More nurses and nurse educators today are working distantly in different geographic locations from others, and this includes working from home or satellite locations (Poulsen & Ipsen, 2017). Can we work collaboratively in a purely distance relationship? In academia, collaboration between colleagues is common and often mandated. Being able to engage with others in a collegial manner is necessary, and in some instances the relationship may be purely virtual. This revolution in cognitive capability uses long-distance interactive technology and the structure of professional learning communities. Successful group collaboration is driven by high expectations, shared goals, professionalism, and peer accountability. Such collaboration may be viewed as involving a nonlinear theory of change, with multiple factors influencing processes and outcomes. Factors impacting success include academic considerations (professional goals, disciplinary expertise), nonacademic issues (personal preferences, financial factors), and the development of a culture of trust and collective leadership. Practical strategies to implement such virtual collaboration are discussed.
BozemanB., GaughanM., YoutieJ., SladeC. P., & RimesH. (2015). Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines. Science and Public Policy, 43(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv035.
4.
BreenH. (2013). Virtual collaboration in the online educational setting: A concept analysis. In Nursing Forum, 48(4), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12034.
5.
CayaO., MortensenM., & PinsonneaultA. (2013). Virtual teams demystified: An integrative framework for understanding virtual teams. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 9(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.4018/jec.2013040101.
6.
ChamberlainR. S., KlaassenZ., MeadowsM. C., Weitz-manS., & LoukasM. (2014). St George's University's medical student research institute: A novel, virtual programme for medical research collaboration. West Indian Medical Journal, 63(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.7727/wimj.2013.022.
7.
ChoiO. K., & ChoE. (2019). The mechanism of trust affecting collaboration in virtual teams and the moderating roles of the culture of autonomy and task complexity. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.032.
8.
ConnellyC. E., & TurelO. (2016). Effects of team emotional authenticity on virtual team performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01336.
EmmerichA., & RigottiT. (2017). Reciprocal relations between work-related authenticity and intrinsic motivation, work ability and depressivity: A two-wave study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00307.
Geriatric medicine research collaborative. (2018). Using social media and web-based networking in collaborative research: Protocol for the geriatric medicine research collaborative. JMIR Research Protocols, 7(10), e179. https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.9304.
14.
GreenB. N., & JohnsonC. D. (2015). Interprofessional collaboration in research, education, and clinical practice: Working together for a better future. Journal of Chiropractic Education, 29(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7899/JCE-14-36.
15.
HakonssonD. D., ObelB., EskildsenJ. K., & BurtonR. M. (2016). On cooperative behavior in distributed teams: The influence of organizational design, media richness, social interaction, and interaction adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 692. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00692.
HordS. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest educational development laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/plc-cha34.pdf.
18.
JeraldC. D. (2006). School culture: “The hidden curriculum.”The center for comprehensive school reform and improvement, Issue Brief (Vol. 23(3), pp. 237–274). DOI: 10.2753/NUS0742-1222230309 Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495013.pdf.
KoehneB., ShihP. C., & OlsonJ. S. (2012, February). Remote and alone: Coping with being the remote member on the team. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. (pp. 1257–1266).
21.
LathamG. P., & LockeE. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2006.08.008.
22.
PinarT., ZehirC., KitapçiH., & TanriverdiH. (2014). The relationships between leadership behaviors team learning and performance among the virtual Teams. International Business Research, 7(5), 68–79. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/33717.
23.
National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24.
Office of Research Integrity. (2015). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing (Plagiarism and Authorship Disputes). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-12.
25.
PoulsenS., & IpsenC. (2017). In times of change: How distance managers can ensure employees' wellbeing and organizational performance. Safety Science, 100, 37–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.05.002.
SchulzeJ., & KrummS. (2017). The “virtual team player”: A review and initial model of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics for virtual collaboration. Organizational Psychology Review, 7(1), 66–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386616675522.
29.
WihlborgM., & FribergE. (2016). Framework for a virtual nursing faculty and student learning collaboration between universities in Sweden and the United States: A theoretical paper. Nurse Education Today, 41(2016), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.03.012.
30.
YakovlevaM., ReillyR. R., & WerkoR. (2010). Why do we trust? Moving beyond individual to dyadic perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017102.
