Annotated Bib - Part 3

Rogers, Priscilla S. and Marjorie S. Horton. “Exploring the Value of Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.

Although collaborative writing can mean many different ways of composing a multi-authored text, Rogers and Horton narrow their definition to the face-to-face completion of all facets of the writing process. In other words, Rogers and Horton believe that true collaboration is best when all of the authors in a group work together during the planning, drafting, and revising phases of a project versus dividing up tasks and then working on the parts individually. While they acknowledge that technology can be a valuable writing tool, the authors insist that the physical interaction of authors during all phases of a project offers benefits we cannot ignore.

While conducting an empirical study of 19 professional collaborative writing groups, Rogers and Horton observed four primary benefits of face-to-face planning, drafting, and revising: 1) the group members better understood the rhetorical situation of a project; 2) the resulting document had a clear “group voice” (124) and group vocabulary; 3) the group members considered more deeply the ethical issues of the project; and 4) the group members reflected on group decisions more thoroughly. Rogers and Horton assert that these benefits were a result of the time the group members took to discuss and debate the different aspects of the writing process. The authors refer to Bruffee’s concept that we, as social beings, “talk about talk” (122) in order to learn.

I tend to think of collaborative writing in the same terms that Rogers and Horton do. As I mentioned in my dissonance blog, I believe that teamwork and problem-solving improve as group members are able to talk through their concerns. Rogers and Horton raise some very good points, but they wrote this article in the 1990’s, and technology has come a long way. After doing some preliminary research, I now have to question the direction I initially wanted to take with my project. I’m thinking that my research question should really be: How can we use the different forms of today’s technology to replicate the face-to-face collaborative writing that Rogers and Horton support? I now feel this is a better question than my original idea of determining which form of collaborative writing is better because the benefits of both forms could be combined.

Selfe, Cynthia. “Computer-Based Conversations and The Changing Nature of Collaboration.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.

Selfe concedes the value of face-to-face collaboration but maintains that time and distance do not always allow authors to be physically present with each other during the writing process. In addition, Selfe argues that computer-assisted collaboration provides a barrier to problems that often arise in face-to-face exchanges. For example, groups are often dominated by people with “high status within the culture at large (e.g. whites, males, people with high socioeconomic status, etc.)” (149). Many times, these dominant individuals prevent other group members from taking turns in conversations and reduce the number of new topics introduced.

Selfe cites findings from a study tested in an on-line forum called Megabyte University that show in the “asynchronous, on-line discussion” no participants were interrupted and each member was allowed to complete their thoughts (158). Furthermore, the online collaboration allowed members to use pseudonyms that masked “visual cues of gender, race, and social status in organizational hierarchies” (155). As a result, members felt they could participate more equally in the collaborative process.

Although Selfe’s target audience for this piece was composition teachers and their students, I feel her observations are also applicable to the business environment. In fact, employees within a corporation are probably more susceptible to pressures of social standing, etc. Selfe does not provide suggestions for which technological advances are best for collaborative writing, but some of the research I have done on hypertext, blogging, etc, lends itself very well to her ideas. Again, I feel my research project is going to be headed in a different direction than I originally intended.