Group items tagged

EtherPad also allows revision saving coupled with restoration from stored versions, something not found in SubEthaEdit

chronological archived discussion alongside the live space

backchannel discussion about what's being written that doesn't belong in the document itself

Review of Research Finds that Theories of Collaboration are Incomplete A review of research finds 6 distinct explanations for collaborative alliances. None, however, is able to explain fully the preconditions, processes, and outcomes of collaboration. Any comprehensive theory of collaboration must start with a revised definition.

What Is Collaboration? Wood and Gray say that each definition of collaboration used in the articles reviewed has at least one important element missing. They say that any definition must be able to answer the following: Who is doing what, with what means, toward what ends? "This leads us to create the following revised definition," they write: Collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders of a problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain. Stakeholders may have shared or differing interests in a problem domain, and these interests may change over time. Some degree of autonomy is required, or else stakeholders "merge" rather than "collaborate." Rules for governing interactions must be implicitly or explicity agreed upon. Acting or deciding is needed to reach a common objective. The domain is the issue or set of issues that stakeholders are interested in, such as local traffic congestion or a nation's economic health. Wood and Gray say that this definition is general enough to include a wide array of collaborative forms but specific enough to exclude others, such as blue ribbon panels that never meet, corporate mergers, and clubs that have no specific problem-solving objectives. The authors next discuss the other 3 issues confronting a comprehensive theory of collaboration.