1. 8 June 2011, The Open University Making Representations Matter Understanding Practitioner Experience in Participatory Sensemaking Al Selvin Knowledge Media Institute The Open UniversityMilton Keynes, UK and Verizon Telecom IT Valhalla, NY USA http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin

2. What is practitioner sensemaking in participatory representations?

3. Other kinds of participatory representational experiences 3

4. Everyday participatory representational experiences 4 :47

6. Ten years of practice experience in business, research, and community settings

7. Desire to find research that talked about the experience of such practice

8. What practitioners encounter in the heat of the moment

9. How they make sense of anomalies and shape representations of value to their participants

12. RQ2: What kinds of obstacles, breaches, discontinuities, and anomalies occur that interfere with a representation's coherence, engagement, or usefulness?

13. RQ3:How do practitioner actions at sensemaking moments serve to restore coherence, engagement, and usefulness?

15. Conceptual framework 9

16. Conceptual framework 10

17. Conceptual framework 11

18. Other forms of participatory representation also map on 12

19. Exploratory qualitative approach Round 1: Pilot study 3 Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session and context Grid and sensemaking moment analyses of two expert in situ sessions 1 2 Initial literature review 4 Subjects: Need to contrast with non-expert, non-in situ sessions 5 Data: Need skill and experience profiles of practitioners

20. Exploratory qualitative approach Round 1: Pilot study Round 2: Expanded study 3 Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session and context Develop CEU and Shaping analysis tools 6 Grid and sensemaking moment analyses of two expert in situ sessions 1 2 Initial literature review 4 Subjects: Need to contrast with non-expert, non-in situ sessions 7 Conduct Ames and Rutgers sessions 5 Data: Need skill and experience profiles of practitioners Develop subject questionnaire 8 Second literature review 9 10 Analysis: Need way to characterize ‘experience’ dimensions 14

21. Exploratory qualitative approach Round 1: Pilot study Round 2: Expanded study 3 Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session and context Develop CEU and Shaping analysis tools 6 Grid and sensemaking moment analyses of two expert in situ sessions 1 2 Initial literature review 4 Subjects: Need to contrast with non-expert, non-in situ sessions 7 Conduct Ames and Rutgers sessions 5 Data: Need skill and experience profiles of practitioners Develop subject questionnaire 8 Round 3: Comparative study Conduct comparative analysis across sessions 13 Second literature review 9 Apply all five analysis tools to all eight sessions 12 Develop Framing Model analysis tool 11 10 Analysis: Need way to characterize ‘experience’ dimensions 15

22. Related work 16

24. Engagement with such representations

25. The importance of situation and context in studying practice

26. Analysis at the move-by-move level

27. Limitations of research focused on tools, methods, and outcomes17

28. Research settings – Mobile Agents Hab Crew Remote Science Team 18

29. Research settings – Ames Ames Group 1 Ames Group 2 19 Ames Group 4 Ames Group 3

30. Research settings – Rutgers Rutgers Group 1 Rutgers Group 2 20

31. Characteristics of practitioners 21

32. 22 Practitioner skills and experience Larger plot = greater levels of self-reported skill and experience

33. Analytical tools Characterizing the representational characterof the whole sessionWhat kind of shaping took place? 23

34. Analytical tools Characterizing the representational characterof the whole sessionWhat kind of shaping took place? AG4 Example 24

35. Analytical tools Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signature for the session Aids in identifying sensemaking episodes 25

36. Analytical tools Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signature for the session Aids in identifying sensemaking episodes AG4 Example 26

37. Analytical tools Rich description of sensemaking episode 27

38. Analytical tools Rich description of sensemaking episode AG4 Example 28

39. Analytical tools Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode 29

40. Analytical tools AG4 Example Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode 30

41. Analytical tools Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential terms (informed by theoretical framework) 31

42. Analytical tools AG4 Example Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential terms (informed by theoretical framework) 32

43. Analytical tools Granularity Choices/Moves Session Context(historical,technical, social, etc.) Timeslot Choices/Moves Timeslot Choices/Moves Choices/Moves Timeslot Choices/Moves Choices/Moves Session Timeslot Choices/Moves Timeslot Choices/Moves Choices/Moves Timeslot Choices/Moves Choices/Moves Session Timeslot Choices/Moves Timeslot Choices/Moves Choices/Moves Timeslot Choices/Moves Sensemaking Moment & Grid Analysis CEUAnalysis Shaping & FramingAnalysis 33

44. 34 CEU heat maps showing sensemaking episodes

45. 35 Sensemaking triggers and responses (AG4 example) Trigger Response Pertaining to volume or type of participant input (“Too much too fast”) Facilitator: “But we had a question that says ‘how can the public become co-creators?’”Mapper creates Question node and facilitator narrates answers from previous discussion Response type: Holding forward progress until new strategy is in place Ethical dimension: Direct intervention for purpose of practitioner actionAesthetic dimension: Creating space for remedial shaping to take place

46. Direct collaboration between practitioner and participants Hab 36

47. Sensemaking dimensions Practitioner responses (RQ1, 3) 37

48. Sensemaking dimensions Practitioner responses (RQ1, 3) AG4 38

50. Dimensions

51. Advance

53. Dimensions

54. Regulating

55. Bringing to the representation

57. Comparative method Using Compendium to rank order the sessions along eachqualitative dimension and capture rationale (http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin/analysis)

58. Comparative method AG4 Using Compendium to rank order the sessions along eachqualitative dimension and capture rationale (http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin/analysis)

59. Shaping rankings and ratings

60. Granularity of pre-created structure RST RG2 44

61. Intervention to get participants to look at the representation RG2 45

62. Intervention to get participants to look at the representation AG4

63. Visual/spatial refinement AG3 AG4 47 AG4

64. Hypertextual refinement RG2 Hab 48

65. 49 It is now possible to compare sessions along the experiential dimensions Larger plot = generally higher rankings Shaping and framing dimensions

66. 50 Practitioner skills and experience

67. 51 It is now possible to compare sessions along the experiential dimensions Larger plot = generally higher rankings Shaping and framing dimensions

68. 52 Facilitation skills were a stronger predictor than technical skills

69. Generalization to other genres of participatory representations Informal whiteboarding Graphic facilitation

72. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice

74. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice

75. Describes the types of sensemaking moments that practitioners encounter

77. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice

78. Describes the types of sensemaking moments that practitioners encounter

79. Highlights the specific role of a hypermedia technology

81. Performing longitudinal studies and action research with emphasis on artifactual sensemaking

82. Comparing other practices

83. Tools and methods

84. Developing the analytical tools

85. Developing training, assessment, and reflective practice methodologies

86. Theory

88. Research blog http://knowledgeart.blogspot.com

89. Recent journal articlehttp://oro.open.ac.uk/20948/1/Selvin-HumanTechnology2010.pdf