There is a change that could make Google+ a more powerful tool for supporting collaboration when it becomes part of Google Apps. That change would be to let circles be objects that can be shared, in much the same way that documents created with Google Docs can be shared.
Google+ is still in beta and not yet available for Google Apps accounts, but Google sources have indicated that this will change in the future. Google+ will be a welcome addition to Apps, providing benefits not just for individual users, but also for organizations.
One of the themes of this blog is that collaboration requires coordination, and coordination is easier to achieve when collaborators have shared knowledge -- especially that type of shared knowledge sometimes referred to as "mutual knowledge." That's where Google+ comes in. Google+ provides a convenient and rich way to share information, ideas, and experiences. This type of sharing provides a foundation of mutual knowledge that will allow people to work together more effectively and more efficiently.
Letting circles be objects would allow an organization using Google Apps to create a circle for each department, and that shared circle could be used by many people while being maintained by just a few. A project manager could create a shared circle for the project team, updating it as new members join the team, thereby making past postings available to that new member, as well as insuring that they will receive new posts shared with the team circle by any team member. This is, of course, applying the concept underlying Google Groups for Business to Google+, but I hope Google will consider making something like this available for all users of Google+ rather than just Business Apps customers.
Letting circles be objects would be useful not just for organizations using Google Apps, but also for those who want to have Google+ circles for clubs or interest groups. Circles have been designed to allow us flexibility in organizing our social networks and the way we communicate with them. Social connections may be asymmetrical. Each person's family circle may be a bit different from that of anyone else. Letting circles be objects would keep the flexibility that's there now, while making social sharing easier for groups who want or need to have everyone in the group define the group in the same way.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Coordination by Rules and by Tools
The success of a collaborative effort depends, in part, on coordination of activities. There are various ways in which such coordination can be achieved. As an example, consider John Herman's 24 Hour Novel project. After gathering ideas from the other writers, Herman selected some of these ideas and integrated them into an outline specifying 23 chapters, with each author assigned a separate chapter. The overall task (write a novel) was thus divided into a set of subtasks (write chapter 1, write chapter 2, etc.), with a rule (writing assignments) to coordinate the initial work on those subtasks. This rule was designed to accomplish the basic and important coordination function of allowing people to act at the same time within a shared environment without impeding each other and without wasting effort on redundant work.
Other rules created boundaries so that the contributor's work would overlap in time and occur in a shared environment:
Working together in a shared environment reinforced the collaborative supposition. Not only did participants know that others had agreed to work towards a shared goal, they could see them doing it. Keep in mind that such positive reinforcement is not guaranteed. If participants perceive that others are not working hard, not working well, or not working towards a shared goal, the collaborative supposition will be undermined. In the positive case, however, awareness of others working with us increases our commitment to the collaboration and creates a sense of solidarity that most people enjoy.
The physical copresence made possible by shared space and time also allows collaborators to coordinate their activities using mutual knowledge. This form of coordination often plays a key role in face-to-face collaboration. When collaboration occurs in a virtual space, however, the dimensions of copresence are reduced. Imagine a situation in which people are working at the same time and in the same environment, but each person is invisible and incapable of making any sound. Collaborators can see the results of other's work, but they cannot see or hear each other. They can go into another environment nearby where they can hear and/or see each other, but they are not able to do any work in that environment. Collaboration in virtual space sometimes resembles this.
In the 24 Hour Novel project, some of the collaborators did share environments other than Google Docs. Some, who lived in the same area, did part of their work while together in the same coffee house. Being together in the same physical environment allowed those collaborators to talk, to see each other working, and to have mutual knowledge of external events in that physical environment (e.g. a loud truck passing by, someone spilling coffee, etc.).
Physical proximity can provide a number of advantages. However, for certain kinds of work, it does not allow easy examination of work-in-progress without interrupting that work. For activities such as the 24 Hour Novel project, a virtual environment such as that provided by Google Docs is better for examining the work of another, e.g. to make sure one's own work will fit together with it, and for monitoring the overall progress of the group. In designing or in selecting an environment for collaborative work, what's most important is how well that environment fits the work and the workers who perform it.
The environment for a collaborative work project will include both rules and tools. Sometimes these do not work exactly as intended. In the 24 Hour Novel project, it might seem that assigning one chapter to each writer would distribute the workload evenly, and also protect the writers equally from getting in each other's way. As it turned out, though, Google Docs created an unequal experience for writers of chapters towards the beginning of the book, towards the end of the book, and in the middle of the book: As the various writers added material, Google Docs would update. If you are writing the first chapter in a long book, this is not a problem; what you see in your display window will change only when you make changes. If you are writing the second chapter, what you see in your window will move down as the writer of the first chapter adds text, but probably not enough to cause your own writing to suddenly scroll out of your window. If you are writing the last chapter, however, the cumulative actions of all the other writers may cause the section you are working on to scroll entirely out of your view with unnerving frequency.
We can easily imagine a customized version of Google Docs that would improve upon this situation, e.g. by allowing each writer to mark an insertion point and then open a separate composition window. The document as a whole would update as entries were made in each writer's composition window, and could be seen doing this in the original document window, but the view in the composition window would be effected only by the actions of the individual writer.
Customizing tools is not always possible, so we must choose what we can from the best available, keeping in mind that tools and rules will interact. A judicious selection of tools can reduce the need for rules. If features of a tool produce undesired consequences, that can sometimes be mitigated through the introduction of new rules. In a short-term project, changing the rules for such purpose may be unnecessary. In the longer run, however, a collaboration tool that creates an unequal burden for some participants may be rejected, even if its use improves the performance of the group as a whole.
Other rules created boundaries so that the contributor's work would overlap in time and occur in a shared environment:
All writing and editing were to occur within a 24-hour period, but writers were free to decide when to work within that timeframe. Given this rule, the pace of writing relative to the time frame pretty much guarantees that writers will not segregate themselves into separate time slots.
All writing and editing were to occur within a single shared document that was created using Google Docs. This created a shared environment in which participants would be aware of each others presence and could examine each other's work product as it took shape.
All writing and editing were to occur within a single shared document that was created using Google Docs. This created a shared environment in which participants would be aware of each others presence and could examine each other's work product as it took shape.
Working together in a shared environment reinforced the collaborative supposition. Not only did participants know that others had agreed to work towards a shared goal, they could see them doing it. Keep in mind that such positive reinforcement is not guaranteed. If participants perceive that others are not working hard, not working well, or not working towards a shared goal, the collaborative supposition will be undermined. In the positive case, however, awareness of others working with us increases our commitment to the collaboration and creates a sense of solidarity that most people enjoy.
The physical copresence made possible by shared space and time also allows collaborators to coordinate their activities using mutual knowledge. This form of coordination often plays a key role in face-to-face collaboration. When collaboration occurs in a virtual space, however, the dimensions of copresence are reduced. Imagine a situation in which people are working at the same time and in the same environment, but each person is invisible and incapable of making any sound. Collaborators can see the results of other's work, but they cannot see or hear each other. They can go into another environment nearby where they can hear and/or see each other, but they are not able to do any work in that environment. Collaboration in virtual space sometimes resembles this.
In the 24 Hour Novel project, some of the collaborators did share environments other than Google Docs. Some, who lived in the same area, did part of their work while together in the same coffee house. Being together in the same physical environment allowed those collaborators to talk, to see each other working, and to have mutual knowledge of external events in that physical environment (e.g. a loud truck passing by, someone spilling coffee, etc.).
Physical proximity can provide a number of advantages. However, for certain kinds of work, it does not allow easy examination of work-in-progress without interrupting that work. For activities such as the 24 Hour Novel project, a virtual environment such as that provided by Google Docs is better for examining the work of another, e.g. to make sure one's own work will fit together with it, and for monitoring the overall progress of the group. In designing or in selecting an environment for collaborative work, what's most important is how well that environment fits the work and the workers who perform it.
The environment for a collaborative work project will include both rules and tools. Sometimes these do not work exactly as intended. In the 24 Hour Novel project, it might seem that assigning one chapter to each writer would distribute the workload evenly, and also protect the writers equally from getting in each other's way. As it turned out, though, Google Docs created an unequal experience for writers of chapters towards the beginning of the book, towards the end of the book, and in the middle of the book: As the various writers added material, Google Docs would update. If you are writing the first chapter in a long book, this is not a problem; what you see in your display window will change only when you make changes. If you are writing the second chapter, what you see in your window will move down as the writer of the first chapter adds text, but probably not enough to cause your own writing to suddenly scroll out of your window. If you are writing the last chapter, however, the cumulative actions of all the other writers may cause the section you are working on to scroll entirely out of your view with unnerving frequency.
We can easily imagine a customized version of Google Docs that would improve upon this situation, e.g. by allowing each writer to mark an insertion point and then open a separate composition window. The document as a whole would update as entries were made in each writer's composition window, and could be seen doing this in the original document window, but the view in the composition window would be effected only by the actions of the individual writer.
Customizing tools is not always possible, so we must choose what we can from the best available, keeping in mind that tools and rules will interact. A judicious selection of tools can reduce the need for rules. If features of a tool produce undesired consequences, that can sometimes be mitigated through the introduction of new rules. In a short-term project, changing the rules for such purpose may be unnecessary. In the longer run, however, a collaboration tool that creates an unequal burden for some participants may be rejected, even if its use improves the performance of the group as a whole.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Turn-Taking in Google+ Hangouts
Google+ includes a video chat feature, called "Hangouts," that allows impromptu audio-video conferences for up to 10 participants at a time. Each participant in a Hangout sees thumbnail-sized video feeds for each of the other participants, plus a large window displaying the video feed of the participant who has the floor. This large video window is switched between participants based on the volume of their audio input. Google's Chee Chew noticed that this method of switching did not work well for hangouts in which participants used sign language to communicate:1
This led to the introduction of a new feature:
In face-to-face multiparty conversations, turn-taking is accomplished by coordination between participants using a complex set of signals. While Ann is speaking, Bob may request to speak by a combination of posture, gesture, facial expression, and eye contact. Using similar methods, Ann may acknowledge Bob's request and transfer speaker status to him. Alternatively or in addition, there are a variety of linguistic methods Ann can use to signal the end of her turn, allowing Bob to take control by beginning to speak.
If Ann continues to speak while Bob wishes to speak, Bob may decide to interrupt Ann. Bob may do this with or without first making a non-verbal request to speak. If Bob is skillful, he might time his interruption to occur at a point that could be interpreted as the end of a turn. For example, if Bob starts to speak just as Ann is completing an utterance, and Ann then cooperates by ceasing to speak, Bob's behavior may be seen by others as orderly turn-taking, even though Ann originally had intended to say more. Alternatively, Ann may continue speaking after Bob's interruption, leading to a situation in which two people are speaking at once. This creates a conflict which may be resolved in various ways.
In a multiparty conversation, if Ann and Bob do not quickly resolve a conflict for the floor, other participants may try to resolve the conflict by focussing their attention on one of the competing parties. In this way, a single group with one speaker may become two groups, each having its own separate "floor." More often, though, the actions of the group result in control being transferred to one person who becomes the next speaker.
The influence participants have over turn-taking in a conversation goes beyond resolving conflicts that arise due to interruptions. If Ann is talking too long, participants can signal that by withdrawing eye contact and gaze, and by using posture, gestures, and facial expressions to indicate boredom or impatience. If Ann is ignoring Bob's non-verbal signals requesting a turn to speak, other participants can reinforce B's request non-verbally by transferring their visual attention from Ann to Bob.
In addition to the non-verbal methods described so far, signals for turn taking also can be communicated by noises and utterances. Participants can signal impatience or boredom by making a variety of sounds. They can encourage Ann to end her turn with disruptive sounds such as coughing. An utterance such as "yeah" can be used by Bob to signal his intention to begin speaking, thereby giving the opportunity for Ann to end her turn gracefully, while allowing Bob to avoid the appearance of interruption if Ann continues to talk.2
The signaling and coordination methods described above can be generalized to situations involving more than one person seeking a turn. Readers who have participated in multiparty conversations are likely to recognize the methods I've described, and perhaps can think of additional methods I've left out. These methods may vary in details across cultures, but within a cultural context, participants in an ordinary conversation among similar adults generally assume that all participants will know what they know about taking turns.
A conversation is a collaborative activity which participants coordinate through methods that are mutually known. How this coordination is achieved when the conversation is mediated by a technology-based service such as Google+ hangouts will depend on the design of that service and the technology supporting it. Turn-taking in Hangouts provides an example of this.
As Chee Chew noticed, participants in a video chat are able to direct their attention to a video thumbnail rather than the main video window. This may provide a method for a participant to request a turn to talk using non-verbal signals, but a person viewed via a thumbnail typically will have less salience than a person present in a face-to-face conversation, and there are no methods for other participants to influence turn-taking through their non-verbal signaling. Even if the current speaker does note the non-verbal request, she cannot direct a non-verbal response to a particular participant as she might in a face-to-face conversation, nor can she choose to transfer control. Turn-taking occurs when a new speaker begins to talk during a silence or when a new speaker interrupts the current speaker by talking louder (unless everyone's microphone is muted as described above by Chee Chew). Since accidental switching of control can be triggered by any detectable sound, participants must refrain from making noise if they want to avoid this, and that will tend to inhibit the use of backchannel utterances (i.e. sounds like "uh-huh" to let the speaker know that the listener is paying attention and understands).
Given these limitations, one may wonder why Google+ Hangouts has gotten such a positive reception. It may be because, at this time, Hangouts allows real-time, multiparty conversations over a distance with greater convenience and sense of presence than any other freely available application. In addition, though, Hangouts provides features, such as the side-channel chat, that may support new methods for conversational coordination. The use and eventual widespread adoption of such new methods is made possible by the human capacity for collaboration. We are not born knowing methods for turn-taking, nor are we explicitly taught them rule-by-rule. We develop them, learn them, and adapt them through collaboration.
1Google+ post "Take the floor" by Chee Chew on September 10, 2011 describing the new feature for Google+ Hangouts.
2This works because utterances like "yeah" can function to switch control or as a backchannel acknowledgement.
REFERENCES
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APA Books.
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(1), 19-41.
Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face Interaction. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Chidren's verbal turn-taking. In E. Ochs & G. Schieffelin (Eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, 391-414.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologia, 26, 22-63.
Kraemer, H. C. & Jacklin, C. N. (1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217-24.
Sachs, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. A. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 679-793.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of "uh huh" and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 71-93.
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
as i hungout in signing hangouts, i also noticed that most people were trying to watch others sign from the thumbnail video. our voice activated video switching for the main video usually just stayed on whomever had the most background noise.
This led to the introduction of a new feature:
So, we added a "Take the floor" feature. Give this a try and let us know how it works for you. Here's how to use it.
1) have everyone mute their audio.
2) when you want to sign something, hit Shift+s.
3) when you see yourself as the main video, that's your cue. you've got the floor... everyone's main video has switched to you. sign away.
note that this only works when you are muted. and once you've "taken the floor" no one else can take the floor for a few seconds. we did this to arbitrate if multiple people do it at the same time... whomever you see in the main video has the floor. If that's you, go for it.
1) have everyone mute their audio.
2) when you want to sign something, hit Shift+s.
3) when you see yourself as the main video, that's your cue. you've got the floor... everyone's main video has switched to you. sign away.
note that this only works when you are muted. and once you've "taken the floor" no one else can take the floor for a few seconds. we did this to arbitrate if multiple people do it at the same time... whomever you see in the main video has the floor. If that's you, go for it.
In face-to-face multiparty conversations, turn-taking is accomplished by coordination between participants using a complex set of signals. While Ann is speaking, Bob may request to speak by a combination of posture, gesture, facial expression, and eye contact. Using similar methods, Ann may acknowledge Bob's request and transfer speaker status to him. Alternatively or in addition, there are a variety of linguistic methods Ann can use to signal the end of her turn, allowing Bob to take control by beginning to speak.
If Ann continues to speak while Bob wishes to speak, Bob may decide to interrupt Ann. Bob may do this with or without first making a non-verbal request to speak. If Bob is skillful, he might time his interruption to occur at a point that could be interpreted as the end of a turn. For example, if Bob starts to speak just as Ann is completing an utterance, and Ann then cooperates by ceasing to speak, Bob's behavior may be seen by others as orderly turn-taking, even though Ann originally had intended to say more. Alternatively, Ann may continue speaking after Bob's interruption, leading to a situation in which two people are speaking at once. This creates a conflict which may be resolved in various ways.
In a multiparty conversation, if Ann and Bob do not quickly resolve a conflict for the floor, other participants may try to resolve the conflict by focussing their attention on one of the competing parties. In this way, a single group with one speaker may become two groups, each having its own separate "floor." More often, though, the actions of the group result in control being transferred to one person who becomes the next speaker.
The influence participants have over turn-taking in a conversation goes beyond resolving conflicts that arise due to interruptions. If Ann is talking too long, participants can signal that by withdrawing eye contact and gaze, and by using posture, gestures, and facial expressions to indicate boredom or impatience. If Ann is ignoring Bob's non-verbal signals requesting a turn to speak, other participants can reinforce B's request non-verbally by transferring their visual attention from Ann to Bob.
In addition to the non-verbal methods described so far, signals for turn taking also can be communicated by noises and utterances. Participants can signal impatience or boredom by making a variety of sounds. They can encourage Ann to end her turn with disruptive sounds such as coughing. An utterance such as "yeah" can be used by Bob to signal his intention to begin speaking, thereby giving the opportunity for Ann to end her turn gracefully, while allowing Bob to avoid the appearance of interruption if Ann continues to talk.2
The signaling and coordination methods described above can be generalized to situations involving more than one person seeking a turn. Readers who have participated in multiparty conversations are likely to recognize the methods I've described, and perhaps can think of additional methods I've left out. These methods may vary in details across cultures, but within a cultural context, participants in an ordinary conversation among similar adults generally assume that all participants will know what they know about taking turns.
A conversation is a collaborative activity which participants coordinate through methods that are mutually known. How this coordination is achieved when the conversation is mediated by a technology-based service such as Google+ hangouts will depend on the design of that service and the technology supporting it. Turn-taking in Hangouts provides an example of this.
As Chee Chew noticed, participants in a video chat are able to direct their attention to a video thumbnail rather than the main video window. This may provide a method for a participant to request a turn to talk using non-verbal signals, but a person viewed via a thumbnail typically will have less salience than a person present in a face-to-face conversation, and there are no methods for other participants to influence turn-taking through their non-verbal signaling. Even if the current speaker does note the non-verbal request, she cannot direct a non-verbal response to a particular participant as she might in a face-to-face conversation, nor can she choose to transfer control. Turn-taking occurs when a new speaker begins to talk during a silence or when a new speaker interrupts the current speaker by talking louder (unless everyone's microphone is muted as described above by Chee Chew). Since accidental switching of control can be triggered by any detectable sound, participants must refrain from making noise if they want to avoid this, and that will tend to inhibit the use of backchannel utterances (i.e. sounds like "uh-huh" to let the speaker know that the listener is paying attention and understands).
Given these limitations, one may wonder why Google+ Hangouts has gotten such a positive reception. It may be because, at this time, Hangouts allows real-time, multiparty conversations over a distance with greater convenience and sense of presence than any other freely available application. In addition, though, Hangouts provides features, such as the side-channel chat, that may support new methods for conversational coordination. The use and eventual widespread adoption of such new methods is made possible by the human capacity for collaboration. We are not born knowing methods for turn-taking, nor are we explicitly taught them rule-by-rule. We develop them, learn them, and adapt them through collaboration.
1Google+ post "Take the floor" by Chee Chew on September 10, 2011 describing the new feature for Google+ Hangouts.
2This works because utterances like "yeah" can function to switch control or as a backchannel acknowledgement.
REFERENCES
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington: APA Books.
Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1987). Collaborating on contributions to conversations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2(1), 19-41.
Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face Interaction. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Chidren's verbal turn-taking. In E. Ochs & G. Schieffelin (Eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. London: Academic Press, 391-414.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologia, 26, 22-63.
Kraemer, H. C. & Jacklin, C. N. (1979). Statistical analysis of dyadic social behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 217-24.
Sachs, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. A. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 679-793.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of "uh huh" and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1981. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 71-93.
Yngve, V. H. (1970). On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
The 24 Hour Novel Project
On May 28, 2001 twenty-three writers wrote a novel in 24 hours while interested observers watched. This 24 Hour Novel project was initiated by John Herman.
Herman recruited collaborators for this project in-person at Writer's Day 2011,1 via an invitation issued on Twitter,2 and perhaps also through personal contacts. Prior to the writing day, collaborators were asked to provide ideas about the story, from which Herman developed an outline. This outline, which included a 3-4 sentence synopsis for each chapter, was made available to the collaborators at 12am on May 28, along with writing assignments.3, 4
Each of 23 writers wrote one chapter. They did this working in parallel by simultaneously editing a single online document using Google Docs. At the same time, an illustrator worked on a design for the book's cover, also via an online document. Work on both the text of the novel and the cover illustration could be viewed in real time via an Internet connection. In fact, viewing of the project's work-in-progress was a featured event at the NewMediator Art Show held on May 28, 2011 at Nighthawk Books in Highland Park, New Jersey.5, 6
As collaborators finished their initial drafts, they began scanning for continuity problems, revising, and making editing suggestions for other chapters. In addition to the 23 chapter writers, at least one additional collaborator participated as an editor.
Coordination for this collaborative project was accomplished in several ways. The outline and assignment of chapters to writers provided a type of coordination by directing the activities of each collaborator so as to avoid redundant or conflicting actions. In addition, coordination was accomplished by communication between the writers while they were engaged in their work.
The following tweets by collaborators provide examples of how this communication channel was used for coordination:
[johnherman] Mid-afternoon plane crash.
_______________________________________________________
[rwwgreene] Prop plane or jet?
[johnherman] Small passenger plane is all I say in Chapter 1. 10 passengers. You can establish whatever you want.
_______________________________________________________
[onewordheadline] @johnherman - Where'd you get a perfect score of 301? WP tells me 300 is tops?
[johnherman] @onewordheadline - Ah, yes. Now you understand. George is accomplishing the impossible. You decide how. We're giggling at you here.
[onewordheadline] @johnherman @JoeStanganelli - Boo. But a seasoned bowler keeping his own score, throwing all strikes would just think 300. HOW!?
[johnherman] @onewordheadline @JoeStanganelli - A magic pin? A scoring glitch that math can't undo for some reason? Magic?
[jasminhunter] @no_youshutup - Robert killed Randy's family. Made it look like an accidental car crash. You in?
[JoeStanganelli] @jasminhunter @no_youshutup - FYI: I've got Marek Cade's biological parents dying in a car crash. In case you wanted to tie it in.
[jasminhunter] @joestanganelli - would three car crashes be a bit excessive? I guess if @johnherman can make the top bowling score 301
[JoeStanganelli] @jasminhunter @onewordheadline - You can blame me for the 301 instead of poor @johnherman. I suggested it in the webform.
[johnherman] @JoeStanganelli @jasminhunter - Listen, we are now up to 4 car crashes in the novel. @onewordheadline can do an extra bowling pin.
_______________________________________________________
Some participants did not have accounts on Twitter, making it necessary to use Google Docs for communication as well as for writing. The need to use two separate communication channels rather than one typically creates additional overhead in this type of collaborative effort. However, although Google Docs messing might have been used for all communication between participants, it was not. This suggests that Twitter was preferred as a communications channel by those who used it, and that the cost of using a second channel on occasion was outweighed by the benefits of using that preferred channel whenever possible.
Was the project a success? If success is judged by the literary merits of the novel produced, the jury is still out. As performance art, however, it seems clear that the project was a success. In addition, the project provided an experience that most, if not all, collaborators seem to have found valuable. And finally, the project succeeds in demonstrating what I believe the group hoped to show: that collaboration makes it possible for people to accomplish together something they could not accomplish individually (i.e. create an entire novel in 24 hours), and that new media make it possible to collaborate in new ways.
1This was a conference organized by the New Hampshire Writer's project, and occurred on March 5, 2011 at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, NH.
2John Herman issued a tweet on May 6, 2011: "Last call for writers for a 1 day collaborative writing / new media art project on May 28th. Handful of slots left. Interested? Let me know."
3Reported by two of the project collaborators, Dan Brian and R. W. W. Greene, in The Dandy Scotch Brawlers podcast DSB #32, May 28, 2011.
4Reported by project collaborator Joe Staganelli in an article 23 Authors + 24 Hours + the Web = 1 Novel he wrote for publication on the website Internet Evolution.
5Description of NewMediator Art Show in the blog of David LaMorte.
6NewMediator Art Show May 2011 podcast, accessed September 10, 2011 from the NewMediator website at http://newmediator.tumblr.com/post/6225124488/new-mediator-art-show-may-2011.
Herman recruited collaborators for this project in-person at Writer's Day 2011,1 via an invitation issued on Twitter,2 and perhaps also through personal contacts. Prior to the writing day, collaborators were asked to provide ideas about the story, from which Herman developed an outline. This outline, which included a 3-4 sentence synopsis for each chapter, was made available to the collaborators at 12am on May 28, along with writing assignments.3, 4
Each of 23 writers wrote one chapter. They did this working in parallel by simultaneously editing a single online document using Google Docs. At the same time, an illustrator worked on a design for the book's cover, also via an online document. Work on both the text of the novel and the cover illustration could be viewed in real time via an Internet connection. In fact, viewing of the project's work-in-progress was a featured event at the NewMediator Art Show held on May 28, 2011 at Nighthawk Books in Highland Park, New Jersey.5, 6
As collaborators finished their initial drafts, they began scanning for continuity problems, revising, and making editing suggestions for other chapters. In addition to the 23 chapter writers, at least one additional collaborator participated as an editor.
Coordination for this collaborative project was accomplished in several ways. The outline and assignment of chapters to writers provided a type of coordination by directing the activities of each collaborator so as to avoid redundant or conflicting actions. In addition, coordination was accomplished by communication between the writers while they were engaged in their work.
The following tweets by collaborators provide examples of how this communication channel was used for coordination:
[rwwgreene] What time of day is the plane crashing?
[johnherman] Mid-afternoon plane crash.
_______________________________________________________
[rwwgreene] Prop plane or jet?
[johnherman] Small passenger plane is all I say in Chapter 1. 10 passengers. You can establish whatever you want.
_______________________________________________________
[onewordheadline] @johnherman - Where'd you get a perfect score of 301? WP tells me 300 is tops?
[johnherman] @onewordheadline - Ah, yes. Now you understand. George is accomplishing the impossible. You decide how. We're giggling at you here.
[onewordheadline] @johnherman @JoeStanganelli - Boo. But a seasoned bowler keeping his own score, throwing all strikes would just think 300. HOW!?
[johnherman] @onewordheadline @JoeStanganelli - A magic pin? A scoring glitch that math can't undo for some reason? Magic?
[jasminhunter] @no_youshutup - Robert killed Randy's family. Made it look like an accidental car crash. You in?
[JoeStanganelli] @jasminhunter @no_youshutup - FYI: I've got Marek Cade's biological parents dying in a car crash. In case you wanted to tie it in.
[jasminhunter] @joestanganelli - would three car crashes be a bit excessive? I guess if @johnherman can make the top bowling score 301
[JoeStanganelli] @jasminhunter @onewordheadline - You can blame me for the 301 instead of poor @johnherman. I suggested it in the webform.
[johnherman] @JoeStanganelli @jasminhunter - Listen, we are now up to 4 car crashes in the novel. @onewordheadline can do an extra bowling pin.
_______________________________________________________
Some participants did not have accounts on Twitter, making it necessary to use Google Docs for communication as well as for writing. The need to use two separate communication channels rather than one typically creates additional overhead in this type of collaborative effort. However, although Google Docs messing might have been used for all communication between participants, it was not. This suggests that Twitter was preferred as a communications channel by those who used it, and that the cost of using a second channel on occasion was outweighed by the benefits of using that preferred channel whenever possible.
Was the project a success? If success is judged by the literary merits of the novel produced, the jury is still out. As performance art, however, it seems clear that the project was a success. In addition, the project provided an experience that most, if not all, collaborators seem to have found valuable. And finally, the project succeeds in demonstrating what I believe the group hoped to show: that collaboration makes it possible for people to accomplish together something they could not accomplish individually (i.e. create an entire novel in 24 hours), and that new media make it possible to collaborate in new ways.
1This was a conference organized by the New Hampshire Writer's project, and occurred on March 5, 2011 at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, NH.
2John Herman issued a tweet on May 6, 2011: "Last call for writers for a 1 day collaborative writing / new media art project on May 28th. Handful of slots left. Interested? Let me know."
3Reported by two of the project collaborators, Dan Brian and R. W. W. Greene, in The Dandy Scotch Brawlers podcast DSB #32, May 28, 2011.
4Reported by project collaborator Joe Staganelli in an article 23 Authors + 24 Hours + the Web = 1 Novel he wrote for publication on the website Internet Evolution.
5Description of NewMediator Art Show in the blog of David LaMorte.
6NewMediator Art Show May 2011 podcast, accessed September 10, 2011 from the NewMediator website at http://newmediator.tumblr.com/post/6225124488/new-mediator-art-show-may-2011.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Fantasmagorical Collaborative Story
In his blog Techoti, Lance Ulanoff describes a collaborative writing experiment he conducted using Google+ and Google Docs. Lance put the beginnings of a story in a Google Doc, and set up that doc so that it could be edited by anyone who had the link. He then made a Google+ public post (Let's Write a Story) describing the project, providing the doc link, and inviting participation. That invitation would have appeared in the stream of every Google+ participant who had Lance Ulanoff in their circles. There's no available record of exactly how many people that was when Lance made his post, but as of this writing there are 8537 people who visibly have Lance in their circles. Of the thousands who may have seen Lance's invitation, about a dozen chose to participate in the project.
In his initial invitation, Lance laid out a few rules: "no changing what anyone else--including me--wrote before you. You need to take what came before and build on it. Notes about suggestions for what could come next are welcome here in Google+, but not in the story." and "Post your name before and after your entry so I know what you wrote." In his retrospective description of the project, Lance reports that "Interestingly, virtually no one followed these rules." Various comments added to Lance's post by participants reflect this:
In his initial invitation, Lance asked participants to do the writing work in Google Docs, and to use Google+ for discussion of the story concept and other communication that might be required to coordinate activities. Early on, participant Moshe Berman suggested that Google Docs comments also could be used for communication. In addition, Moshe initiated a Google+ hangout (i.e. real-time video conference) in which he was joined by three others. There may have been additional communication between project participants through other channels, but there is no indication of this in the Google+ comments or in Lance's blog posts.
Once work began, the story grew quickly. Comments in Google+ show that there were multiple people working on the story simultaneously within Google Docs, sometimes with additional people viewing the doc simply to watch the work in progress. Comments in Google+ show a few episodes of conflict or potential conflict that appear to have been defused by further communication. All this happened on August 18, the day Lance issued his initial invitation.
On the morning of August 19, a little less than 24 hours after posting his initial invitation, Lance posted a comment requesting that the group tie up loose ends and have the story finished by 5PM EST that day. Subsequent comments show participants responding to this request, and about four hours later, Lance posted a comment saying "Looks like we're about done here. All contributors might want to go back and take a last look, clean up any typos and then we'll publish." Further comments indicate some additional proof-reading and editing occurring that day. The next day, August 20, Lance published the story, now titled Agatha's Secret.
Writing in his blog about the collaborative writing experiment, Lance indicates that it did not turn out quite as he had expected:
However, the group effort did produce a finished story. While it is not likely to win any literary prizes, I found it entertaining to read. We tend to appreciate art, whether visual, musical or literary, when it produces a certain degree of tension. In the case of this story, I found enjoyable tension in the departures from literary conventions rather than in the plot, which was a bit too convoluted for me to invest in.
In summing up, Lance notes that the story "shows the flaws of group writing: varying writing styles, gaps in logic, characters introduced and unceremoniously dropped, confusion of place and time." These flaws are not inherent in group writing, but they serve to illustrate that certain kinds of coordination are necessary to produce the desired result from a collaborative effort.
In his initial invitation, Lance laid out a few rules: "no changing what anyone else--including me--wrote before you. You need to take what came before and build on it. Notes about suggestions for what could come next are welcome here in Google+, but not in the story." and "Post your name before and after your entry so I know what you wrote." In his retrospective description of the project, Lance reports that "Interestingly, virtually no one followed these rules." Various comments added to Lance's post by participants reflect this:
Moshe Berman - +Lance Ulanoff I don't think anyone read the instructions. Everyone is just marking up what is there and slowly adding. It's the nature of the beast.
Darryl Wright - Some folks are editing/adding to other people's entries though - it's a bit jarring if you're the author and you watch your words suddenly become something you hadn't wanted to say.
Darryl Wright - I guess that's what it feels like to be a journalist and be edited. :)
Darryl Wright - I guess that's what it feels like to be a journalist and be edited. :)
Bert Knabe - Since We're not supposed to be changing other contributors words, a little annoying, too. Oh, +Darryl Wright, I think you're supposed to put your name before and after your contribution, like this:
Bert Knabe
This is my contribution
Bert Knabe
If you put your name twice and write between them then people can put their contribution before and after yours. In fact, While someone is writing about Miss Whittle and Jeffersons first meeting, I could be writing about what brought Jefferson there. Some changes would be necessary when you find out who he really is, but that's just details. :)
Bert Knabe
This is my contribution
Bert Knabe
If you put your name twice and write between them then people can put their contribution before and after yours. In fact, While someone is writing about Miss Whittle and Jeffersons first meeting, I could be writing about what brought Jefferson there. Some changes would be necessary when you find out who he really is, but that's just details. :)
Sean Lodespoto - Love the idea but, It's getting a bit nutty in there. Perhaps I'll make my contribution a bit later
Moshe Berman - Yea, it is getting nutty.
Moshe Berman - Yea, it is getting nutty.
Lance Ulanoff - The story is getting pretty interesting, though it has taken a decidedly sci-fi bent. Also, someone aged my main character an additional 10 years...and now she sound somewhat senile.
In his initial invitation, Lance asked participants to do the writing work in Google Docs, and to use Google+ for discussion of the story concept and other communication that might be required to coordinate activities. Early on, participant Moshe Berman suggested that Google Docs comments also could be used for communication. In addition, Moshe initiated a Google+ hangout (i.e. real-time video conference) in which he was joined by three others. There may have been additional communication between project participants through other channels, but there is no indication of this in the Google+ comments or in Lance's blog posts.
Once work began, the story grew quickly. Comments in Google+ show that there were multiple people working on the story simultaneously within Google Docs, sometimes with additional people viewing the doc simply to watch the work in progress. Comments in Google+ show a few episodes of conflict or potential conflict that appear to have been defused by further communication. All this happened on August 18, the day Lance issued his initial invitation.
On the morning of August 19, a little less than 24 hours after posting his initial invitation, Lance posted a comment requesting that the group tie up loose ends and have the story finished by 5PM EST that day. Subsequent comments show participants responding to this request, and about four hours later, Lance posted a comment saying "Looks like we're about done here. All contributors might want to go back and take a last look, clean up any typos and then we'll publish." Further comments indicate some additional proof-reading and editing occurring that day. The next day, August 20, Lance published the story, now titled Agatha's Secret.
Writing in his blog about the collaborative writing experiment, Lance indicates that it did not turn out quite as he had expected:
The one big problem was that no one seems to understand that this was a short story and not a novel. By the second day it had almost 10 chapters. Short stories typically do not have chapters. I sensed I had lost control of the situation.
However, the group effort did produce a finished story. While it is not likely to win any literary prizes, I found it entertaining to read. We tend to appreciate art, whether visual, musical or literary, when it produces a certain degree of tension. In the case of this story, I found enjoyable tension in the departures from literary conventions rather than in the plot, which was a bit too convoluted for me to invest in.
In summing up, Lance notes that the story "shows the flaws of group writing: varying writing styles, gaps in logic, characters introduced and unceremoniously dropped, confusion of place and time." These flaws are not inherent in group writing, but they serve to illustrate that certain kinds of coordination are necessary to produce the desired result from a collaborative effort.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Collaborative Supposition
In discussing collaboration and mutual knowledge, I noted that there are cases of collaboration based on something less than mutual knowledge. What all these cases have in common is that the person said to be collaborating is working towards a goal with the supposition of others working towards the same goal.
Consider the MonoTrans project: I was invited by an on-screen message to assist in the translation of a children's book by completing some simple, monolingual tasks. In accepting the invitation, I adopted certain goals with the supposition that those goals also had been or would be adopted by other people whose work, along with mine, would result in those shared goals being reached. I knew that without work by others, the goal of translating a children's book could not be achieved.
The collaborative supposition changed my behavior. Without the collaborative supposition, I still might have completed the tasks if doing so contributed towards reaching one or more of my individual goals, such as satisfying my curiosity about MonoTrans and giving me something to write about. However, in this case, I might have spent a shorter time on the tasks, giving less attention to the accuracy or quality of my work. When I say "without the collaborative supposition," I mean without any knowledge, belief, or assumption that there would be work by others based on a shared goal. If everyone who completed the monolingual tasks worked in this fashion, would their efforts be sufficient to meet the project's requirements and thus result in the successful translation of a children's book? In the case of MonoTrans, the answer may be yes.
A MonoTrans translation project is designed to present a series of tasks, each of which is very easy. In general, participants will find it simplest to work on the tasks as the project's designers intended. If there are some users who perform incompetently or maliciously, their numbers will be small enough to allow their contributions to be detected and discarded as outliers. In addition, each task requires a very small amount of time and effort, and participants can decide how many tasks to perform. If enough people participate, the translation project will succeed, even if each participant contributes only a small effort.
Being structured in this way, it might be possible for a MonoTrans translation project to have contributing participants who are not even aware of the project's end goal. For example, without being told anything more about the project, participants could be asked to complete some simple editing tasks in exchange for some small compensation.
In a sense, the efforts of such participants could be considered collaborative. They would be working together in that their efforts would be coordinated and combined. Their collective efforts, though individual in nature, would result in the achievement of a unitary goal. However, as both the goal and the coordination of efforts would be outside the knowledge of the participants, I will refer to such efforts as extrinsic collaboration to differentiate them from what we more typically refer to by the term collaboration.
During World War II, the terms "collaboration" and "collaborator" acquired a negative association in Allied nations. Specifically, those acting as "collaborators" did so with knowledge of the goals to which their voluntary actions would contribute, and the possession of such knowledge made those actions, in effect, a declaration of allegiance to those goals. Someone who acted in the same way as a result of ignorance or deception might be referred to as a "puppet" or "pawn," but they would not in fairness have been labeled a "collaborator."
In typical usage, the term "collaboration" implies the knowledge, belief or assumption of working with others towards a shared goal. When the term is used in this sense, collaboration requires the collaborative supposition.
Consider the MonoTrans project: I was invited by an on-screen message to assist in the translation of a children's book by completing some simple, monolingual tasks. In accepting the invitation, I adopted certain goals with the supposition that those goals also had been or would be adopted by other people whose work, along with mine, would result in those shared goals being reached. I knew that without work by others, the goal of translating a children's book could not be achieved.
The collaborative supposition changed my behavior. Without the collaborative supposition, I still might have completed the tasks if doing so contributed towards reaching one or more of my individual goals, such as satisfying my curiosity about MonoTrans and giving me something to write about. However, in this case, I might have spent a shorter time on the tasks, giving less attention to the accuracy or quality of my work. When I say "without the collaborative supposition," I mean without any knowledge, belief, or assumption that there would be work by others based on a shared goal. If everyone who completed the monolingual tasks worked in this fashion, would their efforts be sufficient to meet the project's requirements and thus result in the successful translation of a children's book? In the case of MonoTrans, the answer may be yes.
A MonoTrans translation project is designed to present a series of tasks, each of which is very easy. In general, participants will find it simplest to work on the tasks as the project's designers intended. If there are some users who perform incompetently or maliciously, their numbers will be small enough to allow their contributions to be detected and discarded as outliers. In addition, each task requires a very small amount of time and effort, and participants can decide how many tasks to perform. If enough people participate, the translation project will succeed, even if each participant contributes only a small effort.
Being structured in this way, it might be possible for a MonoTrans translation project to have contributing participants who are not even aware of the project's end goal. For example, without being told anything more about the project, participants could be asked to complete some simple editing tasks in exchange for some small compensation.
In a sense, the efforts of such participants could be considered collaborative. They would be working together in that their efforts would be coordinated and combined. Their collective efforts, though individual in nature, would result in the achievement of a unitary goal. However, as both the goal and the coordination of efforts would be outside the knowledge of the participants, I will refer to such efforts as extrinsic collaboration to differentiate them from what we more typically refer to by the term collaboration.
During World War II, the terms "collaboration" and "collaborator" acquired a negative association in Allied nations. Specifically, those acting as "collaborators" did so with knowledge of the goals to which their voluntary actions would contribute, and the possession of such knowledge made those actions, in effect, a declaration of allegiance to those goals. Someone who acted in the same way as a result of ignorance or deception might be referred to as a "puppet" or "pawn," but they would not in fairness have been labeled a "collaborator."
In typical usage, the term "collaboration" implies the knowledge, belief or assumption of working with others towards a shared goal. When the term is used in this sense, collaboration requires the collaborative supposition.
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Human Capacity for Collaboration
One way to understand our capabilities as humans is through comparison with other animals. Various studies have shown that young human children differ from our close primate relatives, chimpanzees, in social intelligence more than in other forms of intelligence. Chimpanzees do have social skills, but it seems they are less capable than human children when it comes to understanding the intentions of others and using that understanding for collaborative purposes.
As Robert Sternberg has pointed out, intelligence has multiple components. This raises the possibility that human intelligence has a different structure than that of other primates. That hypothesis was tested by research reported last year in Psychological Science by E. Herrmann, M. V. Hernández-Lloreda, J. Call, B. Hare, and M. Tomasello. These researchers used individual differences within a group of 105 human children and within a group of 106 chimpanzees to identify and compare the factors contributing to performance on a wide range of problem-solving tasks.
Herrmann et al. found that the human children showed a separate factor of social cognition, while the chimpanzees did not. This finding supports the hypothesis that humans not only have superior social skills, but also that those social skills derive from a specialized component of intelligence in humans, while being a consequence of a broader intelligence component in chimpanzees. In discussing this finding, the authors suggest that humans have "a species-specific 'cultural intelligence,' based on even more sophisticated social-cognitive skills, that underlies their unique ways of cooperating and communicating with others in the cultural group."
It seems that we, as humans, are "wired" for cooperation and communication. This leads to a feedback loop: We are social because we collaborate, and we collaborate because we are social.
REFERENCES
Hare, B. (2007). From nonhuman to human mind: What changed and why. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 60–64.
Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M.V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317, 1360–1366.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691.
As Robert Sternberg has pointed out, intelligence has multiple components. This raises the possibility that human intelligence has a different structure than that of other primates. That hypothesis was tested by research reported last year in Psychological Science by E. Herrmann, M. V. Hernández-Lloreda, J. Call, B. Hare, and M. Tomasello. These researchers used individual differences within a group of 105 human children and within a group of 106 chimpanzees to identify and compare the factors contributing to performance on a wide range of problem-solving tasks.
Herrmann et al. found that the human children showed a separate factor of social cognition, while the chimpanzees did not. This finding supports the hypothesis that humans not only have superior social skills, but also that those social skills derive from a specialized component of intelligence in humans, while being a consequence of a broader intelligence component in chimpanzees. In discussing this finding, the authors suggest that humans have "a species-specific 'cultural intelligence,' based on even more sophisticated social-cognitive skills, that underlies their unique ways of cooperating and communicating with others in the cultural group."
It seems that we, as humans, are "wired" for cooperation and communication. This leads to a feedback loop: We are social because we collaborate, and we collaborate because we are social.
REFERENCES
Hare, B. (2007). From nonhuman to human mind: What changed and why. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 60–64.
Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M.V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317, 1360–1366.
Herrmann E., Hernández-Lloreda M. V., Call J., Hare B., Tomasello M. (2010). The structure of individual differences in the cognitive abilities of children and chimpanzees. Psychological Science, 21(1), 102-110.
Sternberg, R.J. (1999). Successful intelligence: Finding a balance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 436–442.
Sternberg, R.J. (2004). International handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–691.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)