Exploring the link between inquiry paradigm and the process of collaboration

Review of Higher Education

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 447-465

  Creamer, Elizabeth G ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037821759     PISSN: 01625748     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2003.0012     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Austin, A. E. (2001). Reviewing the literature on scholarly collaboration: How we can understand collaboration among academic couples. In E. G. Creamer & Associates, Working equal: Academic couples as collaborators (pp. 130-145). New York: RoutledgeFalmer Press.
2. Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Services.
3. Baldwin, R. G., & Austin, A. E. (1995). Toward greater understanding of faculty research collaboration. Review of Higher Education, 19(2), 45-70.
4. Bayer, A. E., & Smart, J. C. (1991). Career publication patterns and collaborative "style" in American academic science. Journal of Higher Education, 62(6), 613-636.
5. Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings (pp. 271-303). Berkeley: University of California Press.
6. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic fields. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
7. Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 1-42). New York: Agathon Press.
8. Creamer, E. G. (2001). Working equal: Academic couples as collaborators. New York: RoutledgeFalmer Press.
9. Cuba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Gage, N. L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, 18(7), 4-10.
11. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Lattuca, L. R. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
13. Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past. In E. G. Cuba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 67-87). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14. Lincoln, Y. S., & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Pallas, A. M. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Research, 30(5), 6-11.
17. Palmer, P. J. (September/October 1988). Community, conflict, and ways of knowing. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 19(5), 20-25.
18. Reinhaz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. Stake, R. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273-285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Toma, J. D. (1997a). Alternative inquiry paradigms, faculty cultures, and the definition of academic lives. Journal of Higher Education, 65(6), 679-705.
22. Toma, J. D. (1997b). Exploring a typology for classifying inquirers and inquiry into paradigms. Review of Higher Education, 21(1), 19-41.
23. Toma, J. D. (1999). Understanding why scholars choose to work in alternative inquiry paradigms. Research in Higher Education, 40(5), 539-569.