Collaborative Writing (2024)

!Converted with LaTeX2HTML 95 (Thu Jan 19 1995) by Nikos Drakos (nikos@cbl.leeds.ac.uk), CBLU, University of Leeds >

What is collaborative authoring or writing? One definition is: activitiesinvolved in the production of a document by more than one author, thenpre-draft discussions and arguments as well as post-draft analyses anddebates are collaborative components. [1] Based on thisdefinition, the collaborative authoring process includes the writingactivity as well as group dynamics. Another definition is "...any piece ofwriting, published or unpublished, ascribed or anonymous, to which more thanone person has contributed, whether or not they grasped a pen, tapped akeyboard, or shuffled a mouse." [61] This definitionalludes to the complexity of identifying and acknowledging contributions andtheir contributors.

With collaborative authoring, there is a meshing of the complexity of (technical) writing along with the challenges of collaboration. Given thatwriting is a complex , open-ended task, there are many ways of statingmeaning. With multiple authors, this adds to the complexity. The acts ofcollaboration and writing as they relate to collaborative authoring include:establishing an agenda or goal of the collaboration effort, identifyingwriting tasks and dividing those tasks among group members, trackingindividual idea generation, defining rules for document management,identifying roles for group members, communicating ideas, and managingconflict. Collaborative authoring, therefore, requires effectivecommunication between members of the writing group.

The communication requirements of the writing task are: task division,brainstorming, editing, general discussion, and goal setting. Task division relates toassigning tasks and communicating the associated requirements and deadlines. Brainstorming is generating and recording ideas to be used in production of the text. Editing involves members indicating their comments about and enhancements for thetext. These comments and suggestions will be used to revise the existing text. General discussions can include formal team meetings as well as casual, impromptuconversations. Determining what the purpose or goal of the document is goal setting. Also, goal setting can include establishing the timeliness and activities that relate totask division.

Besides facilitating the processes of writing, language and written text are theproducts of the group as well as the means of communication. When writing, theauthor many times makes notes or comments about the text within the text itself. To the reader, these notes may appear to be part of the actual document. Therefore,there is the need to make the distinction between external representation and actualdocument text. Further, it is necessary to understand the context of these notes. Animportant part of understanding the context of these notes is knowing the author The concern in this case is how to differentiate between actual document text, andthe text produced as part of the planning and thinking phase.

Types of Collaboration: Research on Collaborative Authoring

There are various of degrees of collaboration in authoring. At one end ofthe range is a single author who through discussion with and review bycolleagues produces a document. The other end of the spectrum is a group ofwriters who jointly author a document. For this appendix, term collaborativeauthoring is used for two or more individuals who work together to produce asingle document. Research on writing groups [47,61] has identified three coordination strategies for groupwriting: parallel, sequential, and reciprocal. With parallel coordination,the writing task is divided into sub-tasks which are assigned to each groupmember. These tasks can be completed concurrently. Sequential coordination involves dividing the writing task in such a way that the firstpart of the task must be completed before any other portions of the task. With the reciprocal strategy, the group members worktogether--simultaneously--on the writing task. Each strategy has inherentadvantages and disadvantages. For each methodology key issues are how thework is divided. (There is the possibility that methods could be combinedto form new coordination strategies.)

Based on the results of the study conducted by Ede and Lunsford[39], seven organizational patterns for collaborative authoring wereidentified. These patterns are:

1. the team plansand outlines the task, then each writer prepares his/her part and the groupcompiles the individual parts, and revises the whole document as needed;
2. the team plans and outlines the writing task, then one member preparesa draft, the team edits and revises the draft;
3. one member of the teamplans and writes a draft, the group revises the draft;
4. one personplans and writes the draft, then one or more members revises the draftwithout consulting the original authors;
5. the group plans and writes the draft, one or more members revise the draft without consulting theoriginal authors;
6. one person assigns the tasks, each member completesthe individual task, one person compiles and revises the document;
7. one dictates, another transcribes and edits. Results from the studyindicated that the percentage of writing groups that use these methods oftenor very often range from 3% (method 5) to 31% (method 3).

The above study was a survey of members of various professionalorganizations on their writing activities. The results show how individualscomplete the activities associated with writing--generally alone, generallyas part of a group, or generally partly alone, partly with the group. Fifty percent of those surveyed performed idea generation or brainstormingalone as well as with the group. For idea generation, the largestpercentages are: 82% for 'part group, part alone' for engineers, 72%'part of a group' for chemists, and 40% 'part group, part alone' fortechnical writers. For information gathering and organizational planning,the overall percentages for working alone and with the group are 53% and46% respectively. The majority of those surveyed (63%) drafted documentsalone. Of all the methods for completing activities, working alone and ina group received the largest percentage of votes (39%) for the task ofrevising the document. Fifty-six percent performed editing (andproofreading) activities alone.

One of the issues that relates to cognitive overhead is the use of"boilerplate" or template materials in the document, that is standarddescriptions, and formats. The respondents answered that they sometimesused "boilerplate" materials depending on types of documents. Overall,.technical writers believed that having a plan is important to the groupwriting process. They also noted that having a bad plan leads to disastrousresults. If a set plan was used, the group leader performed this task in73% of the cases. Twenty- three percent reported that the entire group madetask assignments. The respondents were asked to identify the individual(s)who made revisions to the document. Thirty-three percent indicated thatthis task was performed by the group leader; twenty-three percent indicatedthat several members performed this task. In the case of technical writers,50% stated that revisions were completed by a technical writer/editor ofthe group.

Survey one, which was administered to a large group of writers(approximately 800), provides information on the amount of time spent on thevarious phases of the writing process. The results show that generatingideas (14%), note-taking (13%), organizational planning (13%), drafting(32%), revising (15%), editing (13%) contribute to the total writingprocess. Ede and Lunsford [39] also examined co

llaborative authoring and the results indicates that the level of satisfaction in the group writing process is influenced by eight items:

• the degree to which goals are articulated and shared;
• the degree of openness and mutual respect;
• the degree of control the writers have over the text;
• the degree to which writers can respond to others who modify the text;
• the way in which credit (directly or indirectly) is acknowledged;
• the presence of an agreed upon procedure for managing conflicts and resolving disputes;
• the number and types of (bureaucratic) constraints imposed on the authors--deadlines, technical/legal requirements, etc., and;
• the status of the project within the organization.

Beck [28] provides information about surveys of collaborativeauthoring conducted with smaller sample sizes. There, however, was no agreedupon definition of collaborative authoring. Most respondents discussed aboutthe context and structure of the document during the writing of thedocument Some discussions were performed before writing the document orafter the document was complete. Most of these discussion involved theentire group, however, some of these discussions about document content andstructure occurred among members of a subgroup. A review of resultspertaining to discussion about organization of work indicated similarpatterns of responses. Most discussed this topic while writing thedocument. Group-wide discussions were most popular. However, discussionsabout work organization also took place within sub-groups. Beck alsoreports the role of individual group members and the relationship among themwere discussed most during the writing process.