by John Connell
John Connell is an Education Strategist and Business Development Manager working for Cisco in the Emerging Markets, covering Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Russia/CIS. ... More about John Connell
Collaboration as 'Productive Disputatiousness'
[This is a slightly amended version of a post also published on my own blog at http://www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=102]
Given the ubiquity of its use, I cannot be the only person who wonders what people really mean when they write or speak about collaboration. I was reminded of the question during a recent talk from a colleague on the developing notion of Government 2.0, during which he indicated that consensus should be seen as a key aspiration of modern, collaborative, democratic modes of government. I questioned this and wondered whether consensus was a red herring, whether it might even be viewed, somewhat perversely, as antithetical to a healthy democracy.
Democratic politics is, in an ideal form, about the art of compromise, about finding a path through competing aims and competing budgets in ways that, while meeting the needs of the majority, do not act to diminish unnecessarily or precipitatively the interests of those whose views or positions place them outside the majority on any one issue. Following this thought through, I wondered whether a healthy democracy depends on a notion of productive disputatiousness rather more than it does on any cosy or idealistic concept of consensus?
I am more than willing to concede that this is a debatable point, but it did serve to get me thinking from a wider perspective about the potential complexities of collaboration, a notion that is perhaps too often viewed in fairly simplistic, soft-edged terms, if it is analysed at all. That soft edge can be identified by the use of terms such as consensus, harmony, unanimity, concord and their ilk.
While the desire for unity is laudable, in the real world of vested interests, prejudice and conflicting social and politicale mores, I feel that the recognition of a process by which some kind of compromise is reached through disputation offer a more realistic definition of collaboration. A process in which competing interests are recognized and acknowledged from the start, and in which all sides recognize that no one interest should hold sway over all others, is, for me, a better definition of collaboration than the softer, consensus-based intepretation. Contention rather than consensus!
As an educationist, of course, my primary interest is in the nature of collaborative learning and whether or not there are implications for our understanding of that notion when we deploy a definition of collaboration that leans towards contention, disputation and debate rather than simply consensus.
Still thinking about that one……..but I shall come back to it.
Comments
Good point. It depends on what you're trying to achieve doesn't it? Sometimes concensus is actually important - decisions need to be made and, as far as possible, you need to fashion a 'working majority' of the collective involved. In other situations, contention is both the point and the motivating force. Often, the whole point of the discussion is to understand the nature and scope of different views.
The best writing I've found recently about the democratic implications of 'disputation' is Nobel economist Amartya Sen. His book The Argumentive Indian has a great opening essay in which Sen explains why the Indian predisposition to talk, to debate, to argue is an absolutely essential basis for a healthy democracy.
I think John is right though - too often we engage the collaboration process with little idea of what we really mean or what we're really trying to achieve. Worse, and especially in government, you sometimes get the impression that people deliberately fudge the issue and embark on what they describe as collaboration when what they really want is 'cover' for actions and ideas that have already been determined.
John's other point is key - we have little practical knowledge about how to handle contention and difference and what you are supposed to do with the views that fall outside the range of consensus.
posted over 3 years ago
I strongly believe that we live in a "both/and" rather than an "either/or" world in regard to this question.
I also believe that, as a species, we are programmed to compete rather than collaborate as a first preference. As an old boss of mine was wont to say "collaboration is an unnatural act between non-consenting adults". This is not rational, it's just our hind brain at work.
While collaboration is very often the best way for us to proceed, I sometimes feel compelled, for reasons such as you and Martin set out, to challenge the idea that it always to be preferred. History, and our own personal experiences, are littered with examples of collaboration and/or the pursuit of consensus leading to outcomes that are just plain dumb, or worse.
One point where I differ from Martin is in regard to our lack of experience regarding handling views that fall outside concensus. What we do is contest and conflict - sometimes for bad reasons, sometimes for good and with a mix of good and bad outcomes. That's what is in our nature. I'm not convinced it is a wholly bad thing.
posted over 3 years ago