Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sometimes One is More Than Two: When Collaboration Inhibits Knowledge Construction

  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper I suggest that to better understand knowledge construction in science, and the role of social processes and collaboration in it, it is useful to distinguish between “elaborative knowledge” and “emergent knowledge.” Elaborative knowledge is constructed for solving clearly defined problems in established theoretical frameworks, and emergent knowledge refers to the knowledge constructed to reach a hierarchically higher and more complex level of scientific understanding. There are also two types of collaboration. On the one hand there is “dialogical collaboration” in which team members contribute to reaching the common clearly defined objective so that a team as a whole becomes qualitatively more complex than its members alone. On the other hand there is “unidirectional collaboration” where the result of collaboration is determined by one person, should be distinguished. There is evidence from multiple perspectives indicating that “elaborative knowledge” can be developed in both kinds of collaboration and sometimes ‘dialogical collaboration” is necessary for knowledge construction. However, for building “emergent knowledge,” it is argued, only individual or “unidirectional collaboration” is productive, and “dialogical collaboration” can hinder or even prevent the construction of this kind of knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R. J., & Niessen, T. (2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in international academic collaboration. Culture and Psychology, 12(4), 461–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 2, pp. 133–175). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole No. 416), 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, D. B. (1984). A triaxial model of the interdisciplinary team and group process. Exceptional Children, 51(1), 17–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. M. (1906). Thought and things. A study of the development and meaning of thought or genetic logic. London: Swan Sonneschein & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. S., Vandello, J. A., & Brunsman, B. (1996). The forgotten variable in conformity research: Impact of task importance on social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 915–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Salomon, K. (1999). Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 68–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1981). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of the audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol 2, 4th ed., pp. 3–40). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D.-B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Scientific productivity, the internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol 1, 4th ed., pp. 269–322). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Figg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C., et al. (2006). Scientific collaboration results in higher citation rates of published articles. Pharmacotherapy, 26(6), 759–767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W., Burd, L., & Kerbeshian, J. (1985). Integrating developmental, pharmacologic, and psychological diagnoses and management through the transdisciplinary team process. Rehabilitation Literature, 46(9), 268–271.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M. (2004). Autism and creativity. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foushee, M. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet. American Psychologist, 39, 885–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, S. M., Hart, G., & Wagner, E. H. (2005). Measuring and improving performance in multicenter research consortia. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, E. J. (2005). Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 787–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanawalt, P. C. (2006). Research collaborations: Trial, trust, and truth. Cell, 126, 823–825.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeksema-van Orden, C. Y. D., Gaillard, A. W. K., & Buunk, B. P. (1998). Social loafing under fatigue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1179–1190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P. J., Ory, M. G., & Sher, T. G. (2005). Yours, mine, and ours: The importance of scientific collaboration in advancing the field of behavior change research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 7–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. R., & Karau, S. J. (1999). Group decision making: The effects of initial preference and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1342–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kikas, E. (2003). Constructing knowledge beyond senses: Worlds too big and too small to see. In A. Toomela (Ed.), Cultural guidance in the development of the human mind (pp. 211–227). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R. (1988). Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 254–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R., & Ellis, A. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience, 55(5), 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Collaboration: The social context of theory development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 164–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1997). Defining the “field at a given time.” (Originally published in 1943). In K. Lewin (Ed.), Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science (pp. 200–211). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. G. (2004). Making science teams work. Science Scope, 28(1), 50–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., Scott, G., Espejo, J., Sohl, M. L., Hunter, S. T., et al. (2005). Career experiences and scientific performance: A study of social, physical, life, and health sciences. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2), 105–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D. (2006). Schizotypy and mental health amongst poets, visual artists, and mathematicians. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(6), 876–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Caccioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Caccioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, J. S., Stratford, R. J., & Bizo, L. A. (2006). Team-skills training enhances collaborative learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 256–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, S. M., & Reich, J. A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, J. (2005). Handcrafted by 16 men: The impact of single and multiple authorship in collaborative research networks. Research Evaluation, 14(3), 199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, C. J. (1981). The transdisciplinary approach: A process for compliance with Public Law 94-142. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, J. A., & Taylor, K. M. (1999). Social loafing and expectancy-value theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1147–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1991). You can’t beat good experiments with correlational evidence: Mullen, Johnson, and Salas’s meta-analytic misinterpretations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 643–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (1996a). How culture transforms mind: A process of internalization. Culture and Psychology, 2(3), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (1996b). What characterizes language that can be internalized: A reply to Tomasello. Culture and Psychology, 2(3), 319–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2003a). Culture as a semiosphere: On the role of culture in the culture–individual relationship. In I. E. Josephs (Ed.), Dialogicality in development (pp. 129–163). Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2003b). Development of symbol meaning and the emergence of the semiotically mediated mind. In A. Toomela (Ed.), Cultural guidance in the development of the human mind (pp. 163–209). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2007). Unifying psychology: Absolutely necessary, not only useful. In A. V. B. Bastos & N. M. D. Rocha (Eds.), Psicologia: Novas direcoes no dialogo com outros campos de saber (pp. 449–464). Sao Paulo: Casa do Psicologo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A., & Mitt, K. (1989). Veelkord rehabilitatsioonist. Eesti Arst, 6, 442–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A., & Mitt, K. (1990). Meeskonnatöö ajukahjustusega laste (re)habiliteerimise organisatsioonis: Üks arenguvôimalusi. Eesti Arst, 4, 275–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. D., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, University of Tartu, Salme 1a, 50103, Tartu, Estonia

    Aaro Toomela

Authors
  1. Aaro Toomela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaro Toomela.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toomela, A. Sometimes One is More Than Two: When Collaboration Inhibits Knowledge Construction. Integr. psych. behav. 41, 198–207 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9015-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-007-9015-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation