Annotated Bib - Part 4

Lowry, Paul Benjamin and Jay F. Nunamaker, Jr. “Using Internet-Based, Distributed Collaborative Writing Tools to Improve Coordination and Group Awareness in Writing Teams.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 46.4 (Dec 2003): 277-297.

As the weighty title of Lowry and Nunamaker’s article implies, this source lays out the parameters for good collaborative writing tools. The authors feel one of the best features of face-to-face collaboration is that the members can operate in a synchronous fashion. Being able to work together in real time improves group coordination, awareness, and document quality. Accordingly, the authors believe a primary requirement for computer-assisted writing tools used by physically separated group members is that the technology allows authors to replicate this synchronicity. Therefore, the article strongly advocates the need for tools that support “parallel-partitioned” (279) functions and division of roles.

This article is very pertinent to my research question, but I will have to be cautious about accepting their viewpoints at face value. On the positive side, the authors spend the first part of the article explaining why face-to-face writing teams often dislike computer-assisted writing tools but cannot avoid them due to today’s global corporate structure. The authors then do a good job of detailing the group dynamics that should be accounted for when searching for a way to collaborate in a distributed environment. I do have to be somewhat critical when using this article, however, because the second half is a comparison in which the authors show the superiority of a new collaborative writing program, Collaboratus, over MS Word. Of course, the authors don’t clearly mention that one of the authors of the article, Paul Lowry, is also one of the co-developers of Collaboratus. So, I will have to overlook much of the last half of the article in favor of the first part that speaks directly to ways we can gain the benefits of face-to-face collaboration in a virtual arena.

Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.

In their study of collaborative workplace writing, Ede and Lunsford primarily wanted to convince composition teachers that collaboration had a valuable place in the writing classroom. The authors thought teachers needed to understand how important it is for students to work together because collaboration will play a large part of their future success in many occupations. Therefore, Ede and Lunsford conducted an empirical study of the writing processes of seven organizations (including the Modern Language Association) that have a major role in their particular fields. Using detailed questionnaires in the first two phases and interviews in the third, Ede and Lunsford’s analysis ended up providing us with much more than a lesson for composition teachers. In fact, their study is the starting point for many other researchers on collaborative writing in general.

I am still working my way through all of the results for Ede and Lunsford’s field surveys, but I could not proceed any further with my own research until I had read and commented on their book. Every other source, without exception, that I have looked at so far refers to or quotes Ede and Lunsford’s groundbreaking study for one reason or another. One of the most interesting points I have discovered so far in Ede and Lunsford’s work is that most workplace writers responded that they spent the majority of any writing session on drafting versus revising or any other phase of the process. Drafting is difficult enough in a face-to-face session, so how can we best use technology to retain the benefits of the group dynamic in an efficient manner?