making representations matter: the practice of shaping participatory media artifacts
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given at Knowledge Media Design Institute, University of Toronto, Aug 6 2010. The final two slides show the exercise that made up most of the time in the session. See related blog post at http://knowledgeart.blogspot.com/2010/09/making-representations-matter-mini.htmlTRANSCRIPT
1
Making Representations Matter The Practice of Shaping Participatory Media Artifacts
Al Selvin
Knowledge Media Institute The Open UniversityMilton Keynes, UKandVerizon Telecom & Business ITWhite Plains, NY USA
http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin
Knowledge Media Design Institute6 August 2010, University of Toronto
Involving participants in the creation of media artifacts
What is participatory media?
• Unfolds in real time
• Involves direct contact between people
• Getting “hands” on and in the media artifacts is central
The term is also used to apply to asynchronous media such as wikis, but those are not my focus
What is participatory media?
• The person(s) orchestrating the participatory event, responsible for its success
• Concerned with the quality of the representation and the participants’ relationship to it
• Making choices about how and when to shape, intervene, and act
What is a participatory media practitioner?
. . . requiring skill and craft. . . combining aesthetic and
ethical concerns. . . are not well understood
Considerations for participatory media practice are common to many forms of professional practice involving representations
My research has focused on participatory hypermedia practice . . .
The role of practitioners in collaborative, real-time shaping of a visual hypermedia artifact
Open University Scenario Building
NASA Process Modeling
Workshop Mapping
Dimensions of participatory media practice
My specific focus
Situated practitioner experience
Expert practitioners in project settings(NASA e-Science meetings)
Melissa
Research settings (1)
Workshops held at NASA AmesAnd Rutgers University in 2007
Participants and practitioners had varying levels of experience with the tools
Research settings (2)
Research settings (2)
Shaping form
CEU analysis
Narrative description
Grid analysis
Framing analysis
Characterizing the representational characterof the whole session
What kind of shaping took place?
Analytical tools
Shaping form
CEU analysis
Narrative description
Grid analysis
Framing analysis
Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signature for the session
Aids in identifying sensemaking episodes
Analytical tools
Shaping form
CEU analysis
Narrative description
Grid analysis
Framing analysis
Rich description of sensemaking episode
Analytical tools
Shaping form
CEU analysis
Narrative description
Grid analysis
Framing analysis
Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode
Analytical tools
Shaping form
CEU analysis
Narrative description
Grid analysis
Framing analysis
Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential terms (informed by theoretical framework)
Analytical tools
Shaping form
CEU analysis
Narrative description
Grid analysis
Framing analysis
Increasing theoretical sensitivity
Analytical tools
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Ames Group 1 C
E
U
Ames Group 2 C
E
U
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Ames Group 3 C
E
U
Ames Group 4 C
E
U
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Rutgers Group 1 C
E
U
Rutgers Group 2 C
E
U
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Low Medium High
Numeric rating Color
Numeric rating Color
Numeric rating Color
1 2 3
Ames RutgersGroup 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2
Coherence 2.2 1.5 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.9Engagement 2.7 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9Usefulness 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.8 2.8 3.0Overall 2.3 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0
Good places to look for discontinuities & sensemaking moments
Good places to look at how (relative) equilibrium was fostered and maintained
Comparing across sessions
Comparing Shaping Themes with Questionnaire Results
Shaping Index scores
Rank in "how good was the session"
Software proficiency rank
Facilitation proficiency rank
Hab Crew 83 1 1 1
Remote Science Team 78 2 1 2
Rutgers Group 2 70 5 4 3
Ames Group 4 66 3 6 5
Ames Group 3 55 7 2 6
Rutgers Group 1 54 4 7 5
Ames Group 1 41 6 5 4
Ames Group 2 18 8 3 7
22
Themes in the Shaping Index 5. Degree of practitioner adherence to the intended method during the session 6. Participant adherence/faithfulness to the intended plan 8. Practitioner willingness to intervene – frequency and depth of intervention 10. Degree of practitioner-asked clarifying questions to participant input11. Degree which practitioners requested validation of changes to representation 13. Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation14. Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners (if applicable)15. Degree of collaboration/co-construction between practitioners and participants17. How “good”/successful was the session? 22. How much attention to textual refinement of shaping23. How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping24. How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping25. Degree of ‘finishedness’ of the artifacts
Comparing Shaping Themes with Questionnaire Results
Shaping Index scores
Rank in "how good was the session"
Software proficiency rank
Facilitation proficiency rank
Hab Crew 83 1 1 1
Remote Science Team 78 2 1 2
Rutgers Group 2 70 5 4 3
Ames Group 4 66 3 6 5
Ames Group 3 55 7 2 6
Rutgers Group 1 54 4 7 5
Ames Group 1 41 6 5 4
Ames Group 2 18 8 3 7
23
Software proficiency not as good a predictor of shaping skills or session success
Software proficiency not as good a predictor of shaping skills or session success
Facilitation proficiency apparently correlated with high shaping index ratings
Facilitation proficiency apparently correlated with high shaping index ratings
Facilitation Proficiency Score Rank
Hab Crew 38.0 1
Remote Science Team 33.0 2
Rutgers Group 2 29.5 3Ames Group 1 24.0 4Ames Group 4 20.0 5
Rutgers Group 1 20.0 5Ames Group 3 18.0 6Ames Group 2 10.0 7
Categorization of sensemaking triggers
Category Types of TriggersSessions Affected
Pertaining to representational structure
Incoming input doesn't fit structure; no place to put/contain current input
AG2
Current container (representation structure) not really working
Hab
Pertaining to volume or type of participant input
Too much too fast (too much coming in at once, too much going on)
AG1, AG4
Ambiguous input from a participant RG2
Someone going off in another direction than intended with so much energy that cant' be stopped
AG3
Pertaining to information/subject matter
Needed information is missing RST
Realization that a helpful construct or material is somewhere else
Hab
Pertaining to intended process/plan
Participant expresses confusion as to purpose RG1
Participant expresses unhappiness with what other participants are doing with their ideas/input
RG2
Seeing things go off course; "veering off" AG2, AG3
24
Ethical dimensions of practitioner actions in response to triggers
Category Type of Response Result
Direct collaboration between practitoners and participants
Collaborative navigation to find item of interest (Hab)
Ran out of time (with recovery)Negotiation/agreement on placement of an item (Hab)
Direct intervention aimed at participants
Acknowledging diverging participant concerns, but directing focus elsewhere ("this is what the focus should be -- this not that is what we're doing") (AG2)
Discussion and representation diverge from each other, no
longer referring to representation
Clarifying purpose, giving direction/expected behavior (RG1)
Back in the swing of things
Process call and offer of alternate solution (RG2)
Decision to delink then strong visual validation (RG2)
Direct intervention for purpose of practitioner action
Holding forward progress until new strategy is in place (AG4)
Stopping forward progress and asking for help; stop-and-think to recover (AG1, AG4)
Indirect intervention
Independent investigation (RST)Acceptance of imperfect data,
decision to move onMeta-comment capturing interim resolution (RST)
Making silent meta-comment on map (AG3)
Ran out of time (without recovery)Changing/blurring roles
Aiding and abetting (caught up in the subject matter itself instead of standing above/apart) (AG3)
Non-intervention Stunned silence (AG3) 25
Aesthetic dimensions of practitioner actions in response to triggers
Category Type of Response Result
Direct contribution to shaping
Collaborative navigation to find item of interest (Hab)
Ran out of time (with recovery)Negotiation/agreement on placement of an item (Hab)
Decision to delink then strong visual validation (RG2)
Back in the swing of things
Intended to help participant shaping
Process call and offer of alternate solution (RG2)
Clarifying purpose, giving direction/expected behavior (RG1)
Independent investigation (RST)Acceptance of imperfect data,
decision to move on
Acknowledging diverging participant concerns, but directing focus elsewhere ("this is what the focus should be -- this not that is what we're doing") (AG2)
Discussion and representation diverge from each other, no
longer referring to representation
Creating space for remedial shaping to take place
Holding forward progress until new strategy is in place (AG4)
Back in the swing of thingsStopping forward progress and asking for help; stop-and-think to recover (AG1, AG4)
Partially having to do with shapingMeta-comment capturing interim resolution (RST)
Acceptance of imperfect data, decision to move on
Making silent meta-comment on map (AG3)
Ran out of time (without recovery)No aesthetic dimension
Aiding and abetting (caught up in the subject matter itself instead of standing above/apart) (AG3)
Stunned silence (AG3) 26
kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse
compendium.open.ac.uk/institute knowledgeart.blogspot.com
This research is part of…
Exercise: facilitate participatory shaping of a representation
• What did you do to strengthen the coherence (clarity, organization, expressiveness) of the representation as it unfolded?
• What did you do to foster participant engagement with the representation? How, when, and why did you intervene to gain a greater, or different kind, of engagement?
• How useful was the representation to fulfilling the goals and purpose of the session? What choices did you make to increase the value of the representation for the participants (and for the session)?
Reflection after the exercise