Collaborative work can be a daunting task if not all the participants are working coherently towards a common goal. Talking to my peers it has become evident that group assignments often fail to engage participants equally. Since this is a reflection blog, I take the freedom to share some of my own experiences. In retrospect, I recall being demotivated especially during my study time in university group assignments by the lack of visible contribution to the final report or presentation. Another angle of the problem is that there is a tendency that extrovert group members begin to dominate the workflow, leaving little voice for introverts (or something between the two) who may consequently feel suppressed and unwilling to contribute intellectually.
I believe that one is naturally more eager to work on one’s own project when there is a possibility to receive direct feedback. Interaction in groups can, of course, be valuable in terms of coming up with constructive ideas and new points of view. Nonetheless, learning in networked communities still faces challenges involving all participants and making them feel “owners” of their work. Furthermore, it is important to be aware of the interpersonal skills and differences in preferred work habits. I’m aware of my need for a certain extent of solitude when writing or shaping long-term plans.
Scientific evidence shows that collaboration is the most beneficial when it is interdisciplinary and does not involve overly large groups.[1] Interestingly, the authors concluded that collaboration between junior and senior scientists was associated with especially salient drawbacks from the productivity point of view. This conclusion is naturally subject to doubt since it does not incorporate knowledge transfer that typically flows top-down and may be beneficial for the junior scientist’s future work. In scientific publishing, it is nowadays uncommon to see single-author papers, which suggests that scientists have increasingly opted in for collaboration. The underlying reasons can be for instance increased number of co-authored publications or strengthening of individual papers by introducing complementary technologies. Even with its limitations (as further discussed by the authors), the above-cited study is anyway an interesting discussion opener on collaboration among creative workers.
The past year has obviously changed the way that we work and collaborate. An interesting comparison is therefore the one of office spaces with a possibility to ex tempore meetings as contrasted to online platforms such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom. Prior to the pandemic, there was a strong push towards open-space offices (at least in Finland but probably this was a global trend). In her inspirational webinar, Kay Oddone (University of Southern Queensland, Australia) pointed out that removing boundaries such as is the case with open office spaces or online meetings does not automatically play for the benefit of collaboration and participation.[2] In agreement with her, research has shown that perceived workspace satisfaction decreases when physical barriers and sound insulating elements are removed.[3] The same study also concluded that the benefits of enhanced interaction were not sufficient to offset disadvantages of open-plan offices.
My impression is that the online collaboration spaces such as Teams or Google Docs are great for professional collaboration such as synchronous or asynchronous grant writing. I have recently used both of these platforms for several projects and found it easy to coordinate group work there. Some of the reasons for success in these cases have been the clear roles of the participants and reward for the contribution in terms of expected funding in case of a positive financing decision. Aren’t we all Pavlov’s dogs after all, with all the “thumb up” and “like” reactions driving our social media activity. One may then ask how to translate this reward-based motivation to collaboration within educational projects such as student assignments.
With all the fuzz around online work flow and active participation, it’s also good to keep in mind the limitations due to busy schedules and overlapping meetings. In fact, asynchronous communication can be less exclusive than in-place or online synchronous meetings. This practice is embodied by the recorded webinars and group discussion sessions that we have enjoyed during the ONL211 course, which in my case has enabled participation and hanging tight on the course despite conflicting schedules. Our PBL group made a fantastic summary of the pros and cons of collaboration, including practical tips for enhancing it.[4] On a reflective note, and maybe due to my feeling of guilt from limited contribution, I think in this case the topic leaders could have delegated more of their workload to the group members. Nevertheless, our group has already succeeded in creating connections across many disciplines and countries and learning from each other – isn’t this exactly the purpose of collaboration within this course?
References
[1] Bikard, M., Murray, F., Gans, J.S. Exploring Trade-offs in the Organization of Scientific Work: Collaboration and Scientific Reward. Management Science Vol. 61, No. 7 1473–1740. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2052
[2] https://play.lnu.se/media/t/0_xde8hz17
[3] Kim, J. and de Dear, R. Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology Volume 36, December 2013, Pages 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007
[4] https://padlet.com/saraboundok/1erplmcrqcgd9qma
