CMC/CC A Groupware, CSCW, CMC Master IK, CIW, MMI L.M. Bosveld-de Smet Mon. 30/10/06;

Outline CSCW: classifications / frameworks Collaboration: “computer conferencing”  Features  Basic structure Social – technical gap Communication and coordination: “the Coordinator”  Speech-act based protocol

Groupware vs. CSCW vs. CMC Groupware  Applications written to support collaboration of several users  Team-oriented computer products CSCW  Group working (cooperation, collaboration, competition ?) supported by computer  Makes use of groupware  Research: design and evaluation of new technologies to support social processes of team work, often among distant partners CMC  Group communication supported by computer  Research: interpersonal communication via computer

Overview CSCW Groupware / CSCW / group support through CMC CommunicationCollaborationCoordination

CSCW: system classes

CSCW: detailed overview of systems

Groupware systems: classifications By where and when the participants are performing the cooperative work  (refined) time/space matrix By function By aspect of cooperative work supported

Dix et al.’s classification By function in cooperative framework primarily supported  Direct communication between participants: computer-mediated communication  Common understanding: meeting and decision supporting systems  Participants’interaction with shared work objects: shared applications and artifacts

Cooperative work frameworks Dix et al. (2003)

Shneiderman’s classification Asynchronous interactions: , news groups, … Synchronous distributed interactions: group editing, Internet Relay Chat, video conferencing, … Face to Face interactions: brainstorming, voting, and ranking, …

Synchronous CMC

Example (1)

Example (2): Avatar Conference

CSCW: global results Determinants of success are not clear  Electronic mail, and chat: widespread success story  Video conferencing: slowly growing  Shared calendar programs: repeatedly spurned

Earliest CMC work Hiltz & Turoff, 1993 Foundation: development of systems supporting large groups to communicate about complex problems Most fundamental principles for optimizing group support:  Structures for group tasks  User tailorability

“Computer conferencing” Structured group communication accumulating permanent transcript of discussion Most important features to take care of:  Tailorability  Quantitative communication structures  Content-based communication  Indirect communication  Roles  Notifications

Basic computer conferencing structure Objects / nodes characterizing system Relationships / links between objects / nodes CommentReplyPersonKey words Comment later than / earlier than in response to author / editor / reader relevant material Reply author / editor / reader relevant material Person member of conference interests of Key words related to

Current generation systems Findings Turoff et al. (2001)  Infrequent ad hoc use  No continual process  Little tailorability  No seamless transitions among various modes Information overload limit Limitation of discourse structures  Basically comment-response format

Semantic hypertext structure Structure to organize a constructive debate about a topic in order to achieve:  Collective group insights into Alternative desirable resolutions Feasible actions to take …  Argumentation systems Aquanet gIBIS SEPIA Virtual Notebook Design Intent

Discourse structure for debating and argumentation actions, goals, criteria, requirements, solutions, decisions arguments options Pro linkCon link opposition link voting scales: desirability, feasibility voting scales: importance, validity

Challenge CMC systems Promotion of “collective intelligence” Hiltz et al. (1986): elimination of process losses due to blocking of alternative opinions and views Design of human communication systems = design of social systems  Roles  Rules  Floor control  … Bridge the social – technical gap

Social-technical gap Ackerman (2001) Findings:  CMC elements allow enough communicative suppleness  computational entities (information transfer, roles, policies, …) lack flexibility, nuance and contextualization similar to real life social activity attitude towards sharing information / making work visible lack of shared histories and meanings conflicting or multiple goals exceptions awareness vs. privacy vs. disturbing others lack of negotiation about norms of use, exceptions, breakdowns critical mass problem tailorability lack of incentives

Social – technical gap in action Online privacy P3P: privacy preferences project of W3 consortium No sufficient nuance No social flexibility  Systems require people to explicitly switch states  Cf. “The Coordinator” (Winograd & Flores, 1986) No allowance of ambiguity

Elements of Communication

Conversational Structure Turn-taking Context (internal, external) Topics, focus, forms of utterances Breakdown and repair Construction of shared understanding

Speech Act Theory Wittgenstein: Philosphical Investigations Austin: How to Do Things with Words  locutionary act  illocutionary act  perlocutionary act Searle: The Classification of Illocutionary Acts  representatives; directives; commissives; expressives; declarations

Coordinator / Action Workflow Structured conversations Action-oriented conversation  Central coordinating structure for human organizations  Based on taxonomy of linguistic acts Design concerned with breakdown anticipation

Coordinator

Coordinator under criticism Suchman: "the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design, with its emphasis on the encoding of speakers’ intentions into explicit categories, carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members’ actions"

Application of CSCW to education Distance learning Exploration of novel teaching and learning styles Creation of more engaging experiences for students Greater learning efficiency

Research in cooperative systems More difficult than in single-user applications  Multiplicity of users (controlled experiments?)  Flood of data from multiple users (orderly analysis?)  No commonly accepted methodology

Wireless brainstorming Davis et al. (2002) “Wireless brainstorming: overcoming status effects in small group decisions”  Simple and inexpensive GDSS on wireless handheld device  Mitigation of adverse impact of status differences  Brainstorm on potential market names for computer game  Discussion of names in group  Voting of the best name  Males = higher status group members  Anonimity helps minimize effects of status on group decisions

Cultural differences in participants’ online collaborative behaviors Kim & Bonk (2002) “Cross-cultural comparisons of online collaboration”  Computer-supported collaborative learning of multicultural learners  Comparison of online collaborative behaviors among preservice teachers from 3 different cultures  Korean students: more social and contextually driven  Finnish students: more group-focused, refelective, and theoretically driven  U.S. students: more action-oriented, and pragmatic in seeking results and giving solutions