Figure 2 - uploaded by Filippo Arnaldo Salustri
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
In this paper, the authors propose that there is an inconsistency in the understanding of collaboration and of the collaborator because of a contradiction between human attitudinal and behavioural characteristics on the one hand, and that which is required from a collaborator and through collaboration on the other. We will argue that the sources of...
Context in source publication
Citations
... When faced with such a paradox design engineers usually do what one would do when they don't know what they are doing; they research. Research on collaboration indicates that it is something notable yet not understood [14], it is something that occurs between human beings [10], and it is reliant upon the subtleties of verbal communication and behavioural cues motivated by needs for expression and knowledge acquisition. As is the case with any human interaction it is reflective of the values held by the involved parties and successful collaborations occur when there is a consistency between individual and group values. ...
In this paper the authors explore the use of rubrics for the evaluation of collaborations and its agents in both academic and practical settings. Rubrics are subjective scoring guides used for the quick evaluation of the characteristics of a concept based on a range of criteria. A comparative analysis of these rubrics suggest that collaborations and the collaborators are inconsistently evaluated based on the current design of these metrics. This inconsistency is captured through the choice of characteristics pertaining to collaboration, the use of these characteristics across rubrics designed for evaluating collaboration, the criteria pertaining to each characteristic, and the distribution of this range of criteria. This inconsistency misinforms the collaborators, misdirects the collaboration, distracts from appreciating the possibilities of collaboration through its involvement and transference of its lessons. It is suggested that the source of this error extends from an inconsistency in the understanding of collaboration and of the behaviours and attitudes expected of the collaborator. It is further suggested that value systems underlie one's attitudes toward collaboration, including which collaborative behaviours are viewed favourably, and a better understanding of the underlying values will help address the above-noted inconsistencies. An alternate rubric design will be proposed which will reflect a short list of favourable behaviours and attitudes pertaining to the value system of collaboration. The aim is to at least capture the context in which only a collaboration can exist, or at least, its opponents cannot. As opposed to the current designs for collaboration rubrics, it is believed that this alternative design will enable the evaluator to capture the presence of a collaboration and the strength of its agents. In addition, it will provide an appropriate direction and guidance in areas pertaining to collaboration, its related technologies, and this provides the opportunity for further exploration of collaborative activities, its benefits, and challenges.
