I am speaking to a class on Monday on "collaboration" in health care. Until I started to read articles on it, I thought I understood it. While the authors tend to describe "collaboration" as being "complex relationships" and "cooperatively communicating" and "sharing of making decisions" and "solving problems," one author (Gardner) says that it is a part of teamwork, even though they are often used synonymously. Gardner says that "collaboration" is just a dimension of "teamwork." I see it as the opposite. I see "collaboration" as the larger, complex concept, with "teamwork" being a just one part of it.

What do you think?

Gardner also says that "collaboration" is best used to solve "wicked" problems. These, apparently, are problms with "imperfect, changing, or divergent solutions, such as associated with drug addiction or care for the chronically ill." This author asserts that with the complexity of health care and the limited resources, we are facing an increased number of "wicked" problems. Have you heard that phrase before?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

I know it's of no use to you but the more I read by accademics the more I am convinced that Lewis Carroll was intentionally using Humpty Dumpty to satirise them. All of them seem to use words to mean what they want them to mean with scant regard to whether this is an accepted or even comprehensible usage.

That's glory for you.

Like you I would have naturally assumed that 'team work' involved a smaller group than 'collaboration'. My dictionary does throw up a significant distinction to my mind. 'Team work' is defined as 'work done by organised division of labour; regard to success of the whole rather than personal exploits' and 'collaborate' is defined as 'one who works in conjunction with another or others'.

I think the key word is 'organised' because team work implies some kind of formal structure with a leader while collaboration suggests a far more casual relationship between the members.

Around 50-60 years ago 'collaboration' was a pejorative word. A collaborator was someone in the occupied European countries who worked with the German invaders. It made little difference whether they collaborated because they were forced, or out of choice. Towards the end of the war many collaborators were shot.

Really, arnie? I have always loved the word "collaboration," but now I am not so sure! I did read something about that, I believe, in one of the articles.

Bob, the more I read, the more I agree with you. I will never forget the wordsmithing when faculty would discuss changing our philosophy or mission statements or our curriculum. If people would use the awful word "use," someone immediately would say, "You mean 'utilize!'.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Really, arnie? I have always loved the word "collaboration," but now I am not so sure! I did read something about that, I believe, in one of the articles.

A famous WW2 collaborator was Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian who became so hated that his name actually came to mean a collaborator and people who collaborated with the Germans were called "Quislings".

quote:

Bob, the more I read, the more I agree with you. I will never forget the wordsmithing when faculty would discuss changing our philosophy or mission statements or our curriculum. If people would use the awful word "use," someone immediately would say, "You mean 'utilize!'.

Why use one syllable when three will sound much better ?

Where I work (NASA) collaboration means no money is changing hands between the parties.