• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

The Theory of Tensegrity and School/College Collaboration in Music Education

Posted on: Thursday, 10 February 2005, 03:00 CST

According to dictionary definitions, the notion of collaboration is neither simple nor clear. An online American Heritage Dictionary defines collaboration as "to work together, especially in a joint intellectual endeavor; to cooperate, as with an enemy of occupying one's country." Although most people would probably link the idea of collaboration to essentially positive characteristics, such as "teamwork,""cooperation," and "partnership," there is also clearly a "darker" connotation attached to the term. The issue of power- specifically, who has it and who does not-lies at the heart of this ambiguity (Hookey 1994).

The purpose of this article is to propose a theory of school/ college collaboration in music education that is based on the principle of tensegrity, or tensional integrity. Although this theory is not intended to be one that can be fully generalized, there are specific elements of the theory that may prove helpful to those involved in collaborative endeavors in a variety of settings. This theory represents the conceptual workings of the Eastman- Rochester Partnership (now known as the William Warfield Partnership), a school/college collaboration involving the Eastman School of Music and the Rochester, New York, City School District. I studied this collaboration for a period of nearly four years while working in various roles as a member of the interinstitutional organization that was created during this process.

The elements of the theory were developed through (a) a review of the research literature on educational collaborations in music education and in general education, (b) my own analysis and interpretation of the data that I collected throughout the course of the fieldwork, (c) other interpretations of the data provided by peer reviewers, (d) interpretations of the data from other partnership participants, and (e) an examination of other partnership models currently in place across the country. Consideration and incorporation of the information received from these various perspectives provided a form of triangulation, helping to ensure a more valid interpretation of the data.

Setting and Context

The combination of a number of factors created a climate ideal for a study of collaboration between the university and public school partners. These factors included a reexamination of the total school curriculum and vision at the university's school of music, calls for a strengthened public school music program from the city's media and the public, and a reaching out to the university from the city school district. What had been a state of flux in the area's school music community was coming to an end. In short, the time was right for a collaborative relationship.

The first meeting of the two partners took place on April 25, 1996. The agenda for the meeting, which was attended by the top leaders from both institutions, included the following statement of purpose for the proposed alliance to "establish a partnership between the university and the school district that will support and enhance music education in our schools."

The group continued to meet on a monthly basis for the next several years, with much of the time devoted to strategic planning. Many of the issues discussed by the group centered on creating a vision of the "ideal urban music program" and determining how the resources of the two partners could best be directed toward developing such a program. More detailed descriptions of some of the initiatives that arose out of these discussions may be found in other publications (Robinson, 1998). As a participant-observer, my interest quickly became focused on the nature and extent of the relationships, human and structural, created through the collaboration of two dissimilar educational institutions.

Relevant Literature in Educational Collaboration

Models and other organizational schema are common components of many studies of collaborative efforts. These structures serve to locus the results generated by data analysis and provide direction for others interested in pursuing similar investigations. The sidebar (see "Principles Common among Collaborative Models") shows a compilation of principles included in various models of collaboration designed by several researchers and is offered as a means for comparison and contrast of these different models.

As can be seen, collaboration models (see "Principles Common among Collaboration Models") may differ in terms of focus (organizational versus relational, personal versus procedural), but are often similar in respect to the principles upon which they are based. All but two of the models (lieberman 1986; Uhl and Squires 1994) identify strong toplevel leadership as a crucial element of collaboration. Involvement of top-ranking administrators from all member groups is characterized as "critical" (Intriligator 1986, 8) and "integral" (Hackmann and Barry 1994, 2) to the success of collaborative activities.

Perhaps the highest level of agreement among models is found in the setting of common goals. Based on the literature, there appears to be a strong positive relationship between cooperative success and the sharing of mutual goals by member organizations. The higher the degree of accord concerning shared objectives, the stronger the potential for true collaboration to take place. Hord (1985) calls the congruence of needs and interests between groups forming a collaborative entity a "major determinant" to the likelihood of success (14), while De Bevoise (1986) identifies the appreciation of the rewards for each side as the "first step in collaborative relationships" (11).

The exchange of goods and services between organizations is mentioned as a primary principle of collaboration in all but one of the models analyzed (Trubowitz 1986). In addition to the obvious types of resources commonly shared (money, equipment, facilities), various models also include commodities such as staffing (Hord 1985, 15), time (De Bevoise 1986, 11), and energy (Lieberman, 1986,7).

The issue of power-more specifically, the distribution of power- is addressed by each of the models. Hackmann and Barry (1994) describe group members as "equal shareholders" in the collaboration process (1). lieberman (1986, 7) approaches the issue by identifying qualities that enable individuals to respond to collaboration positively (that is, ambiguity and flexibility) and negatively (that is, certainty and rigidity). This analysis is reinforced by Hord's assertion that "control must be shared and a tolerance for plasticity must be fostered" (1985, 15).

Analysis of structure in collaborative organizations ranges from the cursory (Lieberman, 1986, 7) to the exhaustive (Intriligator 1986, 16-23). Perhaps because of the preponderance of research on this topic initiated by educational administrators, shared decision making is identified as a governance structure by several writers (Hackmann and Barry 1994; Hord 1985; Intriligator 1986; Lieberman 1986). More specific recommendations intended to help organizers maintain balanced power structures include consideration of the size and demographic make-up of the group (Intriligator 1986, 16-23), and the age, experience, teaching assignment/placement, and level of training of group members (Hord 1985, 10).

Persistence is one of the most mentioned personal traits identified in the models (De Bevoise 1986, 11; Hord 1985, 16). Also receiving multiple mentions are trust, integrity, respect, flexibility, risk taking, and commitment. It seems likely that individuals possessing these traits also would have great potential for leadership, which may be a necessary prerequisite for the ability to collaborate.

Theory Building

My review of the literature had shown that six issues emerged as being common to many collaborative relationships: leadership, goals, resources, power, structure, and personal traits. The subject of communications was also identified as an emergent theme from my analysis of the interview transcripts. After combining these two data sources-the review of the research literature and my analysis of the interview transcripts-three issues stood out from the rest in terms of importance: communications, resources, and leadership.

Trying to build a model that showed the complex relationships present between the characteristics listed above proved difficult. Few of the studies I had reviewed provided any useful models for comparison, focusing almost solely on lists and guidelines. My first attempt at developing such a model produced a diagram of the relationships present between the conceptual workings of the partnership, the structural frameworks supporting the interorganizational relationship (IOR), and the factors causing tension on and within these structures (see figure 1 below).

The essential elements of this model are the concepts of communications, resources, and leadership, and the presence of tensions that exert pressures on the workings of the IOR, sometimes from outside the group and other times from within. The double arrows drawn between and within the three circles in figure 1 were intended to represent the interconnectedness of these constructs; none of the three operates in isolation. The placement of "organizational structure" in a block beneath the three circles was meant \to show that, although these characteristics serve to support the collaboration and are crucial to the smooth functioning of the IOR, they are not accorded the same level of conceptual importance as communications, resources, and leadership.

FIGURE 1. A preliminary model of the structural and conceptual frameworks of school/college collaboration.

Although this model shows several important interrelationships present in educational collaborations, it fails in several ways. The two-dimensional nature of the model cannot adequately show the levels of complexity present in the relationships between the various elements represented in the diagram. Also, by elevating one concept (for example, leadership) to a higher plane than the other concepts, there is an implied hierarchical structure implicit in the model.

I also became dissatisfied with the separation between organizational structure and the other elements in figure 1. Over time I had grown convinced that the structural elements of the partnership could not be considered apart from the issues of leadership, resources, and communications. It also seemed clear that the organizational structures of the partnership were inextricably intertwined with the personalities, actions, and behaviors of its participants. In other words, it was the people involved who made the partnership work, not simply the structures.

Hierarchical versus Nonhierarchical Models

Organizational structures built on hierarchical constructs have long been a staple of business management, but they are being reconsidered by some researchers in the field of organizational theory, especially with respect to new configurations of multiorganizational and multinational structures brought about by a widening global economy. Some of these nonhierarchical models offer new insights into the complexities of human behaviors and relationships.

Partnerships require creativity and flexibility in structure- rather than a blind adherence to formal channels-traits not always nurtured in hierarchical organizations. Collaborative relationships need to be managed in such a way that the pressures that often prove damaging to traditional management structures instead become sources of growth. The IOR structure as a whole needs to be dynamic, adaptive to constant change, and able to survive constant tension, and turn that tension into a useful commodity.

The ideal partnership organizational structure, then, is one that:

* is nonhierarchical (both top-down and bottom-up) in form;

* represents the activities, functions, communications, and behaviors of individuals within partner organizations and the interorganizational relationship, rather than merely organizational schemes and formal chains of command;

* can withstand immense stresses from outside-and inside-forces;

* absorbs and diffuses tension equitably among its members;

* transforms tensions into usable, positive energy; and

* consists of members of different kinds who can fill multiple roles.

Tensegrity

It became clear to me that traditional organizational models built on hierarchical structures would be of limited use in describing the multilayered web of relationships present in many educational collaborations. A model that characterized such relationships would need to be fluid, dynamic, and sturdy, able to handle tremendous tensions-applied both from outside forces and from within the structure.

To more accurately reflect the relationships present in complex, nonhierarchical organizational structures, Judge (1978) borrowed the metaphor of "tensegrity" from the discipline of architecture (1). The word "tensegrity" is a contraction of "tensional integrity," with the concept first popularized by American architect and engineer, R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983). Tensegrity is based on principles of continuous tension and discontinuous compression. For Fuller, the concept manifested his philosophy that nature uses tension primarily and compression secondarily, whereas humans often misguidedly do the reverse.2

Tensegrity structures are systems that stabilize themselves by balancing counteracting forces of compression and tension; stress is balanced and distributed by tension, not just by the strengths of individual structural members. Increases in tension are balanced by increases in compression within certain members, typically the structural components most adjacent to the affected member. "Transmission of tension through a tensegrity array provides a means to distribute forces to all interconnected elements, and to mechanically 'tune' the whole system as one" (Ingber 1998, 56).

According to accepted principles of tensegrity, when an outside force is applied to the compression elements (metal rods) of the structure, this force is absorbed and distributed by the tension elements (elastic cables) so that the integrity of the structure is maintained. Tension bearing members map out the shortest paths between adjacent members, which are therefore arranged geodesically; this makes tensegrity structures ideal for withstanding stress.

Donald Ingber, a professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School, has extended the tensegrity metaphor to the study of living organisms, positing a "universal set of building rules [that] seems to guide the design of organic structures-from simple carbon compounds to complex cells and tissues" (1998, 48). Ingber pioneered the concept that living cells and tissues stabilize their shape and structure through the use of tensegrity architecture.

Ingber also identified several known components of living cells and defined their functional roles in a tensegrity model of cellular structure.3 Cells are composed of different types of structural members, each with specific, mutually complementary tasks and functions. Some of these structural members are given precise scientific names, as follows.

Contractile microfilaments are key elements of the cellular cytoskeleton, which pulls the cell's membrane and its internal parts toward the nucleus. These fibers respond to anchorage (being attached to various types of rigid substrates) by shortening and increasing isometric tension within the lattice framework. Next, there are two types of compressive elements, or microtubules, that oppose this inward pull: those that exist inside the cell (compressive "girders") and those found outside the cell in the extracellular matrix. Finally, there are the intermediate filaments, or integrins. These filaments connect contrac tile and compressive elements to one another as well as to surface membranes and the nucleus. They act as guy wires, stiffening the central nucleus and securing it in place (Ingber 1998, 51-52).

From Cells to Groups

From Ingber's work we can draw a conceptual metaphor between cellular components within a tensegrity model and the functions or roles played by individuals or groups in educational collaborations. Just as cell members oppose one another in an exchange of tension and compression, connected by a network of integrins, the individuals in a healthy partnership assume similar roles, interacting with others in a complex ballet of structural integrity.

TABLE 1. A Comparison of Properties of Tensegrity Structure Components in Cells and IORs (Interorganizational Relationships)

Table 1 below shows a comparison of properties of tensegrity structure components in cells and IORs. As in any model, the designations are generalities and are included only for purposes of comparison and discussion.

There are three basic roles that individuals may assume in tensegrity organizations: inside pullers, pushers (from inside and outside the IOR), and integrators. Like their counterparts in the cell, each of these roles plays a crucial function in the maintenance of the collaborative structure, and these roles are interwoven. An IOR made up of only pullers and pushers will lack the connectedness brought to the structure by the integrators, whose function is to link the other members to each other, to the nucleus, and to the outside environment. Similarly, a group overpopulated with integrators may appear solid but will miss the focus on institutional mission and product supplied by the inside pullers and the communication to those outside the group that is the domain of the pushers.

Tensegrity, as a configuration of differences, provides a way of channeling energy from variances in opinions or between individuals. The following discussion explores some of the parallels between organizational structures involving people and groups and the architectural elements of tensegrity structures. It is included to provide a clearer picture of how viewing organizational structure through the lens of principles of tensegrity can help explain the relationships between people working in these organizations.

Pullers

In cells, contractile microfilaments form a "gossamer network" (Ingber 1998, 51) of tension exerting struts that pull the cell's inner membrane and all of its internal components toward the nucleus at the core. When subjected to tension, the contractile microfilaments respond by "shortening and increasing isometric tension within the lattice" of the cell (Ingber 1998,54).

The functional counterparts in organizations designed as tensegrity structures can be thought of as "inside pullers" (IP). These individuals, because of their organizational function, usually feel a primary loyalty to their "host" institutions, and carry out their duties with this allegiance uppermost in their minds.4 Inside pullers typically are those individuals charged with the day-to-day management of their host groups and often are responsible for addressing quality control issues within the institution. These aspects of the IP's jobs make it convenient and appropriate for them to serve as institutional gatekeepers, entrusted with keeping their organization's house in order, so to speak.

When faced with tensions from outside forces, the IP-like the c\ontractile microfilaments in the cell-responds by turning its energies inward. Just as the microfilament shortens and clusters around the cell's nucleus, the IP gathers its resources and focuses its faculties on strengthening the core of its institutional mission. The structure of a tensegrity array responds to tension exerted from outside forces by flattening itself and realigning its members-"more of the members come to lie in the direction of the applied stress" (Ingber, 1998, 53).5 By straightening and stiffening its components as a response to outside pressures, the tensegrity minimizes the effects of these forces by aligning its structural members in the same direction as the external tension.

Pushers

In a cell, the compression of the microtubules provides an opposing force against tensions exerted by the contractile microfilaments. These counteracting forces create an equilibrium throughout the structure, enabling it to stabilize itself. The property that allows the two fibers to balance one another is known as prestress.

Applying this concept to organizations, we can think of prestress as the presence of distinct roles for individuals within groups as well as the establishment of clear boundaries between clusters of group members or partner organizations. Prestress is present when people are comfortable in their roles and have the skills and resources needed to be effective in their tasks. Prestressed individuals also intuitively "pick up the slack" for their coworkers in times of increased tension, knowing that their colleagues will reciprocate whenever possible.

Cells contain two forms of compressive elements, one outside the cell and the other inside. The inside element can be made up of either microtubules or cross-linked bundles of microfilaments; outside the cell is the extracellular matrix. In organizations, we therefore need to consider two distinct kinds of pushers: the inside pusher-who works from within the group, helping to communicate the institutional mission and message-and the outside pusher-which can be thought of as the marketplace.

Integrators

The intermediate filaments in the eell "are the great integrators," (Ingber, 1998, 51) connecting the contractile microfilaments and compressive microtubules to each other and linking these assemblages to both the nucleus and the surface membrane of the cell. The integrins connect all of the cell's components into a "hard-wired network of molecular struts and cables that stabilizes cell shape" (Ingber 1998, 52).

The analogy to organizational structure is clear. We can think of integrins as the "integrators" in group relationships; the people who move effortlessly between and among partner organizations, connecting individuals and groups with sometimes opposing functions and belief systems and providing stability to the entire structure. The integrators allow each of the other members of the group to focus on their particular assignments and constantly check on the organizational health of individuals and small groups.

Integrators are not just nurturers, however; their role in the organization is far more complex. When confronted with people or groups whose job performance is inadequate or workers who may not be in tune with the core values of the institution, the integrator may prod or provoke these members in order to keep the tensional integrity of the organization in a state of equilibrium. Integrators know that efficient tensegrities function best in a climate of continuous tension, modified by opposing applications of discontinuous compression. An organization that is under no tension is one that is not growing or producing to the best of its capabilities. Effective integrators not only provide the connective tissue that stabilizes the organizational structure but also monitor the tensional forces at play within and outside the institution.

The concerted efforts of all three structural members-inside pullers, pushers, and integrators-are necessary for the smooth functioning of organizations characterized by tensegrity. For IORs, each component has a specific, integral part to play in maintaining the stability of the larger group. The pushers and pullers focus their primary attentions on their host institutions, securing and strengthening their own group's core mission. For every action taken by either type of group member, an equal and opposite reaction occurs in an effort to sustain the necessary state of equilibrium. The integrators play a more fluid role, moving seamlessly between partner organizations, assessing conditions, and taking the pulse of the relationship between institutions.

The ecological quality of the tensegrity array is perhaps its distinguishing characteristic. When functioning well, these structures mimic the elegant efficiency of a healthy, living organism. There is little wasted energy. A force or tension exerted on one member results in increased tension throughout the group, but the stability of the organization depends on the distribution and balance of stress, not the strength of individual members. Only tensegrity, for example, can explain how every time that you move your arm, your skin stretches, your extracellular matrix extends, your cells distort, and the interconnected molecules that form the internal framework of the cell feel the pull-all without any breakage or discontinuity. (Ingber 1998, 56)

From Groups to People

The following brief descriptions of some of the personalities involved in the partnership are included to help put figurative "faces" on the roles and functions discussed above.

One key member of the partnership's advisory board worked as a music teacher in the city for ten years, teaching in eight different schools during that time. Ready for a new professional challenge, "Hannah" entered the university's doctoral program in music education during the second year of the partnership and became deeply involved in the professional development issues surrounding the collaboration. This dual role was difficult for "Hannah," who often found it necessary to "split" her allegiance between the two partner organizations. "I'm a city teacher, and that's where my loyalty is," she would say when feeling the stress caused by her simultaneous participation in both groups. She was pulled between the task of organizing meaningful in-service activities for her colleagues and her desire to remain "one of the group" and not distance herself from her peers. The emotional wear and tear induced by this strain was visible in her face at these moments.

The realities of modern life also meant that people moved in and out of positions more frequently than in the past, staying in a particular job or at a certain school for only a year or two before moving on. For example, "Sarah" began her professional career as a youth counselor at a private organization, working in several city schools with at-risk students. A graduate of the university, "Sarah" was then offered a music teaching position in the city school district and became the mentoring coordinator for the partnership's scholarship program, a perfect blending of her educational background and professional experiences.

I came to realize that these two teachers, and many more like them, were examples of integrators in the partnership structure. These individuals held positions in both institutions, with their dual allegiances often causing conflicts of interest and loyalty. Their ability to move fluidly between institutions also gave them an ease of access and enhanced credibility in both groups.

Each person's situation was unique, but all of the integrators shared a sincere interest in the work of the partnership, perhaps as a way of reconciling the conflicts caused by their split duties. These individuals became some of the most committed members of the advisory board, doing much of the "dirty work" associated with committee projects-telephone contacts, chairing of subcommittees, organizing meetings and events, attending planning sessions, and running errands. They placed a high priority on the goals that the advisory board had formulated and made it their jobs to protect and advance the work of the collaborative in their daily duties. Integrators such as "Hannah" and "Sarah" not only carried information between organizations but also became adept at assessing the status of various partnership initiatives by observing the reactions and responses of individuals in both groups along the way.

The inside pullers, or IPs, were music teachers and administrators who worked in the schools and viewed partnership activities, for the most part, as ways to "get something" for their students or the music program at their schools. A parallel group of IPs existed at the university, with goals similar to those held by the city school district teachers and administrators. Both groups of pullers felt a primary allegiance to their host institution, and when faced with pressures-from outside forces or from within each institution-they turned their energies and attentions inward to protect the goals of their own organizations.

Another group of people worked on transmitting information about the partnership to media outlets, other schools, and potential funders. These people, the pushers, were very familiar with each institution's reputation in the local community, and worked hard to maintain and improve the image and standing of each school. Problems sometimes arose when the pushers, in their zeal for their assignments, allowed the collaboration's "message" to get ahead of the "product" being developed in the schools. For example, at one point in the school year a class at one of the district's elementary schools that was host to a partnership initiative was visited by media representatives on six out of ten days in succession. The initial excitement of this special attention soon gave way to frustration on the parts of students and teachers a\like. As one university faculty member said:

I'm interested in being sure that the energy (the PR and the bustle) doesn't overwhelm the product-in this case the teaching. I have this press release our PR folks want to send out about the string program, (laughs) And it sounds like it's been around for 5 years! "And the ideas are this, and this is happening." And if you go over to the school, we are still measuring kids for instruments and collecting parent information. So the PR is way out ahead of the reality. And that can be great. . . . But I think it can also reach a point where the advance buzz overwhelms the reality, and can even have a negative consequence to it. So I just want to make sure all the people looking to get attention about this keep their hands off the kids, as much as I can.6

Over time, the pullers and the pushers began to educate each other on the goals and mission that each group had for the partnership. By sharing these viewpoints, the teachers in the schools began to realize the pressures faced by the pushers to communicate the partnership's activities to external audiences and worked to accommodate their needs. At the same time, the pushers learned more about the educational content and direction of the programs in the schools, thereby enriching their communications with their constituents and helping them to schedule visits to the schools on a more selective basis.

The vignettes above clearly illustrate how the personalities, beliefs, and actions of the people involved in our partnership can be viewed through a lens of tensegrity to better understand the intricate nature of the relationships inherent in educational collaborations. A case has been made for a reexamination of previously held assumptions about issues of communications, power, and leadership in school/college collaborations that have been based on hierarchical models of organizational structure. The theory of tensegrity outlined here provides a means of perceiving, realizing, and interpreting the complex web of relationships that is created when unlike structures interact. This theory may offer new paradigms for conceptualizing how people and human systems function in educational partnerships and provide clues for strategies designed to support and sustain these important working relationships.

Conclusion

Educational partnerships are, by their very nature, full of contradictions. In school/college collaborations, differences often occur in the form of tensions-between opposing viewpoints, opinions, approaches, organizational structures, and people. These differences are mediated in human systems through careful negotiations between individuals and groups of people.

In terms of tensegrity, organizations and the people that work in them exist in a climate of tension. To operate effectively, these groups maintain a state of prcstrcss, which depends on each structural member functioning according to its assigned role within the organization. For example, the pullers protect the core of their host organization, and the integrators connect members from each partner group and assess the overall health and structural soundness of the organization.

As has been discussed previously, organizations characterized by tensegrity respond to tension by diffusing pressures across the entire array in an effort to maintain equilibrium. The fact that organizations with tensegrity naturally seek a state of equilibrium does not mean that these structures attempt to create climates that eliminate tension altogether. In fact, organizations operating according to principles of tensegrity embrace tension as a necessary component of collaborative work: "Initially we saw the differences between schools and universities as potential sites of conflict; we conclude with the position that tensions cannot be resolved and are instead to be cherished as potential sites for our learning and growth" (Johnston 1997, 12).

How can educational collaborators reconcile the tensions that seem to be intrinsic elements of these relationships? The answer may be in how we view these differences. Rather than considering points of tension as sources of friction, these differences can be examined as opportunities for learning and understanding diverse thoughts. John Dewey considered dualisms as interrelated parts of the same whole and not as separate ideological constructs. His idea of "social negotiation in the shaping and learning of a community underlies" this approach to "working across differences in productive ways" (Johnston 1997, 13).

Judge (1998) proposed a three-step process for channeling energy produced by creative tension in a productive manner. The steps include the following:

1. Understanding and ordering differences

2. Observing a degree of sensitivity regarding diversity when ordering differences

3. Basing differences on an underlying unity of mission

Participants in educational collaborations who follow these steps will notice improved communications, although not necessarily a decreased level of disagreements. This type of discourse is often frustrating and always time-consuming. It does produce, however, a quality of interaction that is difficult to recreate through hierarchically governed systems.

These interactions give rise to a rich climate in host groups that is conducive to risk taking and personal and professional growth. The sense of empowerment generated among those participating in such work is a necessary counterbalance to the natural inequities in power, resources, and prestige often found in school/college partnerships.

Johnston (1997) terms differences in collaborative groups as "productive tensions" and acknowledges that not all differences work in a climate of productive tension. "Some differences are destructive and . . . cannot... be made productive. How we use this concept of productive tensions while we continue to be critical of both the categories and assumptions [of new participants] is our ongoing challenge" (16).

Principles Common among Collaboration Models

* Leadership: Collaboration starts with administrative support.

* Goals: The first step in a collaborative relationship is to appreciate what the rewards are for each side. Leaders need to find common and unifying interests.

* Resources: Enthusiasm should not obscure need for hard-nosed assessment of resources and the time required to do a good job.

* Power: Collaborators should exhibit professional respect for those from the "other" institution.

* Structure: Collaboration relies on effective delivery and reception systems.

* Personal Traits: These include persistence, flexibility, respect, risk taking, innovation, and integrity. (De Bevoise 1986, 9- 12)

* Leadership: Although top administrators cannot effect change alone, they must be an integral part of the process. Any change model must provide for leadership development.

* Goals: With university assistance, school staff conducts an interactive needs assessment.

* Resources: University provides financial and technical assistance.

* Power: Faculty members (college and school) are recognized as equal shareholders in the process.

* Structure: Various committees comprised of teachers, parents, university staff, and students use a shared decision-making governance structure.

* Personal Traits: Personal integrity is foremost. Individuals behave the way they do because it makes sense to them. (Hackmann and Barry 1994, 1-7)

* Leadership: Strong leadership that expresses an enthusiastic, positive example by collaborating on many levels will encourage collaboration in the organizations overall.

* Goals: The extent to which organizations share interests and needs beforehand will be a major determinant to their propensity to work together.

* Resources: The rewards must be worth the investment to each participant. Efforts requiring more staff time and energy will be more expensive.

* Power: Control must be shared and a tolerance for plasticity must be fostered.

* Structure: Although the organizations provide the framework, the people within them are doing the actual work.

* Personal Traits: These include patience, persistence, and willingness to share. (Hord 1985, 14-16)

* Leadership: It is critical that the chief executive officer in each member organization-or a top-level administrator who has the ear of the CEO-be involved in all policy decisions. Such personal involvement by CEOs serves as symbolic incentive to personnel to become involved in collaborative activities.

* Goals: Collaborative goals tend to reflect mutual needs and common problems of member organizations. Selection of goals is a complex process that is directly linked to member organizations' needs and purposes.

* Resources: Central to the success of a collaboration is a fair exchange of goods and services by member organizations. Perceptions of fairness are not related to the equality of contributions.

* Power: Important considerations include the size of the collaborative groups (dependent on amount of available resources); geographic proximity of member groups; viability of member organizations; history of collaborative activities of member groups; and ability to implement sponsored programs.

* Structure: The greater the number of linkages among member organizations, the more participants view the collaboration as successful. Use of shared decisionmaking model contributes significantly to development of collaborative focus. (Intriligator 1986, 5-23)

* Goals: Initially, activities propel the collaboration, not goals. Large superordinate goals for collaboration become clearer after people have worked together.

* Resources: Time and energy are needed resources.

* Power: Ambiguity and flexibility more aptly describe collaborations than certainty and rigidity.

* Structure: Some type of organizational structure is needed to collaborate.

* Personal Traits: This can include sharing, trust, respect, risk taking, and commitment. (Lieb\erman 1986, 4-8)

* Leadership: Visibility of college staff shows school personnel that collegiate partners are seriously committed to the project. Support of top leaders is necessary for success of collaboration.

* Goals: Unilateral decisions regarding goal setting result in condescension and mistrust.

* Power: The initial period in school/college collaboration is often characterized by hostility or skepticism. Involvement of key personnel provides the process with sources of power.

* Structure: When schools and colleges work together, the process is one of constant change.

* Personal Traits: These include energy, commitment, sensitivity, and enthusiasm. (Trubowitz, 1986, 18-21)

* Goals: The "engagement phase" allows groups or individuals to develop an understanding of the goals and purposes of the collaboration.

* Resources: The "negotiation phase" involves taking into account resources, needs, and policy constraints of each member group.

* Power: Without opportunities to clarify ideas and intentions, people feel an escalating loss of purpose and control over their efforts. Working in a team means that people have to "let go" and allow others to do different tasks.

* Personal Traits: The foremost is trust. (Uhl and Squires 1994, 37)

For Fuller, nature uses tension primarily and compression secondarily, whereas humans often misguidedly do the reverse.

The fact that organizations with tensegrity naturally seek a state of equilibrium does not mean that these structures attempt to eliminate tension altogether.

Notes

1. The American Heritage Dictionary, s.v. "collaboration," http:/ /dictionary.reference. com/search?q=collaboration.

2. For pictures and graphics of basic tensegrity structures, please refer to the following online sources. A Web site with models of tensegrity structures as they may appear in human cells (based on the pioneering work done by Dr. Donald Ingber of Harvard Medical School) is at http:// fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/255/255chem/ tensegritymodel.htm. Another Web site contains an article for download that includes several excellent pictures of tensegrity structures is at http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/ 104/3/613. A third example is a graphic of a simple tensegrity structure made of string and dowels is at http://www.norisk-nofun.ch/ Modelle/ imagepages/image 18 .htm. Several pictures of tensegretic arrays can be found at http://kjraaclean.com/Harmony.html.

3. For a link to an article by Donald Ingber, which includes several excellent pictures of cytoskeleton architecture, see http:// jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/figsonly/ 116/7/1157.

4. For the purpose of the following discussion, the terms "host" and "guest" institution will be used to designate individuals' organizational affiliations.

5. A Web page that includes a few good examples of the phenomenon of linear stiffening in tensegrity structures can be found at http:/ /jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/figsonly/ 116/7/1157.

6. Interview collected during dissertation research with a university professor conducted in confidentiality; the name of the interviewee is withheld by mutual agreement.

References

De Bevoise, W. 1986. Collaboration: Some principles of bridgework. Educational Leadership 43 (5): 9-12.

Hackmann, D. G., and J. E. Barry. 1994. A university/school collaboration model for systemic change through site-based management. Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the National Conference on School/College Collaboration of the American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC.

Hookey, M. 1994. Music education as a collaborative project: Insights from teacher research. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 123:39-46.

Hord, S. M. 1985. Collaboration or cooperation: Comparisons and contrasts, dilemmas and decisions. Paper presented at the Meadow Brook Symposium on Collaborative Action Research in Education, Oakland, MI.

Ingber, D. E. 1998. The architecture of life: A universal set of building rules seems to guide the design of organic structuresfrom simple carbon compounds to complex cells and tissues. Scientific American (January): 48-57.

Intriligator, B. A. 1986. Collaborating with the schools: A strategy for school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Johnston, M. 1997. Contradictions in collaboration: New thinking on school/ university partnerships. New York: Teachers College Press.

Judge, A. J. N. 1978. Transcending duality through tensional integrity: From systemsversus-networks to tensegrity organization. Transnational Associations 5:258-265.

_____. 1998. Living differences as a basis for sustainable community. http://www. laetusinpraesens.org/docs/quenchin.php/ (accessed July 6, 2004).

Lieberman, A. 1986. Collaborative work. Educational Leadership 43 (5): 4-8.

Robinson, M. 1998. Making beautiful music together. American School Board Journal 185(11): 30-33.

Trubowitz, S. 1986. Stages in the development of school/college collaboration. Educational Leadership 43 (5): 18-21.

Uhl, S. C., and S. E. Squires. 1994. Enhancing systemic change through effective collaboration: A formative perspective and approach to collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Mitchell Robinson is an assistant professor of music education at Michigan State University.

Copyright HELDREF PUBLICATIONS Jan/Feb 2005

Source: Arts Education Policy Review

More News in this Category