“Collaborate” Means “To Work Jointly”
“…on an activity or project.” (Collaborate. [2010]. Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved on July 26, 2011, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collaborate)
Well, duh.
But the use of the word “jointly” in this definition is, I think, very important in distinguishing the true meaning of what it is to collaborate from what people assume it means. Many people seem to think that collaboration means “working together,” which implies that all the collaborators are together “in the same room” (whether literally or virtually), exchanging information and ideas to create something “together.”
It is this understanding of “collaboration” that makes many people dread it. People complain, “I don’t want to sit there and debate every word with the whole group. It takes forever, and nobody ever really agrees, so we end up with something bland that doesn’t really say anything.” This is, indeed, a pitfall of collaborative work: death by consensus.
Other people say, “Collaborative work isn’t fair. Someone (usually me) does all the work and everybody else just goofs off. Even if the project turns out well, I have to share the credit with a bunch of slackers who didn’t really do anything.” And few of us can deny that in most groups, one or two people will take the lead (usually those with the most to lose if the project fails) and do more than their share to ensure success, while everyone else skates.
That’s why I prefer working jointly to working together. Lennon and McCartney, one of the greatest collaborative duos of all time, worked jointly. One of them would come up with the basics of a song and would present it to the other, who would then suggest changes and additions. They would go back and forth, in an iterative process, until they agreed that “their” song was complete. Any Beatles fan can tell you who the primary writer of a song is from how it sounds. “I Am the Walrus” is John; “Here, There, and Everywhere” is Paul. And most critics agree that both Lennon and McCartney benefited from that collaborative process; the music that each produced independently is generally inferior to the songs they wrote jointly.
John and Paul did not sit together on a piano bench and ask each other, “OK, should we start with an A or a D?”, argue about it for 20 minutes, and then compromise on “C.” Not only would that have taken a ridiculous amount of time, the resulting music would have been abysmal. Yet that is the basic modus operandi that many people envision when they think of “collaboration,” and it has resulted in much wailing and gnashing of teeth, not to mention hundreds of truly awful corporate mission statements.
Working jointly means that I bring my skills and talents, you bring your skills and talents, we each do our best work, and then we combine what works best. In a successful collaborative team, the various skills and abilities of the collaborators will complement each other. My sardonic wit will balance out your upbeat melodies (and vice versa), and we’ll end up with “Let It Be” (or at least “I Want to Hold Your Hand“), rather than “#9 Dream” or “Spies Like Us.”
N.B.: I do not have a specific reference to cite regarding Lennon and McCartney’s collaborative style, but I did get an “A” in Music 422: The Beatles: Their Music and Their Times at the University of Southern California. (And yes, it did count toward my major. Awesome, right?)
July 26th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Excellent post.
However, I am not sure I fully agree with the need to distinguish between working jointly and working collaboratively. I don’t think you need to be in the same room to collaborate. I have never interpreted the word in that way. To me it means multiple people working towards the same goal. And if that means that someone works on the lit review, another person does section 1 and another person does section 2 and we all do it into a google doc and never meet face-to-face then that is still collaboration in my opinion.
I don’t know if the distinction is necessary. But would define collaboration as anytime two or more people work together towards a common goal, where the goal is the linking force, not the geographical location.
July 26th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I agree, Dana, that “working jointly” and “working collaboratively” are the same. I’m distinguishing those concepts from “working together,” which for me, implies that the team members have to mutually agree how to cross each “t” and dot each “i,” and often leads to frustration and mediocrity.
July 26th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Iteration really is the fundamental process to collaboration. Makes everything work.
July 29th, 2011 at 8:28 am
I like your definition of collaboration using the word “jointly”. It brings to my mind a physical joint in the body. Two pieces of bone loosely held together by tendons, ligament and cartilage. The goal is motion or (a) movement (like in a piece of music). The beauty of the joint is that it allows the body (project) the freedom to go where it will. That ensures successful collaboration. Thanks for the mental image of collaboration!
July 29th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
When I first started at SLAIS, my biggest concern was the amount of group work I would have to do. My memories of academic collaboration are from my undergraduate degree, and they aren’t particularly fond ones. It was a lot like how you described it above: “Someone (usually me) does all the work and everybody else just goofs off.” I’ve never had a problem with collaboration on projects at work, but school-related collaboration always seemed different somehow.
It definitely took a shift in mindset to get used to the fact that collaborative work was expect at SLAIS, but one of the best things about talking with my cohort about this stuff was that practically everyone had previously had negative experiences with group work- and that nobody was looking forward to it.
The nice thing about graduate work, though, is that you get to work with graduate students who generally have a vested interest in being in both the program and the profession. My anxiety about academic collaborative work has definitely subsided now that I’ve completed a number of group projects with rad colleagues who were more than willing to share the workload and contribute positively to the final product.
August 2nd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Like Alison my thoughts of ‘group work’ changed after being at SLAIS. My cohort of SLAISers have incredible strengths, and talents (also 98% of them have now graduated – me next). I actually preferred to work on group projects over individual papers, as I love the face-to-face discussions, and feel like I learn more from collaboration.
As a Music nerd and Beatles fan I love the music tie-ins.
August 3rd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I really like the way you framed “jointly” rather than “collaborative” or “working together” that assumes that everyone contributes the same level of contribution. I was also struggling with this in my own blog post about collaboration, but I like “jointly” because I do think that people have different levels of vested interest in a project, and I like the idea that everyone brings their different talents to the table. Hmmm….. Although I do think that “debating” or discussion is an important part of the iterative process, and discussions for clarification, and fleshing out ideas can insure that all group members are on the same page and have the same understanding of what needs to be accomplished moving forward. If anything, in my experience, I get more concerned when members aren’t asking questions because it might mean that they don’t understand or aren’t really on board. I’m also the kind of person who is quick to give input, opinion, and feedback and worry that my up-front-ness might discourage others from contributing their 2 cents. Anyway, thanks for all the Beatles-for-thought! 🙂