Stephen Downes was the theme leader for the collaboration strand at ALT-C 2005 and, as expected, his combination of wry humour, incisive criticism and lateral thinking made him an ideal antidote to cognitive overload. But if you were someone who has tended to think of collaboration as inherently ‘good’ then some of Stephen’s points could quickly become the source of insomnia, dyspepsia and, or, hypertension. Stephen kicked the ball into the playground during his theme opening keynote by first of all suggesting that collaboration was perhaps about attempting to join things together that didn’t naturally want to join at all, otherwise they would be doing it naturally without any intervention. The message was clear, as theme leader he was not going to passively accept some of the assertions being put forward in the papers and presentations in this theme.
When he came to summarise the deliberations of the collaboration theme on the last day of the conference he indeed challenged the assumptions of many of the papers. Stephen took issue with the common assertion that collaboration was optimised when there were small groups, limited duration interactions, and high structure. He found this to be directly in contrast with his experience of functioning communities where high numbers, low structure, and long term interactions were the norm.
He went on to suggest that the more structure there is the greater the possibility of ‘it’ being wrong. He used the example of collaboration being degraded to the filling of structured web forms … but yet frequently we approach collaboration in this very way.
He then went on to explore whether it is possible to identify an ‘essence’ of collaboration, e.g. what makes people collaborate? He briefly explored the role financial incentives play in collaboration with his straw poll of the audience identifying that the overwhelming number of ALT-C delegates were ‘collaborating’ during the three days of the conference and attending his presentation because they were being ‘paid’ to do so … he feigned some disappointment at this dash of harsh reality (at least I think it was feigned) but his question did raise a serious point in my mind, i.e. people collaborate for a variety of reasons but when people collaborate there is a cost to this and one assumes that the benefits (financial or otherwise) must be perceived as worthwhile. When official organisations ‘collaborate’ there is always a financial cost and, yes, usually the collaborators are being paid. I would suggest, however, that successful collaborations in, and between, organisations result not because the participants are being paid, but because there is some shared values and a willingness to succeed in whatever goals are desired. It’s a bit like Hertzberg’s two – factor – theory (Herzberg, F. 1975). Hertberg asserted that different factors come into play for work satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Work satisfaction arises from ‘motivators’, i.e. enjoyment of the work itself, achieving goals, being recognized and therefore achieving advancement. Work dissatisfaction, arises, when what Hertzberg called hygiene factors’ are either missing or unsatisfactory. Hygiene factors are pay, policies, people you work with, and the style of your managers. On this basis your pay level or any other hygiene factor is not by itself enough of a reason for job satisfaction … So there you are Stephen, we were there for reasons other than we were being paid to be there:)
But I particularly liked the following bit of lateral thinking from Stephen, i.e. it may be counterintuitive, but people in collaborative groups have less freedom than in, say, the traditional lecture mode. In the latter, someone can be engaged, or disengaged, find it easy to leave or stay, attend or not attend. But once locked into a collaborative group it’s almost impossible to leave, disengage etc. So on this basis collaboration in organisational terms is about governance and control; or about imposing order over perceived potential chaos. From this basis arises assertions like, big groups create ‘too much’ conversation (I felt sorry for whatever presentation proposed this).
Into this collaborative ‘control’ pot Stephen proceeded to place IMS Learning Design and LAMS. He then went on to suggest that the greater the degree of control the less likely the decisions will be right. For an example, he contended the best funding decisions and outcomes tend to be when resources are given to the established communities in whatever field.
All very stimulating stuff, but he then finished off his round up of the collaborative theme by proposing that two theories of collaboration appear to have emerged, i.e. the Essentialist Theory (convergent, common purpose, same funding body etc) and the Exchange Theory (divergent, intrinsic motivation, interaction between autonomous and diverse entitites).
You’ll undoubtedly find Stephen’s own account on OLDaily.
I don’t have to agree with everything he said but he certainly kept everyone awake. Great stuff!
