International Social Work

International Social Work http://isw.sagepub.com/

A social partnership between Ghanaian and US academic institutions Joanna E. Bettmann and Moises Prospero International Social Work published online 12 October 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0020872812452174 The online version of this article can be found at: http://isw.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/10/12/0020872812452174

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: International Association of Schools of Social Work International Council of Social Welfare International Federation of Social Workers

Additional services and information for International Social Work can be found at: Email Alerts: http://isw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://isw.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 12, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from isw.sagepub.com at UNIV OF UTAH SALT LAKE CITY on February 13, 2013

452174

2012

ISW0010.1177/0020872812452174International Social WorkBettmann and Prospero

i s w

Article

A social partnership between Ghanaian and US academic institutions

International Social Work 1–19 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0020872812452174 isw.sagepub.com

Joanna E. Bettmann University of Utah, USA

Moises Prospero Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Abstract This study explored a social partnership between Ghanaian and US universities. Through qualitative narratives, participants reported the partnership developed professional and social relationships, but cited problems in preparedness. Findings point to the importance of faculty perceptions in developing academic partnerships and the need for strong relationships in early phases of social partnerships. Keywords faculty exchange, international collaboration, social partnership, social work faculty

Introduction The purpose of the present study was to explore faculty perceptions regarding the developing social partnership between the Department of Sociology and Social Work at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in Ghana and the College of Social Work at the University of Corresponding author: Joanna Bettmann, University of Utah College of Social Work, 395 South 1500 East, Room 101, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. Email: [email protected]


2

International Social Work

Utah in the USA. The context in which the word faculty is used in this article is in reference to ‘the teaching and administrative staff and those members of the administration having academic rank in an educational institution’ (‘faculty 3b’, Merriam-Webster, 2011). The goal of the social partnership was to develop relationships between the faculty in order to build capacity for international collaboration in the areas of research, training and teaching (Joubert, 2006). Thus, the present study explores the participants’ perceptions of the partnership. This includes both positive as well as problematic elements of the partnership. The present study also highlights important factors critical to the development of social partnerships between university faculties.

Definition of social partnerships Social partnerships are not commonplace relationships. They are sets of formalized, mutual relations between institutions and organizations with the hope of achieving mutually beneficial ends. The commitment is often towards resolving certain social issues. Thus, they are usually formed with particular targets or goals in mind. They provide a means of addressing problems that may otherwise be difficult for the institutions and organizations to handle in their individual capacities (Mikheev and Mikheev, 2004; Selsky and Parker, 2010; Siegel, 2010a). These partnerships tend to be specific to particular projects. Further, as institutions and organizations come into agreement and form partnerships composite organizations or institutions emerge (Selsky and Parker, 2010). Networking between institutions from different cultures brings together the strengths from each organization to overcome common problems (Samoilovich, 1993). International networking develops social partnerships that have the potential to build capacity, improve social delivery, reduce risk of liabilities, and reduce costs of services. There are three types of social partnerships: community partnerships, enacted partnerships, and negotiated partnerships (Billett et al., 2007). Community partnerships evolve when local issues are identified within the community and then external agencies outside the community are sought to gain external support to address the identified concerns. Unlike community partnerships, negotiated partnerships occur when the enacting agency has similar issues as the community and therefore build a relationship to develop reciprocal goals. That is, the issues are not solely identified in the community, but rather are simultaneously identified in the agency. Both community and agency compromise to achieve their reciprocal goals. Negotiated partnerships are more likely to become effective social partnerships. Enacted partnerships originate from


Bettmann and Prospero

3

external institutions from outside the partnership, such as the government, that require funding that is bound to predetermined outcomes (Billett et al., 2007). Both for business entities and academic institutions, the initiation of collaborations and the form these collaborations take may be motivated by a need to fulfill accreditation requirements (Siegel, 2010b). Social partnerships offer a wide array of benefits to their participants, developing new circuits of knowledge as well as offering financial incentives. Partnerships of this form continue to grow in importance (Siegel, 2010b). Social partnerships can bring together communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and government agencies to solve problems through consensus-based decision-making and identification of common concerns (Field, 2000; Seddon et al., 2005a). However, this process is complex and sometimes includes perspectives that are challenged from within the partnership (Cardini, 2006). These partnerships and collaborations can be contentious at times, characterized by conflicts. These conflicts may be as a result of institutional politics and power plays (Seddon et al., 2005a, 2005b; Siegel, 2010b). To overcome these challenges and to be effective towards achieving the shared goals, it is vital that all parties involved in the social partnerships be directed towards the common focus of concern (Coffield, 2000). All parties need to build trust within the partnership by giving up some of their controlling power and interests (Cook and Kothari, 2001; Hickey and Mohan, 2004). A study that reviewed 10 social partnerships found that effective development of social partnerships had five similar dimensions: shared purposes and goals, relations with partners, capacity for partnership work, governance and leadership, and trust and trustworthiness (Billett al., 2007). Billet et al. (2007) describe five components of developing and maintaining social partnerships. First, the authors explain that building and maintaining shared purposes and goals begins with the identification of the concerns of the involved parties, followed by the development of strategies on how to accomplish set goals. Second, the authors describe social partnerships as depending upon relationship-building which involves inclusive processes that encourage participation from all involved parties. Third, Billet et al. detail that social partnerships develop ties for partnership work by creating the infrastructure for goal attainment. Fourth, the authors explain that social partnerships are built and maintained through partnership governance and leadership. This process includes development of the leadership within the partnership, as well as the development of partnership rules and guidelines. Finally, the last dimension Billet et al. define as critical to social partnerships is the building of trust. The authors describe trust building through focusing on the needs of all partnership members, as well


4


creating systems to enhance communication within the partnership. Although Billet et al.’s study focuses on social partnerships between governmental institutions and NGOs with communities, their points are equally applicable to effective partnerships between academic institutions.

Academic partnerships Academic partnerships tend to be structured so that they further the scholarship aspirations of students and practitioners (Joubert, 2006). In addition, some partnerships are made to meet the needs of other beneficiaries, notably the communities where the parties concerned operate (Seddon et al., 2005a). A diverse range of benefits fostering economic, as well as spiritual, growth may also accrue from social partnerships (Mikheev and Mikheev, 2004). One example of a successful social partnership between academic institutions is the Ahfad University for Women (AUW) and Iowa State University (ISU) Sustainable Linkage Model. AUW in Sudan and ISU in the United States created an international collaboration to address four areas of need: curricula/programs, research, outreach, and faculty development. The AUW-ISU collaboration followed the Linkage Equity Model which is based on ‘collaboration, shared values, partner-identified needs, and reciprocity in providing mutual benefits to both institutions’ (Cowan et al., 2004: 46). Notably, the collaboration has lasted more than two decades. These two institutions developed a social partnership to improve educational services at both universities. More specifically, each university wanted to internationalize their curriculum and programs, improve research on child development and women as change agents, develop outreach efforts in community nutrition, and provide faculty development opportunities (Cowan et al., 2004). However, the strategies to achieve these goals took separate pathways. To internationalize the focus of their programs, AUW wanted to develop community nutrition outreach programs for the surrounding community while ISU developed nutrition education curricula for their students (Cowan et al., 2004). Through collaborative efforts between the two universities, ISU was able to develop a nutrition education program and curricula for faculty to teach students while AUW faculty implemented and evaluated the community nutrition outreach programs in Sudanese communities. Feedback from AUW and the communities was vital in developing theoretically based, yet practical program interventions that were taught to ISU students (Cowan et al., 2004). Another common goal for ISU and AUW was faculty development. ISU sought sabbaticals for faculty while AUW was in need of advanced degrees



5

opportunities for their faculty. Thus, AUW faculty studied at ISU and achieved masters and doctoral degrees while ISU faculty participated in team-teaching and research collaboration with AUW faculty. Overall, the outcomes from the AUW-ISU collaboration included advanced degree attainment, sabbaticals, curriculum and program development, conference presentations, published peer-reviewed articles, and sustainable community projects that improved human conditions (Cowan et al., 2004). The different strategies used by each institution may be due to the economic differences between the two countries (Sudan and the USA). The economic status influences the different needs that each institution has. The needs of each institution may elicit different perceptions of goal achievement between the faculty members from AUW and ISU. Literature has not considered the perceptions of the parties involved in the development of social partnerships. Perceptual differences of collaboration expectations and goals may be vital to the long-term success and sustainability of social partnerships, especially during the initial stages of development (Moseley, 2007). Obtaining the perspectives of all parties involved is especially relevant when there is a large power differential between the countries involved (Cook and Kothari, 2001; Hickey and Mohan, 2004). A transparent process may reduce the possibility of an abusive use of power from one institution over the other, particularly when each institution has access to very different levels of resources. The purpose of the present study was to explore faculty perceptions regarding the developing social partnership between the Department of Sociology and Social Work at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in Ghana and the College of Social Work at the University of Utah in the USA. The goal of the social partnership was to develop relationships between the faculty in order to build capacity for international collaboration in the areas of research, training and teaching. Thus, the present study explores the participants’ perceptions of the partnership: both positive as well as problematic elements of the partnership. The present study highlights important factors critical to the development of social partnerships between university faculties.

Method The current study examines data gathered from a one-week faculty exchange between the social work faculties of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA and the KNUST in Kumasi, Ghana. Participants were fulltime social work faculty and staff from both universities who gathered in Kumasi, Ghana in June 2007. Participants presented to the combined


6


faculties on their area of expertise in curriculum or research and participated in discussions following each presentation. The week-long faculty exchange involved a combination of professional presentations and more informal gatherings, including tours around the city and countryside and attending a church service led by a Ghanaian faculty member.

Sample Participants in the current study were five faculty from the University of Utah: three women and two men. Four of the faculty identify as White Americans, and one identifies as Mexican American. Two hold PhDs in social work, two hold MSWs, and one holds a PhD in anthropology. Two of the Utah faculty hold senior faculty positions, while three hold junior faculty positions. Four have at least five years of experience as practicing social workers in a range of contexts, while one has experience as a community worker in the Peace Corps. Eight faculty and staff from KNUST participated: seven men and one woman. All identify as Ghanaian. Five of the Ghanaian faculty hold Masters degrees in sociology, two hold PhDs in sociology, and one holds a PhD in divinity. Four have senior faculty positions and four have junior faculty positions. None have experience as practicing social workers and all have been in academia for at least three years.

Process of the faculty exchange In 2005, a faculty member from the University of Utah Department of Infectious Diseases who had an ongoing medical collaboration with KNUST in Kumasi, Ghana, informed a College of Social Work faculty member from the University of Utah (UUCSW) that a new program in social welfare was being created in the College of Social Science at KNUST. The UUCSW faculty member traveled to Ghana with the agenda of meeting with KNUST faculty to discuss potential collaboration between the two universities. During the initial meeting, the UUCSW faculty member and KNUST faculty discussed possibilities for collaboration, deciding together to create a faculty development workshop the following year for the purpose of exchanging information about how social work was taught and addressed. The KNUST faculty had some investment in establishing collaborative relationships as they were developing a new program in social work. Trained primarily as sociologists, the KNUST faculty stated that they realized there were social welfare issues to be addressed in the Kumasi area and that there



7

were not enough trained social workers to address these issues. They believed the KNUST should develop a bachelors-level social work program in order to train students who lived in the area and were likely to practice social work there. The KNUST faculty requested that UUCSW faculty share with them, in workshop format, strategies for teaching social work theoretically and practically. On behalf of the UUCSW, the UUCSW faculty member was attempting to develop international relationships which might support international research collaboration for UUCSW faculty and international training opportunities for UUCSW students. Holding the first workshop in Ghana seemed to be a natural fit because the Ghanaian faculty saw this meeting as a way to positively promote the development of their new social work emphasis. In addition, it was easier for the UUCSW faculty to locate the funding for such travel. The UUCSW Dean provided funds for five UUCSW faculty members to travel to KNUST. KNUST agreed to provide housing at a university guest house and meals for visiting UUCSW faculty. Preparations for the trip to Ghana included an orientation with the lead UUCSW faculty member who had been to Ghana the previous summer. The orientation focused on issues such as cultural differences, weather, food and medical considerations. Thus, the social partnership began as a workshop with the dual purposes of providing support to Ghanaian faculty to develop their social work emphasis and providing support for UUCSW faculty to work with Ghanaian faculty on collaborative research. Additionally, UUCSW faculty hoped that their international training through this workshop would augment their social work practice, teaching and research. In order to meet the goals set out during the previous summer’s planning visit between the Utah faculty member and the KNUST faculty, UUCSW and KNUST faculty presented different material. During the one-week workshop in Ghana the following summer, the Utah faculty presented strategies for teaching social work. The faculty accomplished this by presenting outlines for existing BSW courses in Utah, providing copies of syllabi and texts to KNUST faculty, and presenting sample lessons from BSW courses. The KNUST faculty presented their individual research projects and subsequently engaged in individual research meetings with UUCSW faculty wanting to collaborate in common areas of interest.

Measures At the end of the one-week exchange in June 2007, participants from both universities were asked to write responses to the following questions: 1)


8


what has been the most helpful for you in the workshop this week? Please be specific (which presenters, what about the presentation, the format, etc.); 2) what has been the least helpful? Please be specific; 3) what suggestions do you have for future cross-cultural exchanges such as this one (such as topics, length of visits, format, etc.)?; 4) what do you find valuable about this kind of cross-cultural exchange?; and 5) what benefits do you personally want to gain from these exchanges? Participants were given approximately 30 minutes to hand write responses to these questions, and were asked to answer all questions anonymously. A research assistant of the authors typed up the handwritten responses in order to maintain the confidentiality of participants. Due to the inherent cultural bias in the study given that both of the authors were from UUCSW, the authors engaged in a process of member-checking during data analysis. All participants thus were able to explain how they understood each question and comment on the authors’ interpretations of their words.

Data analysis The qualitative analysis of data was designed to gauge participants’ lived experiences of the faculty exchange. ‘Qualitative researchers strive to reveal meanings and processes that characterize individuals who share some common experience’ (Neimeyer and Hogan, 2002: 108). The authors used a systematic, grounded theory methodology in analyzing the data, meaning that each participant’s narrative was coded for themes or indicators and categorized in terms of their similarity or difference (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The authors used open, axial, and selective coding in this process and searched for underlying themes and relationships among the data. Coding categories were then developed and modified according to those themes. Negative case analysis was used in interpreting the data and reporting findings. Data were triangulated between the two authors and cross-checked for accurate-coding and agreed-upon interpretations of the data (Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Subsequently, the authors presented the coded data to the KNUST and UUCSW faculty during their workshop the following year. Engaging in a process of member checking, the authors asked the previous year’s workshop participants to provide feedback on the coded data and interpretations of it. Their feedback was then incorporated into the discussion section of this study. Notably, participants expressed that the study as written here accurately depicted their experiences.



9

Results Five primary themes emerged from the data analysis process: new relationships, differences and similarities, format of the exchange, professional goals of the exchange, and problems with the exchange.

New relationships The first theme concerned the relational connections formed by the exchange. Six participants commented on the importance of human connection and new relationships developed in the faculty exchange. A Utah participant commented on ‘[T]he generosity and patience of the Ghanaian faculty in showing us around and spending lots of time entertaining us. They made us feel valued’. A Ghanaian participant highlighted the same issue, relationships formed in both social and professional settings during the week: ‘Exchange of ideas as well as fellowship among us. This came about not only through academic circles but also social and religious settings.’ Another Ghanaian participant cited relational goals for the exchange: ‘To meet and make new friends. [To] learn how other people perceive certain issues and what can be learned from them. It also gives me the opportunity to impart some of my values into other people.’ Similarly, two Utah participants cited the goal of the exchange as to make new friends. One noted a personal goal was to ‘[M]ake relationships with people who are very different from me’. Another Utah participant cited the importance of meeting others who were different: ‘Meeting colleagues and others with different values – It creates a reminder that there is not just one way of doing or thinking.’ Another Utah participant described highlights of the exchange in relational terms: ‘Faculty here was welcoming and gracious, which made it so much easier to come to a strange place so far from home.’

Differences and similarities Eleven participants highlighted the theme of differences and similarities. One Utah participant wrote, ‘I felt I gained more insight [in]to our similarities and differences. . . .’ Another Utah participant commented, ‘How the presentations brought [up] our cultural and professional differences; How some issues for Ghana are similar to where we were 30–50 years ago.’ A Ghanaian participant wrote, ‘Interacting and sharing ideas in teaching methods from different cultures has indeed been valuable.’ Another Ghanaian participant wrote, ‘The cross-cultural exchange is valuable as it


10


will facilitate the exchange of information, human and material resources, that would enable both departments to provide the most effective and efficient way of not only training students, but also contribute toward the improvement of social work service toward the development of their society.’ A Utah participant wrote of the importance of the exchange as the ‘value of increasing knowledge. . . finding ‘‘universals’’ and differences between cultures. Understanding how historical perspectives can influence present situations, values, behaviors, etc.’ Another Utah participant wrote that the value of the exchange was in ‘making time to visit more people concerning cultural differences (language, customs, what is important to them)’.

Format of the exchange All participants made suggestions for changes in the format of the faculty exchange. Six participants commented that more time should be allotted for discussion, rather than just formal presentations. One Ghanaian participant wrote that a challenge of the exchange was ‘the inability of presenters to explain in detail the different concepts and topics due to time’. Another Ghanaian wrote that the exchange should be a ‘minimum of two weeks’. Three Ghanaian participants suggested that faculty exchanges be longer than one week, while three Utah participants commented that the one-week length was ‘perfect’. Several participants commented that PowerPoint presentations were a useful tool, with one Utah participant noting, ‘PowerPoint was helpful in presenting material because Ghanaian accents were sometimes hard to understand.’ The same Utah participant also noted that ‘typos in most Ghanaians’ PowerPoints were distracting’. Two Ghanaian participants noted that several of the Ghanaian presentations were not relevant: ‘The connection was not really made between the topic and what could be benefited for the social worker.’ Many participants noted that time during the exchange should be spent differently. Two Utah participants commented that they would have liked to observe social service agencies in the country. Two other Utah participants noted that presentations were too long ‘and in some instances too remedial’. Another Utah participant commented that presentations were too ‘vague. I would have appreciated more concrete explanation of the program. . . .’ This participant also noted that ‘generalist comments from presenters without giving specific, concrete examples from practice’ was not useful. Several Ghanaian participants suggested different topics be covered: ‘what could be



11

done to deal with social problems’, ‘poverty analysis, policy analysis’, ‘cross-cultural examples. In particular, African examples’. Also from the Ghanaian side, suggestions for future exchanges included expansions of the format: ‘student and faculty exchanges’, ‘workshops at Utah’. Other Ghanaian suggestions pointed to a stronger focus for the exchange: ‘topics discussed each day should be related or follow a particular theme’ and ‘presentations be specifically related to the focus of the exchange’. Other participants suggested there should be greater focus in future workshops. One Ghanaian wrote, ‘topics in the future should be more focused on topics which are likely to be useful concretely to each faculty and to research collaboration’. Utahans’ comments pointed to a similar need for focus: ‘Better coordination of people and topics’ and ‘topic discussion should be country based and made more practical’. Another Utah participant wrote, ‘leaders of each university’s contingent should ensure that presentations are complete prior to the beginning of the workshop and that they are appropriately focused and likely to be useful’. Yet another Utah participant wrote, ‘for topics, rather than compare what we both offer, present topics (studies) on what can/must be done to help each other, i.e. accreditation, industrial exchanges, licensing, etc.’ Several participants commented on the need for more one-on-one communication during the exchange. One Ghanaian wrote, ‘[T]here should be less talking and more individualistic communications. Example, there could be a broad topic, broken down and shared for groups (two in a group) to discuss and come out with papers to be shared by the general group.’ A Utah participant commented that exchanges should provide space for participants to ‘[S]pend time with specific individuals with whom our professional interest is similar’. A Ghanaian participant noted that the most valuable part of the exchange was ‘the frank discussions during the course of presentation and the exchange of information through [these] experiences’. Some participants noted the need for other groups’ involvement. A Utah participant wrote that ‘student perspectives of social issues, educational process, etc.’ should be included in the exchange. A Ghanaian participant wrote that ‘people from agencies who have experience in practicum be included in the delegation’. Other participants made concrete suggestions about format. A Utah participant wrote, ‘I appreciated that the Ghanaian faculty encouraged both faculties to sit intermixed during the workshop by setting out [placecards with participants’ names on them].’ A Ghanaian participant wrote, ‘participants should have handouts of presentations to read to enable them to make informed contributions and critique where possible’. A Utahan wrote that participants should have an ‘exchange of syllabi and articles used in


12


courses’; this comment speaks to the participant’s interest in viewing the Ghanaians’ syllabi and course materials for the purpose of deepening his/ her learning of different international contexts for teaching social work.

Professional goals of the exchange Five Ghanaian participants commented on their hopes that the faculty exchange would enhance their teaching and research through ‘international exposure’, ‘improve research and publication ability’, or ‘an upgradement in my studies’. Three Ghanaians commented that the faculty exchange improved their knowledge through exposure to new ways of doing things. Three Utah participants noted that they intended the exchange to facilitate their research and publishing. One noted a goal of the exchange as ‘Be[ing] able to conduct research with other international faculty so that we can investigate bigger, more complex and internationally focused areas.’ Another noted a professional goal of the exchange as ‘publications for international research’, as well as ‘expand[ing] my understanding of my research topics, which then leads to better questions and hopefully more comprehensive and practical research’.

Problems in the exchange Several participants commented on things that irritated or frustrated them about the exchange. Both Utah and Ghanaian participants commented on the lateness of Ghanaian participants. One Ghanaian participant wrote, ‘The time, punctuality on the part of the Ghanaians was not good enough. They could have done better.’ A Ghanaian participant wrote, ‘I think participants should be housed in the same apartments to forestall the issue of punctuality.’ One Utah participant took offense at ‘people taking cell phone calls during the presentations [and] people having side conversations during the presentations’. The same Utah participant noted, ‘One faculty member from Ghana put together her presentation during others’ presentations and that offended me.’

Discussion The present study explored faculty perceptions regarding a developing social partnership between KNUST in Ghana and University of Utah in the US. The findings ultimately corroborated what previous literature asserts about social partnerships (Cardini, 2006; Kezar, 2006; Siegel, 2010b).



13

Participants reported that the faculty exchange provided an opportunity to develop new professional and social relationships. These relationships involved experiencing cultural differences and similarities, such as interacting with faculty with diverse values and developing ideas to improve social work teaching. Participants suggested a variety of format changes in the faculty exchange. Participants from both sites recommended that, in addition to the formal presentations, more time should be scheduled for detailed discussion. Ghanaian participants recommended increasing the length of the faculty exchange while Utah participants perceived one week as an appropriate length. A possible reason for the Ghanaian participants’ suggestion for an extension in the length of time could be the need for support in developing KNUST’s social work program which is new and in its beginning stages. In this regard, an extended period might afford both institutions ample time to cover a wider range of topics with greater depth and focus. Additionally, an extended time period might also create an opportunity to structure the meetings in a way that would reduce conflicts with the grading schedules of participants from KNUST, potentially helping to increase their level of preparedness. Participants from both sites perceived the purpose of the faculty exchange as improving teaching, increasing research collaboration and increasing publications through new and innovative methods (Joubert, 2006). This points to the mutual benefits institutions derive from social partnerships and how communities also benefit (Selsky and Parker, 2010). Finally, both Utah and Ghanaian participants reported that a major problem with the faculty exchange was the lateness of some participants and the lack of preparedness of Ghanaian faculty. This point is similar to difficulties that come with forming social partnerships (Seddon et al., 2005b). During the process of member-checking, Ghanaian participants told the authors that Ghanaians tend to be late as a general rule. One KNUST faculty noted, ‘If someone says to a Ghanaian the program starts at 2 pm, he has in his head that it starts at 2:30.’ Thus, some of the lateness issues manifested during the workshop simply may reflect cultural differences (Kezar, 2006; Siegel, 2010b). During member-checking also, KNUST participants noted that the timing of the week-long workshop was difficult for them, coming in the middle of end-of-semester grading. KNUST participants suggested that subsequent workshops be scheduled later in the summer in order to allow adequate time for grading and thus more time for presentation preparation. The current study presents a promising model for beginning a social partnership between a US and an African university. Research illustrates


14


that effective development of social partnerships includes shared purposes and goals, strong relationships between partners, capacity for shared work, appropriate leadership, and trust (Billet et al., 2007; Kezar, 2006). The current study shows elements of all these five components and points to the critical importance of relationships in collaboration. Social work practice is first and foremost a relationship, a relationship between a worker and a client (Lambert and Barley, 2002). International collaboration is also first and foremost about relationships, relationships between practitioners separated by vast distances. These relationships are inevitably complicated by the cultural differences and distance between collaborators, but relationship remains critical to successful social partnerships (Kezar, 2006; Lasker et al., 2001). The current study indicates the critical importance of developing strong personal and professional relationships between members of an early social partnership. Such relationships are likely to develop in a combination of both social and professional activities. Specifically, participants in international academic partnerships should participate in structured and unstructured social activities together, exploring local sites of interest (historical sites, fun activities, outdoor pastimes) and enjoying meals together. This social time is likely to enhance the social partnership by strengthening the relationships between participants (Kezar, 2006).

Difficulties within partnerships International academic partnerships present enormous possibilities for the good of the institutions involved as well as the communities in which they are situated (Lasker et al., 2001; Seddon et al., 2005a). However, factors such as geographical and cultural differences tend to make these partnerships very challenging. In addition, the political histories of the different nations, their current political orientations and the prevailing political climates may impact academic partnerships. A proper understanding of these political and historical elements is necessary in ensuring participants’ respect for each other and to build trust. These differences also tend to affect the general nature of interactions with a capacity to undermine the overall goal of academic collaboration (Billet et al., 2007; Moseley, 2007; Samoilovich, 1993). The present study suggests the need for participants in international academic partnerships to become educated in the politics, culture and history of the involved countries. Such education is likely to improve the quality of the academic partnerships, as participants will have a better sense of the academic climate they are visiting.



15

Economic capacity differences One of the main differences that exist between the two nations involved is the United States’ position as a developed nation in contrast to Ghana’s position as a developing African nation. The United States has a greater economic capacity than Ghana and, being more industrialized, a technological edge too. The political, economic and socio-cultural differences are likely to influence the expectations and perceptions the parties involved have of the partnership. Such differences can be viewed positively, as enabling or empowering partnerships that foster growth and development. Conversely, these differences may be viewed negatively and seen as part of one nation’s efforts to expand its geopolitical influence (Cook and Kothari, 2001; Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Moseley, 2007). This present study suggests that, within international academic partnerships, participants should discuss openly differences in financial capacity between their respective institutions. Such open discussion is likely to have a positive impact on the collaboration.

Limitations The current study presents findings from the early stages of one international social partnership, but data presented here may not be representative of all international collaborations. Notably, the sample size of our study is small and our data represents collaboration with only one country and one institution. Our findings cannot be generalized to all international collaborative efforts. Further, the data presented here may not be generalizable to other kinds of partnerships. Thus, our results should be interpreted with caution. Finally, the present study was developed by the UUCSW faculty and did not include the KNUST faculty. Therefore, the study’s questions come from a particular US lens that may have skewed responses from the participants.

Update on the social partnership Several outcomes have emerged since the completion of the first workshop. First is the completion of a second faculty workshop. All nine members of the Department of Sociology and Social Work from KNUST visited the University of Utah College of Social Work and participated in a for-credit collaborative teaching workshop. The teaching workshop consisted of a KNUST faculty member paired with a UUCSW faculty member, teaching students and community members international perspectives of domestic violence, spirituality and social work, and women’s health.


16


Another outcome is research collaboration between UUCSW and KNUST faculty. Members of each institution collected quantitative data regarding domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health symptoms from their respective communities. Their preliminary findings were presented during the teaching workshop at UUCSW in June 2008; presentations at professional conferences and submissions to peer-reviewed journals will follow. A final outcome is the impact on teaching. One example of the impact on teaching comes from the collaborative research project discussed above. That project revealed differences in each country’s definitions of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health symptomology between the two countries. If each country operationalizes these terms differently, then the construct validity of the instruments used in the research project to measure domestic violence, substance abuse and mental health symptoms should be questioned. This example is taught in the UUCSW research for social work practice course when discussing instrumentation and validity. Notably, the research collected here impacted planning for future KNUST-UUCSW collaborations. Future workshops incorporated greater focus and structure, invited student and community agency participation, created structure for individual research meetings during the workshop time, and incorporated agency visits. Thus, participants utilized the specific feedback provided here to modify planning for future collaborations between the two universities.

Implications for future research Future research studying social partnerships should include the authorship of members from both sides of the partnership. Research designed and conducted by members of only one half of the collaboration are likely to miss important perspectives. Other stakeholders, such as students and community members in the case of our partnership, should also be included in the partnership itself and its evaluation. Student and community member input would help in the development of theoretical and practical curricula to address community needs, as seen in the AUW-ISU social partnership (Cowan et al., 2004). Developing social partnerships between academic institutions and community organizations is another area which needs further exploration (Moseley, 2007). While an exploration of the varied stakeholders who benefit from these partnerships is beyond the scope of the present study, future research should explore this important topic. Lastly, research should explore more complex social partnerships that include multiple collaborators. As globalization brings together cultures, social



17

partnerships with multiple groups will inevitably develop. The complexities of relationships in these social partnerships should be explored.

Conclusion This partnership holds promise for future collaborative research. It may help expand the frontiers of cross-cultural knowledge. This partnership will help provide international and cross-cultural perspectives not only for the faculty but also for students from both institutions (Joubert, 2006; Seddon et al., 2005a, 2005b). Reports from the initial encounter and the ongoing collaboration indicate the faculty’s perception of cross-cultural values and teaching. There is a significant value in partnerships such as this one. Universities should make the commitment and effort to form such partnerships and sustain them. Acknowledgment The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of Dean Jannah Mather and Research Professor Caren Frost, both of the University of Utah College of Social Work.

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References Billet, S., C. Ovens, A. Clemans and T. Seddon (2007) ‘Collaborative Working and Contested Practices: Forming, Developing, and Sustaining, Social Partnerships in Education’, Journal of Education Policy 22(6): 637–56. Cardini, A. (2006) ‘An Analysis of the Rhetoric and Practice of Educational Partnerships in the UK: An Arena of Complexities, Tensions, and Power’, Journal of Education Policy 21(4): 393–415. Coffield, F. (2000) ‘Lifelong Learning as a Lever on Structural Change? Evaluation of White Paper: Learning to Succeed: A New Framework for Post-16 Learning’, Journal of Education Policy 15(2): 237–46. Cook, B. and U. Kothari (2001) Participation: The New Tyranny. London: Zed Books. Cowan, D., A.E. Badri and N.W. Swanson (2004) ‘Entering a Third Decade: Ahfad University for Women–Iowa State University Sustainable Linkage Model’, The Ahfad Journal 21(2): 43–57. Field, J. (2000) ‘Governing the Ungovernable: Why Lifelong Learning Promises So Much Yet Delivers So Little’, Educational Management & Administration 28(3): 249–61.


18


Hickey, S. and G. Mohan (2004) Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring new Approaches to Participation in Development. London: Zed Books. Joubert, L. (2006) ‘Academic-Practice Partnerships in Practice Research: A Cultural Shift for Health Social Workers’, Social Work in Health Care 43: 151–61. Kezar, A. (2006) ‘Redesigning for Collaboration in Learning Initiatives: An Examination of Four Highly Collaborative Campuses’, Journal of Higher Education 77: 804–38. Lambert, M.J. and D.E. Barley (2002) ‘Research Summary on the Therapeutic Relationship and Psychotherapy Outcome’, in J.C. Norcross (ed.) Psychotherapy Relationships That Work. New York: Oxford University Press. Lasker, R.D., E.S. Weiss and R. Miller (2001) ‘Partnership Synergy: A Practical Framework for Studying and Strengthening the Collaborative Advantage’, Milbank Quarterly 79: 179–205. Marshall, C. and G.B. Rossman (2006) Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Merriam-Webster.com (2011) ‘Faculty (3b)’, available online at: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/faculty (accessed 8 February 2012). Mikheev, V.A. and A.V. Mikheev (2004) ‘Social Partnership in the Sphere of Education’, Russian Education & Society 46: 65–78. Moseley, W.G. (2007) ‘Collaborating in the Field, Working for Change: Reflecting on Partnerships between Academics, Development Organizations, and Rural Communities in Africa’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 28: 334–47. Neimeyer, R. and N. Hogan (2002) ‘Quantitative or Qualitative? Measurement Issues in the Study of Grief’, in M. Stroebe et al. (eds) Handbook of Bereavement Research: Consequences, Coping and Care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Press. Samoilovich, D. (1993) ‘Networks in International Co-operation: The Experience of Project Columbus’, European Journal of Education 28(1): 19–29. Seddon, T., S. Billet and A. Clemans (2005a) ‘Navigating Social Partnerships in VET: Central Agencies-Local Networks’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 26(5): 567–84. Seddon, T., A. Clemans and S. Billett (2005b) ‘Social Partnerships: Practices, Paradoxes and Prospects of Local Learning Networks’, Australian Educational Researcher 32: 25–38. Selsky, J. and B. Parker (2010) ‘Platforms for Cross-sector Social Partnerships: Prospective Sensemaking Devices for Social Benefit’, Journal of Business Ethics 94: 21–37. Siegel, D.J. (2010a) Organizing for Social Partnership: Higher Education in Crosssector Collaboration. New York: Routledge. Siegel, D.J. (2010b) ‘Why Universities Join Cross-Sector Social Partnerships: Theory and Evidence’, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 14: 33–62. Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.



19

Author biographies Joanna E. Bettmann received her Master’s in Social Work from the University of Utah Graduate School of Social Work, USA in 1999. She subsequently worked full time as a field therapist and assistant clinical director at Aspen Achievement Academy in Loa, Utah. Dr Bettmann earned her PhD from Smith College School for Social Work in 2005. Moises Prospero is a researcher and consultant in Salt Lake City, Utah.
