Comparing Two Different Depictions of Collaboration
Since my project for this class focuses on collaboration, I thought it would be interesting to explore the topic further by comparing Allen et. al’s essay, “What Experienced Collaborators Say about Collaborative Writing” to the sixth chapter of John M. Lannon’s Technical Communication (9^th edition). Both texts focus on the topic of collaboration, although Lannon’s text is obviously geared towards students in technical communication courses, and Allen et. al’s research is focused around non-writer professionals.

In this blog post, I will examine what each text has to say about what collaborative writing is, and what values are attached to it.

What Is Collaborative Writing?
Allen et. al (2004) identify a range of activities that can be described as collaborative writing. Works can be:

• Planned and drafted individually but edited by a supervisor or peers
• Planned and drafted individually but revised collaboratively
• Planned collaboratively but drafted and revised individually
• Co-authored (p. 353)

However, while Allen et. al acknowledge that many variations of collaboration may exist, they specifically focus on Wiener’s conception of collaboration as an activity which must involve consensus. Allen et. al (2004) clarify the parameters within which their study will operate: “We wanted to investigate collaboration as it existed in the activities of experienced collaborators on the job – professional people who had worked together throughout the planning, drafting, and revising activities of a single document” (p. 354). In other words, Allen et. al focus on co-authored documents, documents that have been created collaboratively from beginning to finish.

Technical Communication does not focus specifically on any of the different types of collaborative writing that Allen et. al listed. Instead, the textbook stresses that any of these approaches may be used in the workplace. In fact, in the text’s “Guidelines for Managing a Collaborative Project,” step number four addresses group organization. The textbook suggests two different collaborative approaches that may be used in the workplace, involving differing individual and group roles in planning, researching, drafting, and revising the single document (Lannon, 2003, p. 98).

Values Associated with Collaborative Work
In her introduction to “What Experienced Collaborators Say about Collaborative Writing,” Allen (2004) identifies some of the important values associated with collaborative work:

Today’s employers apparently still see collaborative projects as ones in which group members divide a large workload or contribute particular expertise. These are good reasons for collaboration, but they overlook what I find to be the greatest values of working with a group: the deeper understanding of a rhetorical situation that comes from batting ideas back and forth with co-authors, or the sense of common purposes and respect that can result from shared interests and discussions (p. 351, emphasis mine).

Allen clearly delineates two of the greatest values of working with a group: the exchange of ideas, and the sense of common purpose and respect that can develop between teammates. Are these values shared by Technical Communication? The chapter opens up with a description of successful collaboration: “Successful collaboration combines the best that each team member has to offer. It enhances creative thinking by providing new and different perspectives, innovative ideas, and solutions. It enhances critical thinking by providing feedback, group support, and the chance to test ideas in group support, and the chance to test ideas in group discussion” (Lannon, 2003, p. 97). The textbook’s description emphasizes three aspects of collaboration, in this order:

• Combines the best that each team member has to offer (roughly analogous to “contribut[ing] particular expertise,” as Allen expresses it)
• Enhances creative thinking by providing new and different perspectives (similar to Allen’s “batting ideas back and forth”)
• Enhances critical thinking by providing feedback, group support, and the chance to test ideas (similar to a combination of Allen’s “batting ideas back and forth” and increasing “sense of common purpose”)

The textbook does not discuss collaboration in terms of dividing a workload up to make it more manageable; neither does it specifically mention fostering a sense of respect among teammates.

Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., and Snow, C. (2004). What experienced collaborators say about collaborative writing. In J. Johndan-Eilola and S.A. Selber (Eds.) Central Works in Technical Communication. pp. 351-364. New York and Oxford:    University Press.

Lannon, J.M. (Ed.). (2003). Technical communication (9th ed.). New York, NY: Longman.