• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Exploring the gap between interaction and institutional orders in Pragmatic Web Design Mark Aakhus Department of Communication Rutgers University
  • 2. Purpose p Ever more designed support for communication Increasing capacity to design support Yet, the tacit dimension of communication still plays a role How? With what consequence? With what design opportunities? 2
  • 3. Approach pp Illustrate ways tacit, often unintentional aspects of interaction & communication shape what becomes explicit. Map the pragmatic terrain between intentional design of communication support and communication. 3
  • 4. Orienting Concept g p Institutional Talk = ‐> Interest of pragmatic web practice . . . to improve “the quality and legitimacy Goal Orientation for Interaction of collaborative, goal oriented Constraints on Interaction discourses in communities” through design and use of web‐based Preferred Patterns for Reasoningg technology hl Evident in . . . ‐> However, Formal Roles Turn‐Taking Turn Taking Procedures The interaction order is not easily or Turn Types readily tamed Decision Rules Discourse typically takes on a life of Institutions for talk aim to put ordinary its own interaction and reasoning to some purposeful, productive end 4
  • 5. Airline Crew Decision‐Making 5
  • 6. Example 2.1 Indirectness in Airline Crews p (1) Copilot: Look how the ice is just hanging on his, ah, back, back there, see that? Captain: Side there (2) Copilot: See all those icicles on the back there and everything? Captain: Yeah Yeah. (3) Copilot: Boy this is a this is a losing battle here on trying to de‐ice those Boy, a, things, it (gives) you a false feeling of security, that’s all that does. Examples taken from Tannen 1994 6
  • 7. Example 2.1 Indirectness in Airline Crews p (4) Copilot: Let’s check these tops again since we been setting here awhile. Captain: I think we get to go here in a minute. (5) Copilot: That don’t seem right, does it? (3 second pause). Ah, don t that’s not right. (2 second‐pause) (Well). . . Captain: Yes, it is, there’s eighty. Copilot: Naw, I don’t think that’s right. (7 second pause). Ah, p , g( p ) , maybe it is. Captain: Hundred and twenty. Copilot: I don’t know Examples taken from Tannen 1994 7
  • 8. Example 2.1 Indirectness in Airline Crews p • Prevalence of Indirection e a e ce o d ect o – Easier to be misunderstood or ignored • ‘Be Direct’ is no solution – Recognized and interpreted differently – Safest rated crews, rated highest in indirection • Indirection is a Relational Issue – Cockpit not just about representing a state of affairs – Moves must be situated within ongoing context of relational expectations and activity 8
  • 9. Relational Despite intensive information & communication environment, environment the pilots’ attention to the pilots relational dimension shaped the possibilities for expressing and managing differences of opinion 9
  • 10. Dispute Mediation i di i 10
  • 11. Example 2.2 Digression in Dispute Mediation p g p 398 W: I still have my basic feelings, that maybe at some point, something like this could be worked out but I don’t, feel at this time [ Isn’t this kind of a method, uh I‐aren’t you basic 399 H: , y feelings ((Pause)) basically trying to punish me, as opposed to what the children ((Pause)) (that’s all) [ No it’s not trying to punish ] 400 W: not y (( you ((Pause)) I am not trying to punish y at all I, think you, I’d be punishing )) yg p you , y, p g myself by going with something like this at this time= 401H: =why 402 W: Number one I know your involvement with the children ((Pause)) and how you have stated in the past you would be involved and you would do certain things and then you do not 403 H: Like what 404 W: Like homework schoolwork ((Pause)) Also too, I do not feel that you’re mentally stable at this point in your life 405 H: I don’t feel you’re mentally stable either 406 W: Okay ((Pause)) um, so maybe we should go for the psychiatric examinations ((Pause)) I’m more inclined to do that I’ve asked John to go to counseling f years, and h ’ refused I h l for d he’s f d have b been in counseling l 11
  • 12. 414 W: =No, we went to Dr. H( ) for Michael [That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about I’m talking about 415 H: the, the psychiatrist on ( ) Boulevard who we went to on two occasions and you just said I don’t Boulevard, to, said, don t agree with what this guy is saying so we’re not going back 416 W: [Oh okay] I know who you’re talking about sure 417 H: Okay 418 W: Then, I went to a different one, and I wanted to go to= [( )] 419 H: 420 W: =a different one 421 H: [Yeah]because he didn’t agree with you that’ why you didn’t want to go there, that’s the whole problem= 422 W: =No, no I’ve got other feedback from other people [How about Dr. 423 H: (Frankel) ] 424 W: How ‘bout Dr. Frankel [We stopped] going to Dr. Frankel because you didn’t like what he was saying to us 425 H: 426 W: John, we, you were the one who stopped going, you were the one who said that we should stop., stop Michael from going to Dr Frankel because you saw no progress being made Dr. 427 H: That’s right, I saw no progress being made but you didn’t want to go to him because he started asking about your background and you thought that was irrelevant 12 428 W: No I didn’t (Example taken from Jacobs & Jackson 1992)
  • 13. Actional Despite procedures and specialized roles, disputants abandoned the development of the argumentative potential of their contributions in their responses to each other other. 13
  • 14. Relational & Actional Institutional aims for interaction are undermined by y tacit dimensions Cockpit communication Relational shapes possibilities for expressing and managing differences of opinion s Dispute mediation Actional shapes possibilities for finding argumentative potential 14
  • 15. Technological Designs for Communication g g Generic Tools (e.g., threaded discussion, chat) Support communication Neutral to interaction Form of interactivity and communication quality left to users Yet implicit design for interaction – Tools highlight some aspects of making moves in interaction and leave other aspects unmarked Technologically Institutionalized Interaction Formats Clash: Implicit designs for communication and community use Results: Invisible, unanticipated, and at times perverse consequences for discourse quality 15
  • 16. The Danger of Cell Phones Investigative News Story Report Online Threaded Discussion 16
  • 17. Example 3.1 Threaded Discussion Message Type Example + ‐ Supportive (thanks, Thanks for this interesting report. Although, I don’t plan to stop using 5 acknowledges reports’s my cellular phone, I appreciate your explaining how to use it more truth value safely. Questions seeking So, you move the phone away from your head. You are not getting 1 clarification of report or the maximum risk of radiation but, what about the cell phone 0 its implications emitting radiation to other parts of your body…while it is in your pants p p pocket, y , your purse, sitting next to you on the car seat? Should p , g y this also be a consideration? Other than giving up the use of our phones, is there a way to avoid this potential hazard? Replies to others that I sort of agree and disagree with this posting. You can only cover so 1 support the reporting of much on the television. TV is not the media for extensive coverage. A 3 the news better choice is to ask Consumer Reports to do a thorough study of all wireless devices, such as remote controls, pagers, Palm VII, GPS, cordless phones, cellular phones, walkie‐talkies, etc., to see what effect they have on human biology. Perhaps a new standard will be developed to not just apply to Cellular phones, but to all wireless devices that transmit and receive data. 2 8 Taken from Aakhus 2002 17
  • 18. Example 3.1 Threaded Discussion Message Type Example +‐ Challenge Come on…the “cell phones cause cancer” thing a‐GAIN? Get 42 report’s ’ real. If two‐way radios caused cancer I think we’d see an l di d hi k ’d conclusion or increase in the incidence among emergency service workers, implications+ who have been using higher powered two‐way radios in these frequencies for decades. Your microwave oven is q legally allowed to LEAK about 30,000 times the energy it takes to power a cell phone. Replies to others I guess the “news” industry had to go Hollywood to pay the 41 challenge the “reporters” the salaries they demand these days. A favorite report quote of mine that perhaps the powers that be should heed is “your standards are a reflection of what you allow” it is your allow clear to me that abc standards are not worth the paper they are printed on. What a shame! 83 Taken from Aakhus 2002 18
  • 19. Relational Community of viewers could not use the information rich environment to effectively raise their objections and requests ‐ Relational (e.g., pilot situation) Discourse appears disjointed, complaint riddled Leaves important aspects of investigation undeveloped p
  • 20. Example 3.2 Chat p 01 Insolente: AUB…YOU SAID that she did not 14 Insolente: AUB..What do you mean by that? know she was breaking the law and that’s 15 Insolente: AUB..what is the point you are why she leaked the trying to make? 02 Insolente: the tapes 16 AUBldr: INSOL…How many things can that 03 AUBldr: INSOL….nope, not once… mean? 04 Insolente: AUB…I’m tired for your moronic 17 Insolente: If any? laugh 18 Insolente: AUB…Is this how you do this? 05 Insolente: Oh really AUB? What did you say 19 AUBldr: INSOL…you are too childish to debate then? with ….shoo… shoo 06 Insolente: AUB..why are you lying? 20 Insolente: AUB…Your reasoning means shit so 07 Insolente: AUB.. what did you really say AUB? you don’t answer direct questions? 08 AUBldr: INSOL….I said in many states only 1 21 Insolente: AUB…Shoo? person has to know tapes are being made, 22 Insolente: LMAO thats all all.. 23 AUBldr: INSOL…lol shoo 09 Insolente: I gotta hear this one 24 Insolente: AUB…Is this how you do this>? 10 Insolente: AUB..Meaning what? 25 AUBldr: INSOL…child 11 AUBldr: INSOL…but apparently you still can’t read… 12 Insolente: AUB…That she thought she was cleared? 13 AUBldr: INSOL….Nope… Taken from Weger & Aakhus 2003 g 20
  • 21. Actional Participants express disagreement but could not make productive argument argument. ‐Actional, like dispute mediator Discourse appears incoherent, underdeveloped pp , p 21
  • 22. Clash Co Community o use s atte pts to handle u ty of users attempts a de differences through normatively good argumentation. But, thwarted by affordances of internet based discussion support ‐> The mediated interaction produces a poor quality discourse 22
  • 23. Clash Web‐discussion Audience pursued inquiry Audience looked like they were quarreling Chat Participants tried to d P ii i d draw each other i h h in Participants looked like they quarreling 23
  • 24. Clash, so what? It’s just a matter of momentary encounters, so a j y , few instances of low interaction quality. But, what if we are interested in the record produced and its prospects for further deliberation? 24
  • 25. Earlier Internet technologies left communciation to ad hoc management of participants New Web‐based technologies provide more and b better communication support ii Can discourse still take a life of its own? 25
  • 26. Supporting online learning 26
  • 27. Taken from Aakhus 2001 27
  • 28. The design for interaction appears to realize the preferred form of interactivity The product of the interactivity is a corpus of content Corpus is shaped by relational and actional assumptions alive at the time the micro move was made 28
  • 29. Pragmatic Web Challenge The tacit dimensions of communication – the pragmatics – continue to play a role Designs for communication and any clash between affordances and communities may b ff d d ii have subtle if not profound effects on what becomes explicit and available. b li i d il bl 29
  • 30. The Pragmatic Web Challenge Develop procedures and techniques that help render discourse production process transparent detect interactional drift, emerging commitments reframe content and direction of interaction 30
  • 31. References Moor, A. de, Keeler, M. and Richmond, G. 2002 Towards a Pragmatic Web. In Proc. Aakhus, M. 2001 Designing web‐based interactional tools to support of the 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2002), learning from experience. In Proceedings of the Sixth International B Borovets, B l i J l 15 L Bulgaria, July 15. Lecture N Notes i A ifi i l I lli in Artificial Intelligence, N 2393 No. 2393, Workshop on the Language‐Action Perspective on Communication 235‐249 Springer‐Verlag. Modelling, M. Schoop and J. Taylor Eds. Schmidt, K. and Simone, C. 2000, Mind the Gap!: Towards a unified view of CSCW. Aakhus, M. 2002 The design of forums for online public deliberation and Paper presented at COOP2000, Sophia Antipolis, France. the consequences for argumentation. Kent J Comm 21(2), 139‐148 Schoop, M., de Moor, A., & Dietz, J. 2006 The pragmatic web: A manifesto. Comm Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992 Talk at work: Interaction in institutional ACM 49(5), 75‐76. settings. Cambridge University Press. Sing, M. 2002 The Pragmatic Web: Preliminary thoughts. In Proceedings of the g, g y g g Goffman, E. 1983 The interaction order: American Sociological Association, NSF‐Onto Web Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises. 1982, Presidential Address. Am Soc Rev 48(1), 1‐17. Tannen, D. 1994 Talking from 9 to 5. HarperCollins. Goffman, E. 1981 Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. Walton, D. 1992 The place of emotion in argument. The Pennsylvania State Jacobs, S. and Jackson, S. 1992 Relevance and digressions in University Press. argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argument 6, 161‐ Weger, H. and Aakhus, M. 2003 Arguing in internet chat rooms: Argumentative 176. adaptations t chat room d i and some consequences f public d t ti to h t design d for bli Linde, C. 1988 The quantitative study of communicative success: deliberation at a distance. Argument Adv 40 (Summer 2003), 23‐38. Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Lang Soc 17, 375‐ 399. McInerney, C. and Day, R. 2007 Rethinking knowledge management: From knowledge objects to knowledge processes. Springer. Moor, A de 2005 Patterns for the Pragmatic Web. In Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2005), Kassel, Germany, July 2005. LNAI 3596, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1‐18. Moor, A. de and Aakhus, M. 2006 Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Comm ACM 49(3), 93‐98. 31