8 June 2011, The Open University<br />Making Representations Matter Understanding Practitioner Experience in Participatory...
What is practitioner sensemaking in participatory representations?<br />
Other kinds of participatory representational experiences<br />3<br />
Everyday participatory representational experiences<br />4<br />:47<br />
Background and motivation<br /><ul><li>Development of the Compendium software, methodology, and practice
Ten years of practice experience in business, research, and community settings
Desire to find research that talked about the experience of such practice
What practitioners encounter in the heat of the moment
How they make sense of anomalies and shape representations of value to their participants
Characterizing the practice as articulation work</li></li></ul><li>Research context<br />
Research questions<br /><ul><li>RQ1: How to characterize and compare the interactions of specific representational situati...
RQ2: What kinds of obstacles, breaches, discontinuities, and anomalies occur that interfere with a representation's cohere...
RQ3:How do practitioner actions at sensemaking moments serve to restore coherence, engagement, and usefulness?
RQ4: What are the specific practices involved in making the hypermedia aspects of the representation coherent, engaging, a...
Conceptual framework<br />9<br />
Conceptual framework<br />10<br />
Conceptual framework<br />11<br />
Other forms of participatory representation also map on<br />12<br />
Exploratory qualitative approach<br />Round 1: Pilot study<br />3<br />Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session a...
Exploratory qualitative approach<br />Round 1: Pilot study<br />Round 2: Expanded study<br />3<br />Analysis: Need ways to...
Exploratory qualitative approach<br />Round 1: Pilot study<br />Round 2: Expanded study<br />3<br />Analysis: Need ways to...
Related work<br />16<br />
Related work<br /><ul><li>Visual representations in communication and group work
Engagement with such representations
The importance of situation and context in studying practice
Analysis at the move-by-move level
Limitations of research focused on tools, methods, and outcomes</li></ul>17<br />
Research settings – Mobile Agents<br />Hab Crew <br />Remote Science Team<br />18<br />
Research settings – Ames<br />Ames Group 1<br />Ames Group 2<br />19<br />Ames Group 4<br />Ames Group 3<br />
Research settings – Rutgers<br />Rutgers Group 1<br />Rutgers Group 2<br />20<br />
Characteristics of practitioners<br />21<br />
22<br />Practitioner skills and experience<br />Larger plot = greater levels of self-reported skill and experience<br />
Analytical tools<br />Characterizing the representational characterof the whole sessionWhat kind of shaping took place?<br...
Analytical tools<br />Characterizing the representational characterof the whole sessionWhat kind of shaping took place?<br...
Analytical tools<br />Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signatur...
Analytical tools<br />Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signatur...
Analytical tools<br />Rich description of sensemaking episode<br />27<br />
Analytical tools<br />Rich description of sensemaking episode<br />AG4 Example<br />28<br />
Analytical tools<br />Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode<br />29<br />
Analytical tools<br />AG4 Example<br />Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode<br />30<br />
Analytical tools<br />Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential t...
Analytical tools<br />AG4 Example<br />Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, a...
Analytical tools<br />Granularity<br />Choices/Moves<br />Session<br />Context(historical,technical, social, etc.)<br />Ti...
34<br />CEU heat maps showing sensemaking episodes<br />
35<br />Sensemaking triggers and responses (AG4 example)<br />Trigger<br />Response<br />Pertaining to volume or type of p...
Direct collaboration between practitioner and participants<br />Hab<br />36<br />
Sensemaking dimensions<br />Practitioner responses (RQ1, 3)<br />37<br />
Sensemaking dimensions<br />Practitioner responses (RQ1, 3)<br />AG4<br />38<br />
Shaping and Framing categories<br />Category A – Conducting (RQ1) <br /><ul><li>Overall context, tone, or characterof a se...
Dimensions
Advance
As-played-out</li></ul>Category E – Framing (RQ1, 3)<br /><ul><li>Relating the sessions to the normative model</li></ul>Ca...
Dimensions
Regulating
Bringing to the representation
Collaboration (style, force, purpose)</li></li></ul><li>Shaping and Framing categories<br />Category A – Conducting (RQ1) ...
Comparative method<br />Using Compendium to rank order the sessions along eachqualitative dimension and capture rationale<...
Comparative method<br />AG4<br />Using Compendium to rank order the sessions along eachqualitative dimension and capture r...
Shaping rankings and ratings<br />
Granularity of pre-created structure<br />RST<br />RG2<br />44<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Making Representations Matter: Understanding Practitioner Experience in Participatory Sensemaking

3,515 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,515
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2,203
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • more helpful title
  • Emphasiseat this point that while hypermedia exemplifies the next wave of representational functionality that we would expect to see spread, Compendium is just the vehicle for this research, and that your interest is in facilitating the participatory constructionof any representation in any medium
  • this looks more useful – exemplifying high granularity
  • more helpful title
  • Changed the title to Contributions
  • Changed the title to Contributions
  • Changed the title to Contributions
  • Changed the title to Contributions
  • Changed the title to Contributions
  • updated last bullet
  • Making Representations Matter: Understanding Practitioner Experience in Participatory Sensemaking

    1. 1. 8 June 2011, The Open University<br />Making Representations Matter Understanding Practitioner Experience in Participatory Sensemaking<br />Al Selvin<br />Knowledge Media Institute The Open UniversityMilton Keynes, UK<br />and<br />Verizon Telecom IT<br />Valhalla, NY USA<br />http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin<br />
    2. 2. What is practitioner sensemaking in participatory representations?<br />
    3. 3. Other kinds of participatory representational experiences<br />3<br />
    4. 4. Everyday participatory representational experiences<br />4<br />:47<br />
    5. 5. Background and motivation<br /><ul><li>Development of the Compendium software, methodology, and practice
    6. 6. Ten years of practice experience in business, research, and community settings
    7. 7. Desire to find research that talked about the experience of such practice
    8. 8. What practitioners encounter in the heat of the moment
    9. 9. How they make sense of anomalies and shape representations of value to their participants
    10. 10. Characterizing the practice as articulation work</li></li></ul><li>Research context<br />
    11. 11. Research questions<br /><ul><li>RQ1: How to characterize and compare the interactions of specific representational situations and practitioner actions?
    12. 12. RQ2: What kinds of obstacles, breaches, discontinuities, and anomalies occur that interfere with a representation's coherence, engagement, or usefulness?
    13. 13. RQ3:How do practitioner actions at sensemaking moments serve to restore coherence, engagement, and usefulness?
    14. 14. RQ4: What are the specific practices involved in making the hypermedia aspects of the representation coherent, engaging, and useful? </li></li></ul><li>Conceptual framework<br />8<br />
    15. 15. Conceptual framework<br />9<br />
    16. 16. Conceptual framework<br />10<br />
    17. 17. Conceptual framework<br />11<br />
    18. 18. Other forms of participatory representation also map on<br />12<br />
    19. 19. Exploratory qualitative approach<br />Round 1: Pilot study<br />3<br />Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session and context<br />Grid and sensemaking moment analyses of two expert in situ sessions<br />1<br />2<br />Initial literature review<br />4<br />Subjects: Need to contrast with non-expert, non-in situ sessions<br />5<br />Data: Need skill and experience profiles of practitioners<br />
    20. 20. Exploratory qualitative approach<br />Round 1: Pilot study<br />Round 2: Expanded study<br />3<br />Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session and context<br />Develop CEU and Shaping analysis tools<br />6<br />Grid and sensemaking moment analyses of two expert in situ sessions<br />1<br />2<br />Initial literature review<br />4<br />Subjects: Need to contrast with non-expert, non-in situ sessions<br />7<br />Conduct Ames and Rutgers sessions<br />5<br />Data: Need skill and experience profiles of practitioners<br />Develop subject questionnaire<br />8<br />Second literature review<br />9<br />10<br />Analysis: Need way to characterize ‘experience’ dimensions<br />14<br />
    21. 21. Exploratory qualitative approach<br />Round 1: Pilot study<br />Round 2: Expanded study<br />3<br />Analysis: Need ways to characterize whole session and context<br />Develop CEU and Shaping analysis tools<br />6<br />Grid and sensemaking moment analyses of two expert in situ sessions<br />1<br />2<br />Initial literature review<br />4<br />Subjects: Need to contrast with non-expert, non-in situ sessions<br />7<br />Conduct Ames and Rutgers sessions<br />5<br />Data: Need skill and experience profiles of practitioners<br />Develop subject questionnaire<br />8<br />Round 3: Comparative study<br />Conduct comparative analysis across sessions<br />13<br />Second literature review<br />9<br />Apply all five analysis tools to all eight sessions<br />12<br />Develop Framing Model analysis tool<br />11<br />10<br />Analysis: Need way to characterize ‘experience’ dimensions<br />15<br />
    22. 22. Related work<br />16<br />
    23. 23. Related work<br /><ul><li>Visual representations in communication and group work
    24. 24. Engagement with such representations
    25. 25. The importance of situation and context in studying practice
    26. 26. Analysis at the move-by-move level
    27. 27. Limitations of research focused on tools, methods, and outcomes</li></ul>17<br />
    28. 28. Research settings – Mobile Agents<br />Hab Crew <br />Remote Science Team<br />18<br />
    29. 29. Research settings – Ames<br />Ames Group 1<br />Ames Group 2<br />19<br />Ames Group 4<br />Ames Group 3<br />
    30. 30. Research settings – Rutgers<br />Rutgers Group 1<br />Rutgers Group 2<br />20<br />
    31. 31. Characteristics of practitioners<br />21<br />
    32. 32. 22<br />Practitioner skills and experience<br />Larger plot = greater levels of self-reported skill and experience<br />
    33. 33. Analytical tools<br />Characterizing the representational characterof the whole sessionWhat kind of shaping took place?<br />23<br />
    34. 34. Analytical tools<br />Characterizing the representational characterof the whole sessionWhat kind of shaping took place?<br />AG4 Example<br />24<br />
    35. 35. Analytical tools<br />Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signature for the session<br />Aids in identifying sensemaking episodes<br />25<br />
    36. 36. Analytical tools<br />Mapping the coherence, engagement, and usefulness dimensions of each timeslot to build up a signature for the session<br />Aids in identifying sensemaking episodes<br />AG4 Example<br />26<br />
    37. 37. Analytical tools<br />Rich description of sensemaking episode<br />27<br />
    38. 38. Analytical tools<br />Rich description of sensemaking episode<br />AG4 Example<br />28<br />
    39. 39. Analytical tools<br />Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode<br />29<br />
    40. 40. Analytical tools<br />AG4 Example<br />Micro-moment moves and choices during the episode<br />30<br />
    41. 41. Analytical tools<br />Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential terms (informed by theoretical framework)<br />31<br />
    42. 42. Analytical tools<br />AG4 Example<br />Characterizing the practitioner actions during the episode in aesthetic, ethical, and experiential terms (informed by theoretical framework)<br />32<br />
    43. 43. Analytical tools<br />Granularity<br />Choices/Moves<br />Session<br />Context(historical,technical, social, etc.)<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Choices/Moves<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Choices/Moves<br />Session<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Choices/Moves<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Choices/Moves<br />Session<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Choices/Moves<br />Timeslot<br />Choices/Moves<br />Sensemaking Moment & Grid Analysis<br />CEUAnalysis<br />Shaping & FramingAnalysis<br />33<br />
    44. 44. 34<br />CEU heat maps showing sensemaking episodes<br />
    45. 45. 35<br />Sensemaking triggers and responses (AG4 example)<br />Trigger<br />Response<br />Pertaining to volume or type of participant input (“Too much too fast”)<br />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 <br />Response type: Holding forward progress until new strategy is in place<br />Ethical dimension: Direct intervention for purpose of practitioner actionAesthetic dimension: Creating space for remedial shaping to take place<br />
    46. 46. Direct collaboration between practitioner and participants<br />Hab<br />36<br />
    47. 47. Sensemaking dimensions<br />Practitioner responses (RQ1, 3)<br />37<br />
    48. 48. Sensemaking dimensions<br />Practitioner responses (RQ1, 3)<br />AG4<br />38<br />
    49. 49. Shaping and Framing categories<br />Category A – Conducting (RQ1) <br /><ul><li>Overall context, tone, or characterof a session</li></ul>Category D – Shaping (RQ1, 4)<br /><ul><li>Physical and conceptual shaping of the representations</li></ul>Category B – Planning (RQ1, 3)<br /><ul><li>Initial plan and other pre-session factors
    50. 50. Dimensions
    51. 51. Advance
    52. 52. As-played-out</li></ul>Category E – Framing (RQ1, 3)<br /><ul><li>Relating the sessions to the normative model</li></ul>Category C – Relating (RQ1, 2, 3) <br /><ul><li>Interpersonal interactions and communicative styles
    53. 53. Dimensions
    54. 54. Regulating
    55. 55. Bringing to the representation
    56. 56. Collaboration (style, force, purpose)</li></li></ul><li>Shaping and Framing categories<br />Category A – Conducting (RQ1) <br />Category D – Shaping (RQ1, 4)<br />Category B – Planning (RQ1, 3)<br />Category E – Framing (RQ1, 3)<br />Category C – Relating (RQ1, 2, 3) <br />
    57. 57. Comparative method<br />Using Compendium to rank order the sessions along eachqualitative dimension and capture rationale<br />(http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin/analysis)<br />
    58. 58. Comparative method<br />AG4<br />Using Compendium to rank order the sessions along eachqualitative dimension and capture rationale<br />(http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin/analysis)<br />
    59. 59. Shaping rankings and ratings<br />
    60. 60. Granularity of pre-created structure<br />RST<br />RG2<br />44<br />
    61. 61. Intervention to get participants to look at the representation<br />RG2<br />45<br />
    62. 62. Intervention to get participants to look at the representation<br />AG4<br />
    63. 63. Visual/spatial refinement<br />AG3<br />AG4<br />47<br />AG4<br />
    64. 64. Hypertextual refinement<br />RG2<br />Hab<br />48<br />
    65. 65. 49<br />It is now possible to compare sessions along the experiential dimensions<br />Larger plot = generally higher rankings<br />Shaping and framing dimensions<br />
    66. 66. 50<br />Practitioner skills and experience<br />
    67. 67. 51<br />It is now possible to compare sessions along the experiential dimensions<br />Larger plot = generally higher rankings<br />Shaping and framing dimensions<br />
    68. 68. 52<br />Facilitation skills were a stronger predictor than technical skills<br />
    69. 69. Generalization to other genres of participatory representations<br />Informal whiteboarding<br />Graphic facilitation<br />
    70. 70. 54<br />Contributions<br /><ul><li>Offers analytical tools</li></li></ul><li>Contributions<br /><ul><li>Offers analytical tools
    71. 71. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice</li></li></ul><li>Contributions<br /><ul><li>Offers analytical tools
    72. 72. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice
    73. 73. Describes the types of sensemaking moments that practitioners encounter</li></li></ul><li>57<br />Contributions<br /><ul><li>Offers analytical tools
    74. 74. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice
    75. 75. Describes the types of sensemaking moments that practitioners encounter
    76. 76. Highlights the specific role of a hypermedia technology</li></li></ul><li>58<br />Contributions<br /><ul><li>Offers analytical tools
    77. 77. Provides a language to characterize and compare instances of representational practice
    78. 78. Describes the types of sensemaking moments that practitioners encounter
    79. 79. Highlights the specific role of a hypermedia technology
    80. 80. Contributes to reflective methods for practitioner and practice development</li></li></ul><li>59<br />Future work<br /><ul><li>Studies
    81. 81. Performing longitudinal studies and action research with emphasis on artifactual sensemaking
    82. 82. Comparing other practices
    83. 83. Tools and methods
    84. 84. Developing the analytical tools
    85. 85. Developing training, assessment, and reflective practice methodologies
    86. 86. Theory
    87. 87. Exploring the “recursive” nature of the experiential dimensions as they relate to representational practices (as something you apply vs. something you live within)</li></li></ul><li>60<br />For more<br /><ul><li>Analysis artifacts http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/selvin/analysis/
    88. 88. Research blog http://knowledgeart.blogspot.com
    89. 89. Recent journal articlehttp://oro.open.ac.uk/20948/1/Selvin-HumanTechnology2010.pdf</li>

    ×