Trust + Collaboration in Student Innovation and Creativity
Much has been written about the epistemology of trust and its role in the production and creation of knowledge. Crease discusses the epistemology of trust in knowledge acquisition and knowledge production and how trust is central to the scientific community and to scientific progress (Crease). However, it can also be applied to the creation of innovative ideas in general through the collaborative process. Collaboration produces mountains of risk that create space requiring trust to drive the process of general innovation forward: in student groups, while distrust can be a driving force as Crease says, it’s much healthier and produces better results at the end when necessary trust is developed. In student collaboration specifically, necessary trust is the foundation required to successfully build and drive creativity. This paper will discuss the roles of trust in collaboration by exploring the design thinking process, peer collaboration, the stages of group development, and on a creative team.
The five-stage design process, as taught in INTEG 121 (Jernigan) and outlined by Tim Brown in Change By Design (Brown) is like a chemical reaction: with the right people following the right process, progress towards defining a problem and its associated stakeholders is catalyzed and produces valuable learning experiences and a novel, cohesive solution may fade into view. The stages of the design process — pictured below — are as follows: Problem Definition, Idea Generation, Selection, Implementation, and Evaluation phases. However, the strength of the design process is that these stages are not executed serially or in a waterfall method where one requires perfect completion for the next to begin, but each step is fluid and iterable. This means that, for example, the Build and Evaluation phases could happen in parallel, as one informs the other on how to make improvements. Additionally, any of the earlier stages can be revisited at any time to be updated and provide a better understanding or to change the direction of the final solution.
As the image above shows, each stage can have its revisions and alterations, and in each of these there can be an associated risk or boundary cost. This is especially true when there are major pivots from the original ideas which show promise. This can easily divide a group that does not have built in trust and safety mechanisms for failure and iteration and so on, because the time invested would not be seen as worth it to some members. Therefore trust’s role in this group during each stage of the design process is to allow group members to unlock even more creativity by knowing that their team members will support them effectively. Effective support in the design process does not necessarily mean always having perfect unison and agreement in ideas and proposals, but the right balance of creative conflict to squeeze out the best possible iterations of an idea. In our group in the INTEG 121 Open Design Challenge (ODC), we spent one such session on simply workshopping our problem definition so that we could be aligned on what exactly we wanted to solve and for whom we were solving it. We took the time to generate ideas on what our “how might we” problem statement would look like in two parts. This process might have seemed redundant early on to some group members, but, with trust in the process and each other it proved to be invaluable for getting alignment and understanding the scope of the solution we wanted to create. A great validation of this was when we found an article in the Toronto Star (Gordon) that showed the Government of Ontario had defined the problem similarly and was going to invest resources into a solution, something that we could positively contribute to with our final prototypes and overall body of work. Our ODC team felt that we collaborated effectively through the design process as a result of all this.
The type of collaboration used in our ODC team thrived on the trust formed between peers. The amount of collaboration in group settings is proportionate to the amount of trust that is able to be developed. In a cooperative group setting, peers are told what to do in their group and an end solution is known (Smith), allowing for a division of tasks and individual work to be carried out. This strategy will get the group to the end point but there is no significant need to work together closely and build each other up throughout the process. Knowing a solution creates a lot of predictability and eliminates a lot of risk, and the only synchronization needed is in the integration of the individual work. In contrast, in a collaborative group setting, a solution is usually found through the process of working together with the peers in your group (Smith). This is necessary when given a problem but not given a solution, like we were in our ODC team. The amount of problem solving and design thinking associated with this kind of project created risk that could only be overcome by trusting the people in our group. In order to work together and depend on each other, trust needed to be formed and developed within our group throughout the length of the project. In essence, co-operative trust may be cultivated quickly but not reinforced or developed. Collaborative trust needs to be developed and reinforced because the nature of the project is unpredictable, and there is a need for more cohesion among collaborators. Trust is necessary when you cannot predict an outcome (Crease).
In a collaborative project students are forced to move the focus from one leader, such as a professor, to delegate and facilitate learning and instead need to teach each other (Smith). When learning is shifted to this type of environment, it questions how credible peer knowledge will be in regards to another’s learning experience. This brings up the need to trust team members’ knowledge and experience. Unless you know the standpoint of your peers it would be hard to have trust in their ability to teach you and produce a successful final product (Smith). This type of trust cannot be mistaken for credibility, certainty, or confidence in another’s abilities. A more diverse group will produce better work (Wylie), but if the people in the group do not trust someone else’s ability and do not allow themselves to learn from other perspectives then the work will not be as good as it could be (Smith). Our ODC team was made up of seven people with very different strengths and capabilities, backgrounds and levels of education. This allowed us to move forward through the design process, but this wouldn’t have been the case if we did not begin the project with some initial trust in each other, likely because of the context of the class. The initial trust is most important and sets the tone for the rest of the process because that trust needs to exist in order for collaboration to be successful. The two go hand in hand; trust enhances collaboration and the collaborative experience helps to strengthen trust amongst peers (Atkins). The two create a cyclical system that reinforces each other and helps the group experience a more valuable process of collaboration.
This cyclical system is seen throughout the stages of group development and we saw it exemplified in our ODC team. Similar to the design process, the different stages in Tuckman’s team development model build upon each other and can iterate back to a previous step if necessary (Tuckman). The four stages: forming, storming, norming, and performing, allow a group to respectively assemble and understand each other, set boundaries and responsibilities, define a purpose, and work together cohesively (cite). The forming stage is crucial in the development of trust; this is where the foundation of trust is first developed. In our ODC team, our forming stage was very brief but trust was developed quickly in our first interaction where we established our group contract. Our group contract specifically had a “don’t be a dick” clause, stating that members should always treat each other with respect and consideration and perform to the best of their ability. This frankness and unfettered communication set the tone, helped everyone become familiar with one another, and form a baseline of trust. The storming stage develops trust further by stating rules, responsibilities, and positions within the group. Our group did this by iterating on our group contract. As we developed the clauses there was discussion around what would be best for our working agreement and there were some arguments made which helped solidify our fluid contract. Sharing this type of information & discussion with one another helped to solidify trust that was developed in the forming stage, and also develop more trust within each other.
The norming stage allows group members to utilize the trust that has been developed throughout the first two stages by following the set guidelines and working towards a common goal. At this point trust fueled the implementation process. The performing stage is where trust is at its peak because the group is no longer figuring out how to work and just working together in an orderly fashion. For our group, this occurred within the last four days of our final project. At this time a shared vision was clear and we knew exactly what we wanted done. We were able to use our strengths to implement parts of our design and trust that we would finish them to our best ability. Team members took point on iterating through different parts of the solution while getting feedback from each other as much as possible, strengthening the trust that we had already developed through our collaborative process. We did not each finish our task and have them put together like a puzzle at the end, but we were able to support each other in our weaknesses without compromising the trust we built and bringing each other down.
As stated previously, the type of trust need for successful collaboration is not synonymous to credibility, capability, or confidence (Smith). However through the stages of group development it is possible for a group’s interpersonal trust to develop into credibility, capability, and confidence with their peers. The foundation of trust, formed in the stages of group development, need to be strong so that it can be built on throughout the duration of the project. By the time the group reaches the performing stage they do not just have general trust for one another, they have specific trust in their team as a whole. The above examples of how our group moved through the stages of group development illustrate how the foundation of trust can grow into specific trust in the team and individual trust in one another.
In our ODC team we made a point to establish a group contract at the start of the project. It was a chance to be honest about strengths and weaknesses, interests and challenges, and most importantly preferred methods of feedback. With a personal preferred method of feedback, we immediately knew everyone’s comfort level and how to optimize feedback so that it would be received most effectively. Unless feedback is perceived and processed effectively, it can potentially have negative effects despite good intentions. The assumptions about positive intentions that one would usually have to make in these scenarios were actually grounded in the fact that we were willing to take the time to consider each other’s preferred method of receiving feedback. This type of honesty developed necessary trust that helped us be a high performing team that could deliver feedback and act on it effectively.
Toward the end of the project, we began to divide our solution into its distinct parts. In doing so, there had to be necessary trust afforded to those with each part of the solution. With three parts, a 33% weight is a significant chunk and we believed that with or without trust this was a necessary split to actually finish the project on time. For example, there was a slight miscommunication for one section’s deliverables. Because of the time crunch, the situation was not resolved before the next presentation of our progress which gave us a few days of discomfort and more importantly, a few days of siloed work and closed communication. Especially in a short term student project like this, a few days of siloed work was disconcerting and caused undue stress. While in hindsight this miscommunication was only regarding minor details, one can see the logical conclusion if it had larger underlying concerns. It also demonstrates the level of trust at which our group was operating that such a minor miscommunication stuck out like a sore thumb in retrospect. It is clear that without trust group work depends on the sum of the team members, while a trusting group will operate as a whole; and as the saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The roles of trust in the design process, peer collaboration, the stages of group development, and on a creative team demonstrates how the amount of trust developed in peer collaboration groups is directly proportionate to the innovative result produced. Overall, trust leads to more innovative ideas by reinforcing the collaborative process between peers. The mountains of risk associated with the collaborative process can be tackled with necessary trust developed between students. By creating this safe space to generate and produce ideas, innovation is being nurtured and driven forward by trust in a collaborative atmosphere. This is in contention with a lot of existing culture in student settings where competitiveness and fear of failures are propagated as a means of evaluation and demonstrating success. There is good reason to believe empowering students to create a safe space for learning and failure can lead to the best possible creative results. This is definitely the story for our team and is something we would recommend trying with all student groups.
References
Atkins, Andy. Print, Article. “Trust and Collaboration: A Virtuous Circle.” Management Issues. N.p., 16 Nov. 1970. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
Brown, Tim. Change by Design., 2009. Harper Collins. 10 Apr. 2017.
Crease, Robert P., and Kyle Powys Whyte. “Trust, Expertise, and the Philosophy of Science.” Synthese 177.3 (2010): 411–25. Web.
Gordon, Andrea. “Ontario Launches Plan to Teach High School Kids Financial Skills.” thestar.com. Toronto Star, 23 Mar. 2017. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
Jernigan, INTEG 121, lecture, “The Design Thinking Process”, January 9, 2017, University of Waterloo.
Smith, Regina O. “The Epistemic Challenges, Trust and the Online Collaborative Group.”International Journal of Lifelong Education 29.1 (2010): 21–44. Web.
Tuckman, B. W., and M. A. C. Jensen. “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited.” Group & Organization Management 2.4 (1977): 419–27. Web.
Wylie, Alison, and Sergio Sismondo. “Standpoint Theory, in Science.” International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2015): 324–30. Web.
