., & Evers, F. (2010). Responding to the challenging dilemma of faculty engagement in research on

teaching and learning and disciplinary research. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 21–26.

Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among collegeand university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UnitedKingdom: Cambridge University Press.

McGinn, M. K., Shields, C., Manley-Casimir, M., Grundy, A. L., & Fenton, N. E. (2005). Living ethics: Anarrative of collaboration and belonging in a research team. Reflective Practice, 6(4), 551–567.

Menges, R. J. (1999). Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and buildinginstitutional support. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E. W. (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community,workplace, and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G., Jr. (1997). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. AmericanCouncil on Education Series on Higher Education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296 295

Neumann, A. (2009). Protecting the passion of scholars in times of change. Change, 41(2), 10–15.O’Meara, K., Terosky, A. L., & Neumann, A. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth

perspective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, Volume

2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Pifer, M. J. (2010). “Such a dirty word”: Networks and networking in academic departments. (Doctoral

Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3420263)Russ, S. L. (2010). Learning communities versus traditional courses: Which promotes the highest levels of

student persistence, achievement, and integration? Little Rock, AR: The University of Arkansas at LittleRock.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, England: TempleSmith.

Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2008). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work andcareers. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.Sorcinelli, M. D. (2000). Principles of good practice: Supporting early-career faculty. Guidance for deans,

department chairs, and other academic leaders. Washington, DC: AAHE.Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). New conceptions of scholarship for a new generation of faculty members. In K. J.

Zahorski (Ed.), Scholarship in the postmodern era: New venues, new values, new visions. NewDirections for Teaching and Learning, 90 (pp. 41–48). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., & Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of facultydevelopment: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Weissman, E., Butcher, K. F., Schneider, E., Teres, J., Collado, H., & Greenberg, D. (2011). Learningcommunities for students in developmental math: Impact studies at Queensborough and HoustonCommunity Colleges. New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research, Teachers CollegeColumbia.

Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm

296 Innov High Educ (2012) 37:283–296