Communicating in a Collaborating Group: A Longitudinal Network Analysis

The Communicative Accomplishment of Collaboration Failure

“…Keyton et al's () review of the collaboration literature shows that collaboration is understood as both a structure for and a process of ways in which people work to resolve problems and develop new ideas. Yet a structural perspective dominates the literature at the expense of communication processes, which is a shortcoming of collaboration research more broadly (Walker & Stohl, ). This often leads to an overemphasis on stakeholder representation, forums for expression, equality of voice, documentation of events, formal channels of communication, public accountability, and distribution of information—yet overlooks important dynamics of process, meaning, interpretation, and interaction.…”

Participative Democracy and Voice: Rethinking Community Collaboration Beyond Neutral Structures

“…Additionally the native tendencies to prioritize relationships over conflict, a finding that is unique to long-term versus temporary collaborative structures (for a discussion, see Walker & Stohl, 2012), visibly suppressed a consequential discussion among Metro participants on whether preschool should be considered a right or privilege. Indeed, given the weight that the school board had awarded Metro in decisions on early education, the outcome of this political discussion affected the poorest of children and their families.…”

“…For example, East partnered with other stakeholders on a 3 million dollar mental health grant while Metro annually managed 1.3 million dollars for early care and education projects. Furthermore, because these collaborations had been convened in some form several years before the state sponsored the pilot program, they had each gained social capital in their respective communities, constituting them as long-term collaborations as opposed to negotiated temporary systems (for a discussion, see Walker & Stohl, 2012). At Metro, the school board ran policy decisions by the collaborative group.…”

“…For example, Cooper and Shumate (2012) examined the differences between donor instigated collaboration (mandated) and grassroots collaboration (voluntary) on attitudes and group outcomes of collaboration. Similarly, Walker and Stohl (2012) hypothesized particular variables lead to the formation of temporary collaborative networks. These present strands of collaboration research advance our understanding of stakeholders and the interorganizational group but do not unearth the political and social consequences of communicative behaviors and structures in collaboration.…”

Encouraging interprofessional collaboration: The effects of clinical protocols

“…Definitions of collaboration are found in a range of literature, not just those associated with health care. In general, such definitions define collaboration as a way of working that strives for mutually accountable and innovative ends with the expectation of social change and that is cooperative and relatively nonhierarchical (Milam & Heath, 2014;Walker & Stohl, 2012). Lewis (2006) suggests that collaboration does not occur when it is coerced, that is, when it is mediated by rules set down by an external force, unless the participants have chosen to work together in that particular way.…”