In the conflict literature, they are used synonymously. Both describe conflict resolution behavior that is characterized by concern for both one's own concerns and the concerns of the other party.

It seems that Collaboration is unilateral and Cooperation is bilateral.

Collaboration has a stigma involving cooperating with an enemy. Both terms, essentially, mean "working together".  They involve self and other and are transactional to that extent.  If they are transactional then it follows that there are several measures of confidence involved:

Dear Maria:

I think that collaboration and cooperation and often used as synonymous  because both terms mean, as Jeremy say, working together and exchanging perspectives in order to attain an intended goal. Note, however, that each term can be used in different contexts or language-games as Wittgenstein used to say. In a context of wartime, collaboration has, say, a negative meaning in that collaborationism means to stay with the enemy against one's country.  History is full of examples of collaborationism.

In a context of leaning, collaboration has a positive meaning. As you certainly know, when Vygotsky refers to his famous notion of zone of proximal development (ZDP) he defines it as the distance between the child's actual level of development, such as determined through independent problem solving, and his/her level of potential development, such as determined by problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with come competent peers. So, here we have two different meanings as far as collaboration is concerned.

What about cooperation? Most of the time, cooperation is seen as desirable interaction among people in order to attain a justified and even justifiable goal or objective.  As you certainly know, in his book on the moral development of the child, Piaget distinguished between two types of morality: a heteronomous morality, a morality based on the ideas of fear, coercion and unilateral respect, and an autonomous morality guided by the ideas of equality, mutual respect, and cooperation. Thus, cooperation has almost always, if not always, a positive meaning. We also cooperate when, for example, we do not turn away from someone in need. Could we speak about cooperation when, for example, along with other people we work together to steal money from an ONG? I don't think so. Here, it would be more appropriate to speak of collaboration instead of cooperation. In a nutshell, cooperation is generally,, if not always, a positive, pro-social or moral behavior. This is not necessarily the case of collaboration. By its very nature, cooperation appeals to a horizontal and bidirectional social relationship.  Again, this is not the case of collaboration because it is generally performed under the guidance of, say, a boss or a more knowledgeable individual. The positive tone of cooperation is also visible in Piaget's idea that  when children are capable of operating at the cognitive level, they are also capable of cooperating at the social level, and of disputing or augmentation at the linguistic level. This also means that cooperation goes beyond what Piaget called centration and egocentrism. On several occasions, collaboration, namely when it means collaborationism, fits well with the concepts of centration and egocentrism.

To sum up, cooperation reminds me always of a pro-social and moral behavior. This is not the case of collaboration, namely when it refers to collaborationism.

I hope that this is of some help for you.

Best  regards, Orlando

Good discussion! Thanks Rosário for asking the question. To clarify both terms the first thing that I want to point out is that the American perspective and the European one are not aligned. I rely more on the European perspective and my source is an article published by Dillenbourg in 1999 - What do you mean by collaborative learning? (the author is a reference in the area of CSCL). In the pages 7 and 8, the Dillenbourg defends that a collaborative situation depends on various conditions: 1) symmetry of interaction - collaborators “are more or less at the same level” in what concerns symmetry in the interaction that can have different forms (symmetry of action, symmetry of knowledge or skills or development and symmetry of status); 2) shared goals - people working collaboratively should have the same goals. If divergences are discovered during the interaction, they are discussed and negotiated to develop common goals [phase II and III of the Interaction Analysis Model of Gunawardena et al., 1997, see the link], This process allows the partners to be conscious of the shared goals which is essential to the performance of the group; 3) division of labour - it is while explaining the division of labour criteria that the author makes the distinction between collaboration and cooperation (although recognizing that they sometimes are used as synonymous terms) and refer that the two terms are used distinctively depending on how the division of labour is negotiated. For the author “In cooperation, partners split the work, solve sub-tasks individually and then assemble the partial results into the final output [this implies that they have different goals, I would say]. In collaboration, partners do the work 'together' [having the same goals]. In this situation, some spontaneous division may occur even when two people do really work together (…)”. The author also acknowledge that the division of labor is vertical in cooperative learning situations, since the work is divided into independent sub-tasks [by a coordinator or a teacher], and horizontal in collaborative settings, even when two partners perform tasks that have different levels as referred above.

Beijinhos

http://tecfaetu.unige.ch/staf/staf-h/notari/staf17/periode4/what%20do%20you%20mean%20by%20collaborative%20learning.pdf

http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/bitstream/2149/772/1/ANALYSIS_OF_A_GLOBAL.pdf

You'll find a very interesting text here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-power/collaboration-vs-cooperat_b_10324418.html

When you are working in a group of people for the purpose of achieving a common goal, being the interaction between group participants an essential part of the development of the work, otherwise no significant progress can be made, then you are collaborating.

When you are working in a group, to pursue a common goal, but the work can be carried out independently of interactions between the group participants (although they might occur), for example, when tasks may unfold in parallel and simultaneously, then work is essentially cooperative.

Just my two cents...

Collaboration is an work between people

Cooperation usually refers to a company as a whole

Gonzalo Abio nice diagram, although simplistic :-)

Nice Dear Gonzalo Abio