Communicating through a medium: the new environment of online collaboration

Here it is, the first post! I’ve just started my second semester at the iSchool, and I figure why not kick things up a notch and start up a blog to jot down some ideas as the semester goes along.

Folks, it’s a good line up of classes for me this term. I’m too excited not to list them, as I feel pretty pumped about each one.
Monday: Reader’s Advisory (likely the last time this course will be offered! Make of that what you will.)
Tuesday: Critical Infrastructures (e.g., a card catalogue is an information infrastructure. Think of all the systems and infrastructures that we use in organizing information.)
Wednesday: Systems Thinking Workshop
Thursday: Communities and Values (heavy emphasis on libraries and their “publics”)

I’ll be sure to keep you abreast of the “library school” experience as the semester continues. Today, I am going to hone in on a particular reading from the Systems Thinking workshop that resonated with me. If you are an info pro–or an info student like me–you should give it a look (full citation is at the bottom of the page). If not, just hang on and I’ll give you a Plain English summary up ahead.

The article has a dog of a title:

“On online collaboration and construction of shared knowledge: Assessing mediation capability in computer supported argument visualization tools.”

This article turned my gears a little bit, as it got me thinking about how much work lies ahead for those in the information management field. So let’s dive into it, starting with just what exactly that lengthy title means.

online collaboration and construction of shared knowledge. You’ve seen online collaboration. Forums, wikis, WhatsApp–these are all platforms for online collaboration. Online collaboration tools can take many forms, but they are all online and people use them to collaborate. “Knowledge construction” is a term that you can take at face value, but know that people have done a lot of thinking about this concept (check out Choo 2006 page 8 as a starting point).

Assessing mediation capability in computer supported argument visualization tools. Let’s start with “mediation capability.” Whenever we communicate (and collaborate!) online, that communication is mediated by the tools we’re using. But how good of a job do the tools do of mediating this conversation? Do they make conversations awkward? Does time get wasted? Are conflicting opinions difficult to work out? The tools used can have an immense impact on these things. Iandoli et al. focus in on that latter issue–arguments. More specifically, the study they performed is all about online tools for visualizing arguments.

They found that collaborative computer supported argument visualization (CCSAV) tools pose some problems when it comes to getting things done. Compared to forums, CCSAV tools scored lower in:

• mutual understanding,
• perception of quality of the collaborative process,
• and perceived ease of use.

The context and frameworks that Iandoli et al. provide around their study are as interesting as the study itself. They describe some collaboration tools as participation-focused. Conversational tools like forums and wikis emphasize participation. CCSAV is more occupied with creating something. This is called “reification” (whenever I see this word, I just swap in “thingification” and it serves me well). Iandoli et al. point out that any online tool, be it participation-focused or reification-focused, lacks many nonverbal cues that assist in effective collaboration (especially when it comes to disputes). However, according to their small study, it seems that conversational participation-based tools might have more going for them in this respect.

This is what got me thinking about information management in a broader sense. We’ve known for a while that nonverbal communication is a large part of how we collaborate. But as online tools and large amounts of information become increasingly important, designers and information managers have a lot of work to do in facilitating the use of all the information we share online. As pessimistic as this sounds, it is easy to be so blinded by the potential uses of ICT that we ignore the immense set of new challenges posed by this new information environment.

In social media, we have seen for a long time how mediated interaction seems to change what communication means to us. For example, a lack of face-to-face consequences can pave the way for harassment or unseemly behaviour that would normally not be accepted. When people engage in such things, they are not merely expanding extant behaviour into the online world, but showcasing the effect that online platforms can have on how humans interact. Empathy is less available. The immediate effects of certain acts are obscured by the medium, often invisible. So what does this mean in the world of organizational communication? In terms of solving debates? Even when the actors have the common ground of wanting to be productive or serve certain organizational needs, the difference in social landscape is highly impactful. As we utilize the power of new technologies to collaborate in ways we could not before, it is imperative that we realize just how new this environment is.

This is truly where UX designers and IM folks have their work cut out for them, in my opinion. There is a lot of room for radical new ideas, yes. But the bulk of the work ahead lies in seeking to understand the human side of the equation. A system can be perfectly reasonable and logical, but humans are an unpredictable element. That’s why it is so fascinating to read studies like the one by Iandoli et al. These are studies that are actually paying close attention to how online tools change how we think and collaborate.

References

Choo, C.W. (2006). The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Iandoli, Luca, Ivana Quinto, Anna De Liddo, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2016. “On Online Collaboration and Construction of Shared Knowledge: Assessing Mediation Capability in Computer Supported Argument Visualization Tools.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (5):1052–1067.