CSCW

Concerns study of the design of groupware and the development of models of collaborative interaction

CSCW

• The term computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) was first coined by Greif and Cashman in 1984 at a workshop.

• According to Carstensen and Schmidt (2002), CSCW addresses "how collaborative activities and their coordination can be supported by means of computer systems."

• Concerns study of the design of groupware, but also the development of models of collaborative interaction

Fundamental Questions for HCI and CSCW

1) How can computerized systems be better built to support human activities?

2) How can sociologists and technologists work together in the design process?

Ongoing subject of research, discussion, and controversy.

Collaborative Situations

Remote Asynchronous

UsenetWikis

Remote Synchronous

Instant messagingVideoconferencing

Co-located Synchronous

Smart Classrooms

Co-located Asynchronous

Categories of Tools Working With Documents

“The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The Gap Between Social Requirements and Technical Feasibility” – Mark Ackerman

• The social-technical gap– The great divide between what we know we

must support socially and what we can support technically

• Other areas of CS dealing with users also face the social-technical gap, but CSCW with its emphasis on augmenting social activity cannot avoid it

Fundamental Questions for HCI and CSCW

1) How can computerized systems be better built to support human activities?

2) How can sociologists and technologists work together in the design process?

Back to Ackerman…Calls for CSCW to be more scientific and to ground system building in social practice, rather than to build solutions for the “wrong” problem

Indeed an understanding of the social-technical gap lies at the heart of CSCW’s intellectual contribution. If CSCW (or HCI) merely contributes “cool toys” to the world, it will have failed its intellectual mission. Our understanding of the gap is driven by technological exploration through artifact creation and deployment, but HCI and CSCW systems need to have at their core a fundamental understanding of how people really work and live in groups, organizations, communities, and other forms of collective life. Otherwise, we will produce unusable systems, badly mechanizing and distorting collaboration and other social activity.

Material Artifacts and the Negotiation of Boundaries in the Design of a Museum Exhibition

University of California, Irvine, Californiacplee@uci.edu

Charlotte P. Lee, PhD

Introduction

Inscriptions and material artifacts are important for:

-coordinative practices

-creation of shared meaning

Empirical studies of material artifacts in practice are a rich source of theoretical concepts: boundary objects (Star 1987-1989; Star and Griesemer 1989), coordination mechanisms (Schmidt and Simone 1996), prototypes (Subrahmanian, Monarch et al. 2003), ordering systems (Schmidt and Wagner 2005), and intermediary objects (Boujut and Blanco 2003).

Boundary Objects (BO)

Boundary objects are those objects that both inhabit several communities of practice and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. Boundary objects are thus both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete (Bowker and Star 1999).

Origins

Definition

Two major factors: boundary objects and methods standardization

Methods standardization less glamourous sibling

Almost all examples in the original text include standardization

Standardization is integral to boundary objects

Case Study

Ethnographic study of a group of designers creating an exhibition about dogs at a large natural history museum

Research Questions

– What communities of practice are involved in the design of this exhibition?

– How do members of a design group comprised of people from different communities of practice collaborate?

– How are artifacts used by the design group?

The Design Group as an Intersection Between Communities of Practice

Functional units Education, Fabrication, Design, Curation

Professional organizations Industrial Design, (Museum) Visitor Studies

Other affiliations Previous employment (e.g. working in a

particular museum genre), professional training, educational background (e.g. major area of study at university)

Boundary Negotiating Artifacts

Boundary negotiating artifacts are artifacts that test and establish boundaries, practices, and standards. The artifacts I describe are distinct from boundary objects because rather than cleanly crossing boundaries they cross roughly, if at all, and are sometimes used to negotiate the boundaries themselves.

Individual Exhibit

For Self Use

Conceptual Design

Whole Exhibition

For Other

Physical Design

Exhibition Artifacts

Boundary Negotiating Artifacts

Five Types:• Inclusion Artifacts• Self-explanation Artifacts• Compilation Artifacts• Structuring Artifacts• Borrowed Artifacts

Inclusion Artifact Example: Object Theater

Self-explanation Artifact Example:Martin’s Journals

Self-explanation Artifact Example:Dogs Images and Artifacts Table

Compilation Artifact Example: Kiosk Sketch

Structuring Artifact Example: Curator’s Narrative

Structuring Artifact Example: Design Criteria Diagram

Structuring Artifact Example: Concept Map

Borrowed Artifacts: Self-explanation Artifact Composed of Clippings From Borrowed Artifacts

Old Narrative

New Narrative

Concept Sketch

Floor Plan

Borrowed Artifacts

Summary: Boundary Negotiating Artifacts

• Surrounded by sets of practices that may or may not be agreed upon by participants

• Facilitate the crossing of boundaries (transmitting information)

• Facilitate the pushing and establishing of boundaries (dividing labor)

• May seem “effortful” as opposed to effortless• Fluid--often incorporated or transformed into

other artifacts• Can be largely sufficient for collaboration • Possible predecessors of boundary objects

Why is this interesting?1. Presents a critique about the overuse and misuse of a

popular theoretical construct that has real world ramifications

2. Shows how information artifacts can be used to mediate “contested collaboration”

3. Shows that mutual understanding of common tools is not strictly necessary for successful collaboration

4. Suggests that research on innovative collaborative work may get short shrift if CSCW continues to focus on standardized artifacts

5. Calls for more work on innovative collaborative work.

Contributes to theory and may someday inform computer supported cooperative design systems.

Syllabus

Show syllabus