Bridging the divide: Collaborative practice between faculty and student services staff — Findings from a doctoral study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that collaboration between faculty and student services is essential for the development of a quality student experience (Kezar, 2005). First-year collaborations are designed to support the incoming student and provide a springboard/safety net; however, they often exist on the periphery of the academic experience (Barefoot & Gardner, 2003) and continue to be secondary add-ons. A multiple-site case study across three post-secondary institutions in British Columbia utilized interviews and focus groups comprised of 10 administrators, 13 faculty, and 13 staff. Using organizational theory (Schein, 2004; Tierney, 1988) and critical theory (Foucault, 1982), the research investigated successes and failures of cross-divisional collaboration between faculty and student services. The critical approach studied developing culture, governance structures and policies, job descriptions, institutional divisions, reporting lines, and marginalized voices. These historical patterns of meaning reflected on the current structures and cultural infrastructure at each site where organizational barriers, role confusion, lack of knowledge, lack of time, and lack of connection were highlighted. The four major themes that emerged from the study were: (a) informational issues around awareness and definitions, as well as territorial awareness and models for training; (b) environmental issues including history, resources (time and money as well as human), roles, and responsibilities; (c) relationship development that focuses on trust, connection, power, and leadership; and (d) structural issues involving governance structures, reporting structures, and silos.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".