DESCRIPTION

Design which incorporates empathetic cues has the opportunity to influence inter-personal fac-tors which affect group dynamic. Group dynamic can be defined as the “interaction of complex A and inter-personal forces operating in a group which determine its character, development, and long-term survival.” (WebFi-nance Inc. 2011) The purpose of this approach is to sustain participation, promote a positive and empathetic group dynamic, encourage new competencies and roles, build new connections among members, and ultimately to lengthen the life of a community.

Members of a sharing community are united by a common purpose. Sustaining this common purpose re-quires members to engage in a variety of activities. Different activities call for various types of competencies and comfort levels and therefore can create affirmation or tension for members. Team role theory expands on this phenomena by explaining, “members assume roles that are compatible with their personal characteristics and skills.” (Engleberg, 2000)

Sharing activities are characterized by a variety of member roles, required competencies, and dura-tions of participation. For these reasons, it is advanta-geous for group members not to understand the diversity of factors which affect both their own participation within a group as well as their fellow group members. Empathy can come about not only through natural observation and participation but also through assuming alternate roles and by attempting to practice atypical skill sets or behaviors.

There are many external and internal obstacles to gaining group flexibility and comfort. Obstacles could be internal (such as expectations/perception of comfort, trust, and performance) as well as external (such as expectations/perception of feedback, instruction, and pres-ence of other members). Design which incorporates empa-thetic cues can help move beyond these obstacles which has the potential to create both a healthy group dynamic and an investment in the greater good of the entire community.

JUSTIFICATION

This principle has the power to:• Sustain participation• Address internal and external obstacles to

participation• Promote positive and empathetic group dynamic• Encourage new competencies and roles among

participants• Build new connections among members• Strengthen a shared purpose among the

community• Improve quality of experience within community• Lengthen the life of a community

IMPLICATIONS

Implications or assumptions of this principle include:

Participation sustains community…

Group Dynamic affects participation…

Empathy promotes positive Group Dynamic…

Community is held together by empathy…

ASSUMPTIONS

This principle is meant to fit into a larger design process which considers the needs of individuals in order to design for a sharing experience.

This principle, process, and method is not an approach for designing a sharing platform but rather for the sharing expe-rience. It is meant to address a lack in designed principles applied to direct understanding, manipulation, and creation of empathetic tools which influence the individual and group experience of a sharing community.

Application and research of this principle, process, and method could lend to the development of characteristics which could contribute to an approach to design a sharing platform as well as addressing the designed experience of sharing.

CONTEXT/EXAMPLES

The following scenarios of a classroom and work group provide examples of how guidance and feedback have been used to sustain participation and promote a healthy group dynamic.

These are both cases in which the group member can be-come disengaged when facing internal or external obstacles. These examples feature groups which can easily lead to physically present but psychologically disengaged members. When members are a part of groups which they cannot eas-ily opt out of, this can provide stress, challenge, and create a greater need for empathic probes and cues to promote positive group dynamic.

Example 1: ClassroomIn an educational setting, a teacher can promote positive group dynamic and an increase class participation by provid-ing guidance which is catered towards a specific students’ needs. Often a teacher creates multiple avenues for provid-ing guidance through the form of an encouragement or a challenge. Also, moments of feedback from students are often integrated within the educational curriculum in order to assess a student’s understanding of their group participa-tion and performance. A teacher uses these moments of guidance and feedback in order to influence not only the individual student’s participation but to improve the overall learning environment of the class. The more students can overcome their own obstacles to participate, the more they can contribute to well-being the class and the educational institution as a whole.

Example 2: Work GroupIn a collaborative working group, individuals might be required to engage in a multiplicity of tasks and roles. Individuals might display natural tendencies towards certain tasks or roles. However, depending on the particular mem-bers present or the length of the project members might find themselves needing to assume tasks and roles which they do not have an affinity towards. This shift in roles and tasks can create tension between members because of internal and external conflict. Different members will react differently to the various roles they might have to assume. Negative feedback or perception of negative feedback from other members within the group can make an unfamiliar task or role more stressful to complete. Other members might experience stress because they do not have the oppor-tunity to try new roles, and feel bored with their assumed task. Group communication can help reveal the underlying issues which arise when members assume different roles or tasks. Group communication can usher in opportunities for members to provide guidance and feedback to each other.

PRINCIPLE DESIGNING FOR THE SHARING EXPERIENCE SHOULD INCORPORATE EMPATHETIC CUES TO SUSTAIN PARTICIPATION & PROMOTE POSITIVE GROUP DYNAMIC.

< CREDITS >NCSU Master of Graphic Design // 2011 Studio // GD502 Culture of Sharing

Designed and Developed by Alexandria Jarvis under the direction of Amber Howard

< SOURCES >Engleberg, Isa N. 2000. Working in groups : communication principles and strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

WebFinance Inc. 2011. Business Dictionary. Business Dictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/group-dynamics.html.

PROCESS Use the following process in order to incorporate empathetic cues to sustain participation and promote positive group dynamic.

STAKEHOLDERS

The Task ForceThe task force behind this process would ideally incorpo-rate researchers and practitioners from both design fields and social science fields. Examples of fields in social sci-ences which could be integral in developing empathetic cues include psychology, sociology, and anthropology. The task force team would collaborate to create an appropriate probe which incorporates the skills and the competencies required of the sharing activity as well other questions as-sessing internal and external obstacles to achieving positive group participation.

The ParticipantsThe participants within this process are members of a shar-ing community. Chosen participants should have a general familiarity and exposure with the purpose and activities related to the larger community.

FLOW

The direction that people and information travel through the process. People and information continuously cycle through this process until group members, the activity, or probes stop.

TIPS & TASKS

Phase 1 / Gather & CreateGroup members, or participants, should have a general familiarity and exposure to the activity. If possible, it is good for participants to exemplify varying degrees of investment within the given community. Task teams should choose an activity for which they might list competencies and roles the activity requires. They should also choose a task which is challenging enough to allow for internal and external obstacles for positive group dynamic.

Empathetic agents can take the form of a human facilita-tor, fellow members, or a computerized messaging system, depending on the structure and platform of the sharing community. This can be determined in partner with the creation of the probes and cues.

Probes and Cues should be developed by the task team. Teams can follow the Empathetic Probe method for choos-ing agents and creating probes. A cue which is a response to the probe which provides guidance and feedback to a participant should be developed by the Social Sciences team alongside of the Design team in step 4 and monitored in step 7 to lead to eventual evaluation in step 11.

Phase 2 / Probe & CueThe probe can be used to asses a series of roles which a participant assumes through the group sharing activity. A member’s role is influenced by their perception of them-selves, the activity at hand, and the roles of fellow group members. Probes and cues are dispersed by empathetic agents. Agents, equipped with information about an individual’s competen-cies and comfort levels, agents provide real-time guidance for members. This guidance can provide motivation, en-couragement, or advice to extending or strengthen participa-tion, create novel connections between group members, or cause the adoption alternative roles within a group.

The synthesis and identification of member needs can only be facilitated if a response is provided by the individual. In the case that the individual does not provide information by opting out of the probe process a cue cannot be pro-vided. Task teams should determine how many times they might continue to present this member with the option of using the probe. In future testing, teams might choose to document that members choice to opt out and use it in the Debriefing phase.

Phase 3 / Debrief & AdjustThe process will work best with multiple repetitions of phase 2. The more repetitions, the more the task force can compare changes in feelings, thoughts, and behaviors over-time in order to asses if members were influenced by the empathetic cues.

The task force is not the only group of people who can ana-lyze the results. Step 10 also provides a time for individuals or groups to reflect or discuss their results and experiences. This is not recommended for groups who will participate in a second round or adjusted process of empathetic cues.

Lastly, to improve the process the task force should take liberty in adjusting the steps and method to fit their needs. The primary focus of the process should center around the disbursing probes, providing cues, and analyzing the results.

PHASES

Phase 1 / Gather & CreateRequires Task Team Involvement

1. Identify sharing community2. Choose a group and group activity3. Choose Empathetic Agent to deliver Probe & Cues 4. Create and Design Probe and Cues

< OPTIONAL > Complete Steps 5 & 6 to gather introductory responses: Requires Community Member Involvement

Phase 2 / Probe & CueRequires Task Team Involvement Requires Community Member Involvement

5. Let members engage in activity6. Provide each member a probe via human or computer

agents7. Synthesize member response to identify needs via auto-

mated or human synthesis8. Provide empathetic cue to give guidance and feedback to

member9. Observe Behavior

< REPEAT 5-9 >

Phase 3 / Debrief & AdjustRequires Task Team InvolvementRequires Community Member Involvement

10. Provide group dynamic reports for individual or group analysis

11. Review results to assess impact of empathetic probes and cues

12. Adjust Probe according to results

< REPEAT 5-9 > To gather more results

< OPTIONAL > Complete Steps 5 & 6 to gather reflective responses

< OPTIONAL > Remake this process to suit your needs and REPEAT your own variation:

DIAGRAM OF PROCESS

PHASE 1 GATHER & CREATE

PHASE 3 DEBRIEF & ADJUST

PHASE 2 PROBE & CUE

ACTIVITY

GROUP DYNAMIC PROBES

GROUP MEMBERS EMPATHETIC AGENT

CHOSEN ACTIVITY

MEMBERS/PARTICIPANTSRESPOND

OPT OUT

OPT OUTCUE

ALTERED BEHAVIOR

UNALTERED BEHAVIOR

EMPATHETIC CUES

GROUP DYNAMIC PROBES

OVERVIEW

A Group Dynamic Probe Method is employed via an empathetic agent to result in an empathetic cue in order to understand group members’ obstacles to positive group participation by assessing internal and external stresses. Internal influences might include expectations, perception of comfort, trust, past experi-ences, values, and performance during group engagement. External influences might include perceived or explicit expectations from others, feedback, instruction, assignment to a particular role, and the presence particular members.

PURPOSE

This method would be employed in order to provide a comprehensive understand-ing of inter-personal factors affecting group dynamic and consequently, individual participation. The disbursement of a probe not only leads to a better understand-ing of members, but within a larger process can inform empathetic cues to provide guidance and feedback to group members. These empathetic cues, delivered by human or computer based agents, can then influence an individuals perception, role, and experience of both the group and the community.

APPLICATION

The task force of designers and social scientists should create the Group Dynamic Probe before interacting with participants. They should also choose or design the empathetic agents by which these probes will be released. Lastly, a series of corresponding cues should also be developed in tandem with the Group Dynamic Probe.

SETTING

The creation of the Group Dynamic Probe should be done within a collaborative space shared by the task team. The disbursement of the Group Dynamic Probe should take place during a group sharing activity. The probe which can be deliv-ered via a computer or human agent and followed by an empathetic cue. Probes and cues can be disbursed during breaks throughout the activity or in a quick suc-cession, which will momentarily pause group activity.

ROLES

The task force is involved in the creation and execution of the Group Dynamic Probe. Participants must be involved in the execution of the Group Dynamic Probe. However, some participants might choose to occasionally or repeatedly opt out of the probe and cue succession.

TECHNIQUE

A task force team might create a Group Dynamic Probe by following these steps:

1. Describe the sharing community and chosen group activity2. Define 4 or more typical group roles 3. Create a list of competencies which are required or helpful for the chosen

group activity4. Create or pull questions about which address internal influences5. Create or pull questions about which address external influences6. Match and Tag all the questions according to the natural partnerships

they have with the different types of group roles7. Match and Tag all the questions according to the natural partnerships

they have with the list of competencies8. Collaborate with the entire task force team to determine the strongest

indicators of inter-personal factors which might affect group dynamic by considering the descriptions of the sharing community and chosen group activity.

RESULTS

The task team must rely on multiple repetitions of disbursing probes and cues as well as observing group behavior. Empathetic agents, probes, and cues can be as-sessed by comparing the degree of change of responses over the course of the activ-ity. The task team can also compare this with their observation of group behavior, and an optional reflective probe at the completion of the activity. In some cases changes might not be noticeable over a course of one activity, but might need to continue over a course of many days. In this case the task force should work with the same group even if some group members are absent or opt out of the process.

These results should reveal that incorporating empathetic cues can decrease internal and external obstacles to group participation and positive group dynamic. It might also lead to increase communication among members, and long-term sustenance of the participant’s sharing community.

FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

It is important to note that 10 years into the future could allow for the develop-ment of a nuanced agent which syncs the probes to respond to biofeedback. This could provide the automatic prompting of the Group Dynamic Probe at the point of physiological agitation or stress. Equipped with recording functions, these biofeedback devices could also begin recording the group conversation and activity at the time of high stress. This documentation could be integrated and all biofeed-back could feed into a group display and measurement of group dynamic health. The group display and measurement could be used for research and improve-ment of designing empathetic cues. It could also operate as a boundary object for a group to talk about their individual and collective experience within different activities in order to further promote empathy and healthy group dynamic.

INSTRUMENT

The Empathetic Agent Instrument would be utilized by the task force team in order to execute or disburse the Group Dynamic Probe. As mentioned before a task force must assess the structure and affordances of the sharing community in order to choose the appropriate agent. It is important that the which agent deliver information in an objective manner. Some suggestions could be an analog pen and paper system, where participants are handed a probe or multiple choice survey by a silent facilitator. In tight knit groups, other members of the sharing commu-nity who are not participating might act as facilitators. A third suggestion which would be the development of a digital probe which could be sent via e-mail or even through text on a mobile phone. In this case probes would still be disbursed via a silent facilitator but from a distance. Depending on the nature of the probe, this could also be automated.

The empathetic agent would be comprised of the following components:

A series of questions or prompts which probe inter-personal factors which might affect group dynamic < See examples below >

1Example: Sample Questions

1. This part of group work makes me feel a) excited b) neutral c) bored d) stressed

2. I do/do not like fulfilling the role of _____________.

A form or means to deliver that message. < See examples below >

2Analog Hand Delivered Survey

Digitally Sent Survey

A form or means to receive a members response < See examples below >

3Analog Hand Submitted Survey

DigitallySubmitted Survey

* The examples above are just simple illustrations of what that form could be. The empathet-ic agent, probe, and cue can all take any form which the task team finds appropriate.

EMPATHETIC CUES

GROUP DYNAMIC PROBES

GROUP MEMBERSEMPATHETIC

AGENT

The Group Probe Method & Empathetic Agent Instrument METHOD

Kick off brainstorming session with class

Initial Ideas related to principles for designing for sharing

Initial First Draft Initial First Draft Method Diagrams

Strengths of Process or GroupI really enjoyed the development process of this phase and worked closely with one classmate, Claire Kholer, to develop this principle. I also enjoyed the fact that this idea was mentioned and posted by another classmate, Amina Patton. The idea of empathy within a sharing commu-nity seemed so compelling and interesting. I would love to continue to explore it further. My principle seems to address only a small response to this large idea of empathy between group members and empathy on the part of the sharing platform or system or empathertic rules or ethics which a community or system embody.

Limitations of PrincipleIt wasn’t until the almost final critique of my principle, process and method that I realized that my principle was slightly different than oth-ers. I realized I was addressing a more specific need within designing for sharing. As opposed to designing for a platform I was more suggest-ing a rule or a suggestion for future sharing communities. I think this scope narrowed my view which provided for an interesting result, but missed the larger picture of this project. See the text which is an excerpt from my principle below, which describes this limitation.

This principle is meant to fit into a larger design process which considers the needs of individuals in order to design for a sharing experience.

This principle, process, and method is not an approach for designing a sharing platform but rather for the sharing experience. It is meant to adress a lack in designed principles applied to direct understanding, manipulation, and creation of empathetic tools which influence the individual and group experience of a sharing community.

Application and research of this principle, process, and method could lend to the development of characteristics which could contribute to an approach to design a sharing platform as well as addressing the designed experince of sharing.

Information for Future EndeavorsThis phase was empowering and acted as a perfect culmination of the end of a collaborative semester. I think it expresses what our professor Amber told us at the beginning of the semester, that we could create the companies and organizations which will define a new, interesting, and emerging field within design. I am not sure if that is exactly what she said, but whatever she said was a provocation for us to imagine what could by looking hard at what is, and working towards what we think should be. Creating a principle, process, and method was a little hairy because the door was wide open to anything we wanted. However, now that I have taken my first stab at it, it is exciting to think about continuing to develop a series of principles, processes, and methods throughout my practice. Maybe they won’t all be great now. But they could advance with practice. I think the exercise itself, as well as the externalization and reflection we have done all semester, has contributed to my ability to be articulate and critical about what design is and what design has to offer. I am very grateful for that education and opportu-nity.

Overall ReflectionAs I mentioned in the reflection above. I want to continue engaging in this kind of development of principle, process, and methods. I also enjoyed diving into my classmates methods. I enjoyed Claire Kholer’s method for designing for transparency, and Andrew Whitcomb’s devel-opment of mass co-creative design process. I expect to see one of these methods in action one day!