The primary collaborative relationship for this project was with an advisory committee consisting of four members, and one staff from a local community organization called the Richmond Centre for Disability (RCD). All four members were involved with the RCD as peer tutors in a computer-training course. The RCD's mission states: "To empower people with disabilities to participate in the community to the level of their desires and abilities by providing information, resources, support and by increasing community awareness and accessibility". Other collaborations included colleagues in the community that had interest in new technologies and social innovation.This inquiry was not a fully collaborative experience because the research agenda was developed without input from collaborators. Due to the "backward" nature of the process, the voices of people with disabilities were limited. I believe this influenced key components of the study. For example, the roles and responsibilities of the advisory committee were limited due to several factors including academic structures and lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities. Through open dialogue and reflective practice, the advisory committee's role evolved and included tasks such as providing feedback; sharing knowledge and expertise; and planning for dissemination of findings. However, other duties could have been included such as input into the research questions, conducting interviews, and analyzing findings. The inherent power disparity between me, as the academic researcher, and the collaborators became evident throughout early discussions. Notes from initial meetings clearly illustrate agenda topics focused on my needs and interests rather than those shared by collaborators.