Annotated Bib - Part 2

Selber, Stuart, et al. “Issues in Hypertext-Supported Collaborative Writing.” Nonacademic Writing: Social Theory and Technology. Eds. Ann Hill Duin and Craig J. Hansen. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

Selber et al. provide a brief overview of hypertext and then show how this “emerging” (this was written in 1996, after all) aspect of technology affects the authorship, group dynamics, and organizational structures of workplace collaborative writing. The authors maintain that the benefits of hypertext greatly outweigh any problems. They state that rather than hindering social interactions, hypertext actually encourages better discussion among authors because writers who might normally be reticent during a face-to-face meeting feel they have an individual voice in a virtual forum. Furthermore, Selber et al. point out that the group dynamic of a collaborative writing team are often better when using hypertext since the writers are not only writing portions of a document but are also reading and revising the work of other group members as they interact within the database links.

I am always somewhat excited when I find a source so early in my research that really challenges my point of view on a project topic. I started my research with the general belief that face-to-face collaborative writing is better than virtual collaboration; however, Selber et al. make a very convincing argument for the superiority of hypertext-assisted group writing. In fact, the authors assert that hypertext is far better than other electronic forms of collaborative writing. I really did not know anything about hypertext’s applicability for collaborative writing before reading this piece. Once I understood how the process might work, I can acknowledge that fostering “dissensus” (267) – the elimination of group think – could be easier within a hypertext document since members have a better opportunity to review the work of others, maintain some individuality, and “defuse the tendency to position their text as the singularly approved one” (267). Selber et al. have motivated me to look for other information on hypertext’s value to workplace collaboration.

Locker, Kitty O. “What Makes a Collaborative Writing Team Success?” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.

Taking advantage of the collaborative writing performed at her husband’s workplace, Locker had a rare chance to study “two teams in the same organization working on the same task” (38) in order to find out why one team was successful and the other was not. Locker’s qualitative case study evinces key differences between the two teams. The first team was not able to produce a successful draft of a class-action complaint in 13 attempts. By comparison, the second team’s initial draft on the same case resulted in a document that far exceeded the quality of all of the first team’s efforts.

After studying the two teams’ processes, conducting interviews, etc, Locker attributes the primary differences between the teams’ documents to seven factors: “power and leadership, dealing with feelings, involvement of group members, understanding the rhetorical situation, collaboration on revisions, attitude toward supervisors’ comments, and attitude toward revision” (46-52).

Of the seven factors Locker identified, I think that the first two (power and leadership and dealing with feelings) ultimately affect the emergence of the other five. For example, in the first team, one individual dominated the entire writing process and treated the other members as if they were there to support him. The team did not interact together in a way that motivated all members to share ideas or discuss problems. This, in turn, degraded the involvement of the team members and their attitudes toward the project. Conversely, the second team shared power and leadership and often reached out to each other (both in and out of their writing meetings) to ensure each member felt validated.

The differences Locker observed between the teams again make me wonder how much worse or better their experience might have been if they had worked together in only a computer-assisted realm. (Both teams had regularly scheduled face-to-face planning and writing meetings.) To me, technology has the potential to magnify whatever issues might already be occurring in a group. If one member is power hungry or controlling, technology might enable that person to isolate the writing project even more so than in a face-to-face meeting. On the other hand, the second team’s cohesiveness in producing an excellent document could have been highlighted even more with technology. Locker also points out that the second team knew each other fairly well before the project, but ended up being very close friends once the document was finished. I believe the dynamics of the second team were strengthened by their face-to-face interactions with each other. The ability to see the non-verbal communication of team members allows us to monitor how people might be reacting to problems, stressors, etc. and offer them assistance when needed.