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.html

1. Knowledge Media Design Institute
6 August 2010, University of Toronto
Making Representations Matter
The Practice of Shaping Participatory Media
Artifacts
Al Selvin
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University
Milton Keynes, UK
and
Verizon Telecom & Business IT
White Plains, NY USA
http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin
1

2. What is participatory media?
Involving participants
in the creation of
media artifacts

3. 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

4. What is a participatory media practitioner?
• 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

5. Considerations for participatory media
practice are common to many forms of
professional practice involving
representations
. . . requiring skill and craft
. . . combining aesthetic and
ethical concerns
. . . are not well understood

6. My research has focused on
participatory hypermedia practice . . .
The role of practitioners in collaborative, real-
time shaping of a visual hypermedia artifact

7. Open University Scenario Building

8. NASA Process Modeling

9. Workshop Mapping

10. Dimensions of participatory media practice

11. My specific focus
Situated practitioner experience

12. Research settings (1)
Expert practitioners in project settings
(NASA e-Science meetings)
Melissa

13. Research settings (2)
Workshops held at NASA Ames
And Rutgers University in 2007
Participants and practitioners had
varying levels of experience with
the tools

14. Research settings (2)

15. Analytical tools
Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing
form analysis description analysis analysis
Characterizing the
representational character
of the whole session
What kind of shaping took place?

16. Analytical tools
Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing
form analysis description analysis analysis
Mapping the coherence,
engagement, and usefulness
dimensions of each timeslot to
build up a signature for the
session
Aids in identifying sensemaking
episodes

17. Analytical tools
Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing
form analysis description analysis analysis
Rich description of
sensemaking episode

18. Analytical tools
Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing
form analysis description analysis analysis
Micro-moment moves
and choices during the
episode

19. Analytical tools
Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing
form analysis description analysis analysis
Characterizing the
practitioner actions
during the episode in
aesthetic, ethical, and
experiential terms
(informed by theoretical
framework)

20. Analytical tools
Shaping CEU Narrative Grid Framing
form analysis description analysis analysis
Increasing theoretical sensitivity

21. Comparing across sessions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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 Low Medium High
Numeric Numeric Numeric
Ames Group 2 C rating Color rating Color rating Color
E 1 2 3
U
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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 Good places to look for
U
discontinuities
Ames Group 4 C &sensemaking moments
E
U
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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 Good places to look at
E how (relative)
equilibrium was fostered
U
Rutgers Group 2 C and maintained
E
U
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Ames Rutgers
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2
Coherence 2.2 1.5 2.3 2.7 3.0 2.9
Engagement 2.7 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.9
Usefulness 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.8 2.8 3.0
Overall 2.3 1.7 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0

22. Comparing Shaping Themes with Questionnaire
Results
Shaping Index Rank in "how good Software proficiency Facilitation
scores was the session" rank 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
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 input
11. Degree which practitioners requested validation of changes to representation
13. Degree of intervention to get participants to look at the representation
14. Degree of collaboration between multiple practitioners (if applicable)
15. Degree of collaboration/co-construction between practitioners and participants
17. How “good”/successful was the session?
22. How much attention to textual refinement of shaping
23. How much attention to visual/spatial refinement of shaping
24. How much attention to hypertextual refinement of shaping
25. Degree of „finishedness‟ of the artifacts 22

23. Comparing Shaping Themes with Questionnaire
Results
Shaping Index Rank in "how good Software proficiency Facilitation
scores was the session" rank 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
Facilitation proficiency
apparently correlated with
Software proficiency not as high shaping index ratings
good a predictor of shaping
skills or session success Facilitation Proficiency
Hab Crew
Score
38.0
Rank
1
Remote Science Team 33.0 2
Rutgers Group 2 29.5 3
Ames Group 1 24.0 4
Ames Group 4 20.0 5
Rutgers Group 1 20.0 5
Ames Group 3 18.0 6
Ames Group 2 10.0 7
23

24. Categorization of sensemaking triggers
Sessions
Category Types of Triggers
Affected
Incoming input doesn't fit structure; no place
AG2
to put/contain current input
Pertaining to representational structure
Current container (representation structure)
Hab
not really working
Too much too fast (too much coming in at
AG1, AG4
once, too much going on)
Ambiguous input from a participant RG2
Pertaining to volume or type of participant
input
Someone going off in another direction than
intended with so much energy that cant' be AG3
stopped
Needed information is missing RST
Pertaining to information/subject matter
Realization that a helpful construct or material
Hab
is somewhere else
Participant expresses confusion as to purpose RG1
Participant expresses unhappiness with what
Pertaining to intended process/plan other participants are doing with their RG2
ideas/input
Seeing things go off course; "veering off" AG2, AG3
24

25. Ethical dimensions of practitioner actions in
response to triggers
Category Type of Response Result
Collaborative navigation to find item of interest (Hab)
Direct collaboration between
Ran out of time (with recovery)
practitoners and participants
Negotiation/agreement on placement of an item (Hab)
Discussion and representation
Acknowledging diverging participant concerns, but
diverge from each other, no
directing focus elsewhere ("this is what the focus should
longer referring to
be -- this not that is what we're doing") (AG2)
representation
Clarifying purpose, giving direction/expected behavior
Direct intervention aimed at
(RG1)
participants
Process call and offer of alternate solution (RG2)
Back in the swing of things
Decision to delink then strong visual validation (RG2)
Holding forward progress until new strategy is in place
Direct intervention for purpose (AG4)
of practitioner action Stopping forward progress and asking for help; stop-
and-think to recover (AG1, AG4)
Independent investigation (RST)
Acceptance of imperfect data,
Meta-comment capturing interim resolution (RST) decision to move on
Indirect intervention
Making silent meta-comment on map (AG3)
Ran out of time (without
Aiding and abetting (caught up in the subject matter
Changing/blurring roles recovery)
itself instead of standing above/apart) (AG3)
Non-intervention Stunned silence (AG3) 25

26. Aesthetic dimensions of practitioner actions in
response to triggers
Category Type of Response Result
Collaborative navigation to find item of interest
(Hab)
Ran out of time (with recovery)
Negotiation/agreement on placement of an item
(Hab)
Direct contribution to shaping
Decision to delink then strong visual validation
(RG2)
Process call and offer of alternate solution (RG2) Back in the swing of things
Clarifying purpose, giving direction/expected
behavior (RG1)
Intended to help participant
shaping Acceptance of imperfect data,
Independent investigation (RST)
decision to move on
Acknowledging diverging participant concerns, but
Discussion and representation
directing focus elsewhere ("this is what the focus
diverge from each other, no
should be -- this not that is what we're doing")
longer referring to representation
(AG2)
Holding forward progress until new strategy is in
place (AG4)
Creating space for remedial
Back in the swing of things
shaping to take place Stopping forward progress and asking for help;
stop-and-think to recover (AG1, AG4)
Acceptance of imperfect data,
Meta-comment capturing interim resolution (RST)
Partially having to do with shaping decision to move on
Making silent meta-comment on map (AG3)
Aiding and abetting (caught up in the subject Ran out of time (without
matter itself instead of standing above/apart) recovery)
No aesthetic dimension
(AG3)
Stunned silence (AG3) 26

27. This research is part of…
kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/hyperdiscourse
compendium.open.ac.uk/institute knowledgeart.blogspot.com

28. Exercise: facilitate participatory shaping of
a representation

29. Reflection after the exercise
• 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)?