In praxis over the last five years, I’ve reached the same conclusuion as Chris Huxham and Siv Vangen in their 2005 book, ‘Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage”: it may be unwise to attempt to collaborate unless absolutely necessary.

From years of identifying and building upon collaborative synergies in impoverished communities and playing matchmaker to needs and assets of the elementary and high schools alongside the universities in their backyards, the challenge has not only been to make strategic alliances grounded in respect and reciprocity, but in navigating the vested self-interests that accompany imbalances of power. The culture of higher education is decidedly predicated upon individual merit and reward. Schools labelled as “failing” under No Child Left Behind are understandably scrambling to retain dignity as well as decision-making. While both have incentives as part of their respective cultures to collaborate, the doing so is often a painful process or at least an awkward and lumbering dance.

I have come to appreciate two realities that are part of lessons learned in my role as Associate Director for School and Community Partnerships in Indiana University’s Center for P-16 Research and Collaboration: “pilgrims and Indians,” and “the poverty of imagination.” One must acknolwedge the importance of giving people what they say they need in order to ready the soil for the cultivation of fruitful future reciprocity without second-guessing. Secondly, “we don’t know what we don’t know” on all sides is an epistemology worth reckoning with.

I’d like to explore theses two ideas in more depth and am eager to read more on these topics from the experience and scholarship of other contributors and readers of this Journal.

As I apply problem solving methodologies, what I know is a mechanism for stepwise analysis, which tools to use when, why they should be used and how and when to use them. This then is applied to the client’s known problem or opportunity. Then it becomes a process of following the data to solution, unfettered by what you already believe you and the client know about the problem, its causes and its probable best case solutions.

Similarly, when applying strengths-based approaches such as Appreciative Inquiry, while the methodology seems a bit more open, flexible and situationally driven, there still exists a process in which the expert / practitioner follows a path in helping those that know, to understand better what they know and how to build upon it and make it the norm.

So, perhaps it’s valid to look at expertise such as medicine, counseling, management consulting, business process improvement, etc., as developing methodological templates actioned with situationally driven tools usage, which can then overlay and manipulate the client’s known, to aid in sense-making and betterment.

Rodney

Rodney

Coming soon: The next issue of the IJCP will be available by May 1st. We hope that you enjoy it and look forward to your comments.

With appreciation,

Harlene Anderson

Thanks for your offering above. I find it very helpful in understanding this “not-knowing” idea.

Rodney