Rebecca Ingalls uses a comparison of academic collaboration with artistic collaboration that John Lennon and Paul McCartney had when writing and performing as the Beatles. This artistic collaboration was more natural than the academic one later described by Ingalls. McCartney and Lennon did not sit down and plan out a contract for one another to sign and hold to at every turn. It was simply two highly talented and driven people who played off what the other did well. That is not to say that there are not conversations or road bumps causing disagreement, but recognizing when someone else in a group is on to something that furthers the idea or artistic goal and not dismissing it, is a main function of working together on anything. The same can be true in a writing collaboration. Someone may write something that could be useful in the piece that may not fit the specific moment or topic at that point. Even still it should be recognized and maybe put to the side for later use.
In reviewing the academic collaboration from Ingalls I felt like the step-by-step process was far too rigid. I have been part of many groups in work and academic settings. Some have been truly incredible and inspiring while others regardless of structure have had far more drawbacks than necessary.
I would like to begin talking about the group that had the most structure. When it comes to assignments themselves it is something I love, especially when it is difficult. I do enjoy a well-laid-out plan with room for creativity on an assignment. However, I do not believe that I need to build a contract with group members to achieve our goals. In that group, there was no contract but lots of conversation about how we should go about achieving our goals. Regardless of this, at every turn when something was due or brainstorming was needed to put us in the direction of success, it would often turn into head scratching and silence. In this collaboration, it was for research and even down to the topic itself group members struggled to even voice concerns or ideas. Thus, although the structure we were given was strong and our communication seemed more planned out, the group as a whole was often going nowhere toward the end goal.
The previous group was as close to a contract as it gets but was largely unsuccessful as much of the work fell to only two of the five students within the group. However, in another course, I was faced with a collaboration in forming presentations. Maybe it was useful that it was only four instead of five members but either way there was little conversation about roles, expectations, or any sort of contract. Each member would simply communicate their ideas for the project or presentation and we would input ideas on a shared document. Over time as a group, we found a way to make them flow together and a lot of it came down to order. Although the topic was not as difficult as our own research, working with theory in communication and persuasion was still new to most of us. This group was far more successful not only in the final outcome of presenting but throughout the academic process. I believe a lot of this had to do with the group being generally older as well. At 22 I was the youngest in the group with two members up over the age of 30. I have always found that working with older people academically they often have great individual drive that some younger students do not naturally have.
In comparing these experiences with Ingalls’ article I do agree that collaboration can be a wonderful thing although I strongly disagree that making it a step-by-step process is the key that makes it so.
Check out more about collaboration and what it means to other students in another class blog post.
Leave a Reply