RUNNING HEAD: Title - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewCollaboration and Action: A Grassroots...

Running Head: COLLABORATION AND ACTION 1

Collaboration and Action:

A Grassroots Approach to Promoting Leadership in Part-Time Faculty

Megan H.L. Tucker

CTCH 792

May 2, 2011

COLLABORATION AND ACTION 2

Collaboration and Action from the Ground-Up:

A Grassroots Approach to Promoting Leadership in Part-Time Faculty

Part-time and adjunct faculty populations have grown exponentially at the

community college, as well as state and private university levels (American Association of

University Professors, 2004; Zeigler & Reiff, 2006). Despite this increase, decades of

research suggests that the role of part-time faculty has been overlooked in academia (Biles

& Tuchman, 1986; Mathis, 1979 as cited in German, 2002). With this increasing populace

comes a new set of issues. It is not uncommon for part-time faculty to have limited to no

access to office space, printing capabilities, office supplies, computers or even training

resources (Peterson, 2008). However in some instances, part-timers teach the same number

of classes as full-time faculty, but are paid substantially less (Johnson, MacGregor &

Watson, 2001). Likewise, part-time faculty may be underrepresented or not represented at

all in faculty senates or meetings. Due to the lack of resources, financial support and

guarantee of position beyond semester contracts, there is a definite need for adjunct leaders

to promote change both externally in their departments, as well as from within their

cohorts of fellow part-timers.

Some research has started to emerge addressing the need for more concrete

leadership to represent the part-time group (Kezar & Lester, 2009). For the purpose of this

paper, leadership is defined as “a process whereby influence prompts a group of

individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2007, p.3). Also, part-time faculty is

defined as adjunct faculty, non-tenure track guest lecturers and graduate teaching assistants

at community colleges as well as state and private institutions (Ziegler & Reiff, 2006).


The part-time faculty member has often been viewed as an outcast within higher

education (Johnson, MacGregor & Watson, 2001). The lack of inclusion in campus and

department-related activities, as well as the inadequate training and direction of these

instructors has left them as secondary employees in their fields (Ballantyne, Berret &

Harst, 2009; Johnson, MacGregor & Watson, 2001; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006).

Because of these shortcomings and challenges there are some feelings of apprehension

about the quality of work that adjuncts produce (Milliken & Jurgens, 2008). While this

certainly may not be the case, that is a perception of this group. Thus, how can faculty

leadership be reevaluated to assist in improving conditions for and perceptions of part-

timers?

Literature Review

This paper offers recommendations to further the advancement of leadership

studies from a grassroots perspective in an attempt to reduce the seemingly insoluble

challenges that part-time faculty members in higher education face. These

recommendations are introduced as ways to break down physical, social, financial and

instructional barriers that part-time faculty members’ experience. The basis of the

arguments made are founded in literature that focuses on the common issues that part-time

faculty face, complexity theory as it pertains to leadership, as well as grassroots

movements within and outside of higher education.

Adjunct/Part-Time Faculty Challenges

Literature on adjunct/part-time faculty has often focused on the hardships these

instructors endure and the limitations they face (Ballantyne, Berret, & Harst, 2009;

Edmonson & Fisher, 2003; Johnson, MacGregor, & Watson, 2001; Pfefferle, 1999). As


Johnson et al (2001) notes that part-time professors are faced with a large lack of

communication between themselves and their departments, as well as less bonding with

full-time colleagues. Research has investigated the experiences of adjunct instructors in general

(Milliken & Jurgens, 2008; Quinn, 2005; Smith, 2003). In one study of 77 adjunct

faculty members, Quinn (2005) found that adjuncts did not experience institutional belongingness

and were isolated within the constraints of their job categorization. Likewise, adjunct faculty were

not encouraged to participate in career development activities and were not entitled to annual

funding. These results indicate that many adjunct instructors feel undervalued and ill supported.

The issue then becomes how to integrate part-timers and full-timers, empower the part-

time faculty to become leaders in their own right, and create a more inclusive space within

their departments.

Charfauros and Tierney’s (1999) study produced a model that emphasizes the

integration of part-time faculty into their departments and institutions, equitable

compensation, a formalized teaching evaluation system, broader teaching opportunities

and, finally, enhanced job security. Their research posits that improving part-time faculty

work conditions will enhance overall effectiveness of that institution (Schuster, 1998 as

cited in Charfauros & Tierney, 1999). Likewise, Rogers, McIntyre and Jazzar’s (2009)

study of online adjunct faculty found four elements that are central to success: professional

development, effective communication, fostering balance, and creating relationships.

Other research has also acknowledged the need to integrate part-time faculty as

active members of their departments (Kamps, 1996). Kamps suggests that departments

reach out to their adjunct populations and engage them in programs and orientations for

training (1996). At the most basic level, research has suggested simple acknowledgement


that part-time faculty are doing their jobs well, and are vital contributors to the success of

college programs (Edmonson & Fisher, 2003). Charfauros and Tierney (1999) found that

many adjunct faculty consider themselves second-class citizens. The source of these

feelings are found in how part-timers’ experience and competencies are not included in

determining salary (Tuckman & Caldwell, 1979 as cited in Charfauros & Tierney, 1999).

These suggestions may prove beneficial, but only if department chairs and tenured faculty

are willing to allow for flexibility. However, part-time faculty must also be able to battle

the leadership challenges that they face.

A comparative trend in research has begun to emerge between full-time faculty

members and their part-time counterparts (Ballantyne, Berret & Harst, 2009; Schuetz,

2002). Schuetz (2002) used a faculty survey to hypothesize how part-time and full-time

faculty work and behave similarly or differently, and what influence that has on the

effectiveness of student learning. Schuetz found that while part-timers are just as likely as

full-timers to spend time interacting with students, the part-timers felt isolated from fellow

faculty members and department heads (2002). These findings are consistent with the

“outsider” mentality that many part-time faculty members have within their institutions

(Charfauros and Tierney, 1999; Johnson et al, 2001). Ballantyne et al (2009) sought to

gauge the perception of full-time faculty regarding leadership qualities and capabilities of

adjuncts. The authors found that there is little encouragement from the administration or

full-time faculty to include adjuncts. An attitudinal change is suggested for full-time and

administrators in order to meet adjunct faculty needs and to offer them greater

representation at meetings or on faculty councils (Ballantyne et al, 2009). The need for

part-time faculty representation among their full-time co-workers also suggests a call for


for leadership and a greater sense of community among part-time instructors. This may

occur formally in faculty meetings or councils, or informally within the department at a

social level.

Complexity Theory

As some of the more traditional theories of leadership become dated, newer and

more multi-dimensional approaches have emerged. Complexity leadership theory explores

the emergence of leadership through dynamic interactions among group members, and a

shared leadership experience (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000; Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien,

Marion, Seers, Orton & Schreiber, 2006). Lichtenstein et al (2006) focuses on the ever

expanding locus of leadership across a social system, as well as micro-strategic actions and

influential behaviors of the collective. Morrison (2002) notes complexity theory is about

survival, development and the ability to adapt. The complexity perspective offers a change

in the paradigms of our thinking about research on education: away from input–output

causal models to modeling specific interconnections of persons and practices (Mason,

2008). Likewise, Mason states that this theory recognizes the need for coordinated changes

throughout the system and its resources (2008).

Complexity theory shares some of chaos theory’s concern with wholes, larger

systems or environments and the relationships among their constituents (Mason, 2008;

Smitherman, 2006). According to Smitherman (2006) complexity theory offers a discourse

of connectivity and potentiality through non-linear patterns. Mason (2008) notes that

complexity theory emphasizes non-linear, dynamic interactions between multiple sources

which supports connectionist and holistic analysis. Using the complex adaptive system

(CAS) leadership is defined by interactions among agents and across networks instead of


through a hierarchy (Marion, 1999). Based in this complex adaptive system is the

perspective that leadership is distributed because of the interactive dynamic (Gronn, 2002).

Lichtenstein et al (2006) notes that complexity theory encourages each member of the

group to become a leader, and to seek information from others within the group before

making decisions. Likewise, a strategy of complexity theory is to use tension as a means to

create change in the group (Lichtenstein et al, 2006). The introduction of these tensions are

meant to spark transformational changes without creating panic among group members

(Goldstein, 1994). Therefore, using complexity theory in leadership is a dynamic process

of emergence among the group and is not intended for a solitary positional leader. This

theory also depends on interpretive perspectives and approaches which may add a

dimension of interdisciplinary study (Mason, 2008).

Complexity theory can address issues surrounding the genesis of a new leadership

structure from a grassroots perspective. Complexity theory posits that certain interactions

in a social network will have a nonlinear influence within that network (Lichtenstein et al.,

2006). As such, leadership works at what Lichtenstein et al. calls the “field” level (2006).

The field level essentially is likened to a web of interaction and reach among all members

simultaneously, unlike a hierarchical, top-down leadership communication. This field level

interaction occurs on the same plane among and throughout that particular social network

(Chiles et al., 2004 as cited in Lichtenstein et al., 2006). In the context of this paper,

complexity theory can begin to address how to develop a grassroots leadership movement

among part-time instructional faculty in higher education.

Grassroots Leadership Initiatives


The leadership dynamic on college campuses is in a state of flux. Whereas

traditional leadership in higher education has been top-down and focused on those in

positions of authority, some ground-up grassroots initiatives have emerged (Kezar &

Lester, 2009). Research has expressed concern the potential decline of grassroots

leadership efforts (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Fewer studies have been published on

grassroots leadership efforts in the context of higher education; however, the existing

literature is often limited to a sole initiative at a specific institution (Kezar & Lester, 2009).

The existing grassroots initiatives consist of more informal interactions that work from the

ground-up, and have the potential to influence larger groups (Schuster & Finkelstein,

2006).

Kezar and Lester (2009) highlight the barriers to faculty leadership including

increases in workload, less engagement with their departments and fewer leadership

opportunities being presented to faculty. Likewise, Thomas and Willcoxson’s (1998) study

of teaching development and change found that a grassroots initiative can be sustained

over time if there are established positive behaviors, recognition and support among the

group. The authors also note that a grassroots movement should not be an aggressive

revolution, but rather a refocusing and rebalancing of teaching needs and priorities for the

organization (Thomas & Willcoxson, 1998). Grimshaw’s (1982) training model for

grassroots leadership is an early study on the positive relationship between quality

community building and quality leadership within the group. The model states that if the

community leader understands the community needs, external resources, learning

processes and interpersonal requirements then all individuals in the group will benefit

(Grimshaw, 1982). Based on the research, there is a blatant need for grassroots leadership


initiatives among part-time faculty members in order to address engagement and inclusion

issues pertinent to these instructors (Grimshaw, 1982; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Thomas &

Willcoxson, 1998).

Part of the grassroots leadership research focuses on the experiences of “tempered

radicals” (Kezar & Lester, In Press; Meyerson, 2003). Meyerson (2003) notes that

tempered radicals are insiders in an organization who are successful in their jobs, however,

they are often treated as outsiders. Adjuncts may be considered tempered radicals in that

they share the need to fit into the dominant culture, but aspire to ignite change within their

organizations (Meyerson, 2003). As Kezar and Lester (In Press) note, these tempered

radicals seek to make positive changes in their organizations but they lack formal authority

to do so. Adjuncts as tempered radicals must find a balance in their strategies to stay

employed and reduce resistance while creating the changes they support (Kezar and Lester,

In Press). This framework moves away from individual strategies and solitary charismatic

leadership, to a collective grassroots strategy that begins with the individual and moves

outward (Kezar and Lester, In Press; Meyerson, 2003).

Other grassroots research on task-related groups focus on decision-making outside

of a higher education context (Boehm & Staples, 2006; Hammonds, 2000). Boehm and

Staples (2006) found that grassroots leaders have varying experiences and opinions on

paths to becoming a leader, the development process and action patterns. Furthermore, the

authors found shared attitudes about developmental and interactional patterns of grassroots

leaders, but differences in the approach (Boehm & Staples, 2006). Thus, grassroots

leaders’ goals and guiding principles may be shared among groups. Similarly, teaching and

guidance is central to grassroots leadership program. Hammonds’ ideology behind Ford


Motor Company’s grassroots leader development is that the leaders will learn as they teach

and promote task development (2000). Based in this research, the need for part-time

faculty to start a grassroots leadership movement should begin with the understanding of

shared responsibility in leading, and fluidity of interaction among their groups.

Using complexity theory as the theoretical frame, this paper offers opportunities for

part-time faculty members to partake in using a grassroots approach in order to bolster

leadership and address a number of long-term issues that these academics face. Research

stemming from this paper could lead to the creation of a model addressing leadership

challenges within higher education systems, or practical applications for college

departments and their part-time faculty to consider increasing assimilation into their

programs.

Recommendations

Based on the literature and theoretical frame, a few recommendations for part-time

faculty can be made to increase assimilation. Using a grassroots approach, adjunct faculty

members should communicate openly with their departments and colleges about their

needs not being met. A variety of barriers including physical, social, financial and

instructional, have often prevented part-time faculty from feeling included and integrated

into their departments. As such, support systems should be created to break these various

barriers. As Kezar and Lester posit (In Press), faculty can support one another via coalition

building and networking. Along with these social connections, both formal and informal

initiatives may also be used by the institution to enhance these grassroots efforts. The

following are recommendations to reducing each of these barriers using complexity theory

and grassroots approaches to leadership.


Physical Barriers

For adjunct faculty, the physical barriers they face have an effect on both their

connectedness to the department, as well as their students. As previously mentioned many

part-time faculty members do not have access to their own office space, or even a

communal space from which to work (Johnson, MacGregor & Watson, 2001). This leaves

many faculty with the issue of finding space to meet with students for office hours, or

simply a quiet place to work. While some may utilize the availability in campus libraries,

coffee shops or student centers, this still causes a physical barrier to form, blocking them

from their own departments.

One way to break this barrier is to approach department heads and university

services about creating a shared office space on campus for part-time faculty, preferably

within their departments’ buildings. While it may not be feasible for each adjunct to have

his or her own private office space, it would be manageable for adjunct faculty to work

together in a shared space with multiple desks and dividers for some privacy. Adjuncts

could discuss possible space allocations with their department heads and their college

within the university. As campuses expand with student influx, so does the need for more

physical space. These expansions are prime opportunity for part-timers to request a small

space allotment for office use.

Granted, many schools face a lace of space availability and funding for such an

effort. As such, part-timers could reserve conference room space or study rooms for brief

periods of time each week. This does not incur any greater cost to the department and

opens a space within the building for adjuncts to use. This does put a time restriction on

the use of this space, however, if a group of adjuncts have similar office hours, then they


may be able to coordinate the space availability. As Morrison (2002) states complexity

theory is about development and the ability to adapt. Thus, if a larger space is not

available for permanent use, groups of adjuncts can reserve these public department spaces

on a weekly basis to establish some residency in their department buildings.

Social Barriers

Physical barriers often lead to a lack of socialization between full-time faculty and

staff and part-time faculty in that adjuncts are not often seen in the department buildings

for lack of space. This prevention of socialization further isolates the part-timers from their

co-workers. Thus, a way to break social barriers is to formally or informally include part-

time faculty in department events or decisions. Using complexity theory, successful

leadership is defined by interactions among agents and across networks instead of through

a hierarchy (Marion, 1999). As such, department chairs and full-time faculty should

increase opportunities for socialization by including adjuncts in department social events.

When departments host developmental workshops or faculty meetings, adjuncts

should be openly invited to be involved. Perhaps because of the transient nature of many

adjuncts’ work situations, departments may feel that they would not wish to be involved in

workshops or meetings. However, it is up to the adjuncts to fix this communication

breakdown by voicing their interest in involvement and inclusion in departmental

activities. Becoming more visible and active in their departments may begin to alleviate the

concerns that adjuncts are not meeting standards for quality teaching.

Financial Barriers

One of the hardest barriers to break is that of financial needs of adjuncts. The

average adjunct faculty is paid substantially less than the average full time or tenured


faculty member (Rollins, 2008). While it is reasonable for a larger salary increase for full-

time, the adjunct pay scale is often so low that these faculty seek other jobs at various

institutions to meet basic needs.

Apart from compensation woes, adjuncts also face financial barriers in the form of

lacking benefits or access to supplies. It is uncommon for part-time faculty to receive any

insurance benefits, or even parking repayment (Rollins, 2008). Along with a lower pay

scale, adjuncts also have to contend with finding external resources to cover these

expenses. So instead of simply accepting the low pay per credit hour, adjuncts could

demand change through their departments and the university. Adjunct salary should far

surpass minimum wage for the number of hours devoted in teaching and preparation for

each course. Therefore, adjuncts may seek out unions or formalize groups in order to

approach their university about the opportunity for a pay increase.

Although salary increases are rare, especially in a downtrodden economy, it would

be conducive to offer certain financial perks to part-timers. This could come in the form of

a parking price deduction, offering insurance options for adjuncts, covering printing costs,

or granting greater faculty discounts for food or office supplies purchased on campus. As

Meyerson (2003) notes, tempered radicals feel secondary in their organizations, adjuncts

struggle with the same outlook in their lack of financial stability and sufficient payment for

services rendered.

Instructional Barriers

Finally, there are many instructional barriers that part-timers face including

preparation time, training, workshop availability or shared resources. As previously

mentioned, there is some concern with the level of education that students receive from


adjunct faculty due to the lack of training and preparation (Milliken & Jurgens, 2008).

Ziegler and Reiff (2006) suggest offering mentoring programs to adjunct faculty in order to

orient them to their departments and help them establish effective teaching practices over

time. The authors suggest the implementation of these orientations for the following

reasons: (a) to emphasize the academic integrity of the course and program; (b) support

effective teaching and (c) sustain professional collaboration between the mentor and

mentee while continuing to attend to immediate concerns around policies and procedures

(Ziegler & Reiff, 2006). These suggestions may prove beneficial in a pre-semester seminar

or course orientation which can be given the week prior to the beginning of the semester in

spring or fall. These orientations could provide chapter outlines and syllabus templates for

the textbooks in a given course which would offer a great deal of help to part-timers who

are often hired to take a class with little notice prior to the start of a semester.

Aside from overall department mentorships and training programs, forming an

adjunct faculty workshop series may also prove to be beneficial. These workshop groups

could formally or informally meet and discuss best teaching practices, ideal meeting

locations for office hours, classroom materials, and offer more socialization among

adjuncts. As Thomas and Willcoxson (1998) stated, a grassroots movement should not be

aggressive. These department mentorship programs and adjunct workshops are an

unobtrusive way of refocusing and rebalancing their teaching needs (Thomas &

Willcoxson, 2008). With greater emphasis on professional development and shared

teaching techniques; these adjuncts are much more likely to be viewed as successful,

qualified instructors who share greater cohesion.


These recommendations only begin to address a number of challenges that adjunct

faculty face. While many changes in the university system would require funding that may

or may not be available, some of these basic considerations are cost-effective and easily

adaptable. The key to breaking these barriers is for adjunct faculty to take initiative to start

these training sessions or workshops for their fellow employees. They should seek out

allies within their departments to assist in gaining accessibility to office space or supplies.

Part-timers should also vocalize the need for financial stability and benefits which would

make the transitory nature of their jobs lessen to the point of permanence in one

department at one university or community college. These changes could provide the

university with a better trained, constant group of employees who may be much more

motivated and dedicated to contributing to their departments. It would also provide the

adjuncts with the steadiness they desire and the allowance for more focus on a singular job

appointment, faculty socialization at one campus, and greater concentration on their groups

of students.

Grassroots leadership starts from the bottom up, so without ambition from the part-

time faculty, they will not see the change they desire. Complexity theory posits that groups

working together as a system will achieve much greater outputs than by working

individually (Mason, 2008). A single leader is not required or even suggested for this type

of leadership movement. The current part-time faculty needs to reach out to one another to

form a cohesive group. Beyond that they should express their concerns and needs to their

department chairs, full-time faculty co-workers, and university officials both confidently

and succinctly. However, having the initial push to combine forces and help one another is

paramount to the success of a grassroots movement.


References

American Association of University Professors (2004) Contingent faculty appointments.

http://www.aaup.org/Issues/part-time/index.htm.

Ballantyne, S., Berret, B., & Harst, W. (2009). Fulltime faculty perceptions of leadership

in adjunct faculty to maintain Franciscan identity. Research in Higher Education

Journal, pp. 1-8.

Boehm, A., & Staples, L. (2006). Grassroots leadership in task-oriented groups: Learning

from successful leaders. Social Work with Groups, 28, 77-96.

Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research:

Exploring the space between. Organizational Science, 11, 551-564.

Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2003). Effective use of adjunct professors in educational

leadership. Presented at the American Association of School Administrators

Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.

Goldstein, J. (1994). The Unshackled Organization, Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unity of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13,

423-451.

Hammonds, K.H. (2003). Grassroots leadership: Ford motor co. Fast Company, 33, pp. 14.

Johnson, J.A, MacGregor, C.J., & Watson, R. (August, 2001). Out of sight- out of mind:

The importance of integrating adjunct faculty into an educational administration

department. Presented at National Council of Professors of Education

Administration (NCPEA), Houston, TX.


Kamps, D. (1996). Continuous quality improvement in the employment of adjunct faculty:

A NIACC plan. (ERIC Reproduction Service Number ED 392 480).

Kezar, A. & Lester, J. (In Press). Enhancing Shared Leadership: Stories and Lessons from

Grassroots Leadership in Higher Education. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University

Press.

Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Supporting faculty grassroots leadership. Research in

Higher Education, 50, 715-740.

Lichtenstein, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J.D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).

Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex

adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8, 2-12.

Marrion, R. (1999). The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal

Social Organization, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mason, M. (2008). What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational

change? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 35-49.

Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 40:1, 3-18.

Meyerson, D. (2003). Tempered Radicals: How Everyday Leaders Inspire Change at

Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Milliken, T. & Jurgens, J.C. (2008). Assessing the needs of human services adjunct

faculty: Uncovering strategies for retaining quality instructors. Human Service

Education, 28, 29-43.

Morrison, K. (2002). School Leadership and Complexity Theory. London and New York,

Routledge/Falmer.


Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Peterson, S. (2008). Two more problems adjuncts face. The Chronicle of Higher Education

Review, 55, A30.

Quinn, S.S. (2005). The organization-based self-esteem, institutional belongingness, and

career development opportunities of adjunct faculty at a small northeastern

college. As cited in Milliken, T. & Jurgens, J.C. (2008). Assessing the needs of

human services adjunct faculty: Uncovering strategies for retaining quality

instructors. Human Service Education, 28, 29-43.

Rogers, C., McIntyre, M., & Jazzar, M. (2009). Mentoring adjunct faculty using the

cornerstones of effective communication and practice. Mentoring & Tutoring:

Partnership in Learning, 18, 53-59.

Rollins, L. (2008). A snapshot survey of adjunct compensation. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, pp.3.

Schuetz, P. (2002). Instructional practices of part-time and full-time faculty. New

Directions for Community Colleges, 118, 39-46.

Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of

academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Smitherman, S. (2006). Chaos and complexity theories: Wholes and holes in curriculum.

Chaos, Complexity, Curriculum, and Culture: A Conversation, 6, 153-180.

Thomas, J., & Willcoxson, L. (1998). Developing teaching and changing organizational

culture through grass-roots leadership. Higher Education, 36, 471-485.


Ziegler, C.A. & Reiff, M. (2006). Adjunct mentoring, a vital responsibility in a changing

educational climate: The Lesley University Adjunct Mentoring Program.

Mentoring and Tutoring, 14, 247-269.

RUNNING HEAD: Title - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewCollaboration and Action: A Grassroots...

Documents

Transcript of RUNNING HEAD: Title - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewCollaboration and Action: A Grassroots...