Newmedia2

Introduc)on to New Media Lecture 2

Communica)on and social interac)on with computers

“All real living is mee.ng” (Buber, 1958)

Topics

•  What is communica)on and the discourse. Social interac)on.

•  Ac)vity theory and mediators

•  Interac)on modes and models. Human‐machine interac)on.

•  Networking and communi)es. Connec)vism.

•  Communi)es of prac)ce. Iden)ty. Situated cogni)on. Socially constructed knowledge.

Ques)ons to answer in the end

•  How does a community serve as a “cultural interface” to mediate communica)on with computers?

•  Think of the terms related with social interac)on with new media. Draw a concept map of social interac)on.

Media, message, meaning

•  In communica)on, media (singular medium) are the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver informa)on or data.

•  A message is an object of communica)on. It is a vessel which provides informa)on.

•  Meaning is a rela)onship between two sorts of things: signs that represent informa)on and the kinds of things they mean (intend, express or signify) for the communicators.

The defini)ons of these concepts are a maRer of discussion in many studies, see semio)cs and communica)on studies

A Communica)on Model •  Mechanis)c: transfer of messages from sender to receiver

•  Shannon's (1948) A Mathema)cal Theory of Communica)on

Schema)c diagram of a general communica)on system

This model does not consider: a) how the media changes the message, b) how the communicators interpret the meaning of the informa)on

A Communica)on Model •  Feedback plays an important role in interpre)ng the meanings

and con)nuing the communica)ve acts

A Communica)on Model •  Psychological: transfer of messages and feelings from sender

and their interpreta)on by the receiver

•  Context of communica)on, the cultural background of the communicators influences how the meaning is interpreted

Transporta)on as communica)on

•  The term "communica)on" has had an extensive use in connec)on with roads and bridges, sea routes, rivers, and canals, even before it became transformed into "informa)on movement" in the electric age.

•  Each form of transport not only carries, but translates and transforms, the sender, the receiver, and the message.

McLuhan: Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man (1964)

Media as translators

•  Transla)on is a 'spelling‐out" of forms of knowing.

•  All media are ac)ve metaphors in their power to translate experience into new forms. –  The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way. Words are complex systems of metaphors and symbols that translate experience into our uNered or outered senses. They are a technology of explicitness. By means of transla.on of immediate sense experience into vocal symbols the en.re world can be evoked and retrieved at any instant.


Media as translators

•  We can translate more and more of ourselves into other forms of expression that exceed ourselves.

•  With the new media, however, it is possible to store and to translate everything; and, as for speed, that is no problem.

•  All media as extensions of ourselves serve to provide new transforming vision and awareness.

•  Having extended or translated our central nervous system into the electromagne)c technology, it is but a further stage to transfer our consciousness to the computer world as well.


Money is a media for transla)ng •  Even today money is a language for transla)ng the work of the

farmer into the work of the barber, doctor, engineer, or plumber. As a vast social metaphor, bridge, or translator, money ‐‐ like wri)ng ‐‐speeds up exchange and )ghtens the bonds of interdependence in any community.

•  In the electric age the "job of work ' yields to dedica)on and commitment, as in the tribe. Today informa)on gathering resumes the inclusive concept of "culture," exactly as the primi)ve food‐gatherer worked in complete equilibrium with his en)re environment. Our quarry now, in this new nomadic and "work‐less world, is knowledge and insight into the crea)ve processes of life and society.

•  Money begins to be less and less a means of storing or exchanging work and skill. As work is replaced by the sheer movement of informa)on, money as a store of work merges with the informa)onal forms.


Clocks are media that transform tasks and create new work

•  Now that we live electrically in an instantaneous world, space and )me interpenetrate each other totally in a space‐)me world.

•  Clocks are mechanical media that transform tasks and create new work and wealth by accelera)ng the pace of human associa)on. By coordina)ng and accelera)ng human mee)ngs and goings‐on, clocks increase the sheer quan)ty of human exchange.


How we understand what is the meaning of the messages?

•  Each message is expressed using certain media types and its specific sign systems.

•  The sign is the whole that results from the associa.on of the signifier with the signified (Saussure, 1983)

Icons are signs that physically resemble what they stands for.

Words are symbols that signify something what they stand for.

Signifiers Signified object

Semiosis as the meaning genera)on process

How media influences the meanings

•  The simplified way of interpre)ng semio)c processes is by claiming that there is a complete mutual translability between signs from different media systems and all the informa)on can be transformed from one system to another without any loss.

•  For example: How is the message of music transferrable to the the film or text format?

•  Will mixing different media change the message itself?

Dialogue act theory

•  Luhmann (1992) dis)nguishes three concepts related to communica)on: –  informa)on (something that is in the head of the actor),

–  uEerance (something what the actor spells out/writes) and

–  understanding the difference between informa)on and uRerance (how the other actor interprets the informa)on in uRerance). The laRer is dependent on the other actor’s state of mind i.e. their inten)ons.

•  Thus, effec)ve communica)on depends on mutual understanding and grounding of each other’s inten)ons during par)cipatory acts.

Same as message?

Same as meaning?

Same as meaning?

Dialogue act theory

•  The uRerances of communicators are delivered as ‘dialogue acts’ during communica)on (Traum, 2000).

•  Clark and Schaefer (1989) dis)nguish two types of individual acts: ‘autonomous acts’ are those that an agent performs on his or her own and ‘par)cipatory acts’ are performed as parts of collec)ve acts.

Clark & Schaefer, 1989; Traum & Allen, 1994; Traum 2000

Dialogue act theory

•  Most of par)cipatory acts begin with an ac)on by A, the contributor. The process of contribu)on divides conceptually into two phases:

•  i) ‘presenta)on phase’ when A presents uRerance for B to consider and,

•  ii) ‘acceptance phase’ when B accepts uRerance by giving evidence that he believes or understands what A means.

Clark & Schaefer, 1989; Traum & Allen, 1994; Traum 2000

Communica)on as scaffolding the discourse

•  The whole communica)on can be viewed as the mutual and partly unconscious ‘scaffolding’, which invites communicators to follow the implicit ground rules and develop and test their own construc)ons of meaning with others.

Rasmussen (2001) and Fernandez et al. (2001)

Discourse rules

•  Traum and Allen (1994), and Traum (2000) have proposed the communica)on model that is based on obliga)ons and goals.

Pata et al., 2005

People create intersubjec)vity with grounding acts

•  Vygotski (1930/1971, 1978)

student

teacher

student

student

teacher intersubjec)vity intersubjec)vity

Symbolic interac)onism George Herbert Meade

•  Social construc)vist (symbolic interac)onist): interactants sharing and crea)ng meanings

•  Meanings are derived from social interac)on and modified through interpreta)on

•  All objects hold a representa)ve or symbolic value. •  There is a difference between the social symbol and the individual symbol. The social symbol is shared while the individual meaning is achieved through private thoughts and gestures of other humans.

•  Robert T. Craig: communica)on is an ongoing process that symbolically forms and re‐forms our personal iden))es.”

Intersubjec)vity in cultural media)on

intersubjec)vity

Vygotski (1930/1971, 1978)

Individual interprets the meaning

Culture creates the shared symbol

Socially determined intersubjec)vity Richard Alterman, 2005

External object (a kind of a door knob)

Socially determined knowledge (to open the door there should be the door knob)

“Grounding” (my knowledge of door knobs and how i can open this par)cular door using this knob)

Intersubjec)vity

Shared intersubjec)vity for interac)on Richard Alterman, 2005

Intersubjec)vity

The socially accepted symbol will determine the range (borders of) of shared intersubjec)vity. People act relying on intersubjec)ve signs in the culture – on social symbols.

A Communica)on Model •  A Ecological Model of the Communica)on Process (Foulger, 2004)

•  People invent and evolve languages and media

hRp://davis.foulger.info/papers/ecologicalModelOfCommunica)on.htm

Ac)vity theory and media)on Media)on is central in common explana)ons of communica)on and ac)vity models.

Media)on—all human experience is shaped by the tools and sign systems we use (Vygotsky, 1978; Leontjev, 1975/78; Kuu), 1995).

s)mulus response

mediated act

(A) Vygotsky’s model of mediated act and (B) its common reformula)on.

hRp://pagi.wikidot.com/engestrom‐expansive‐learning

Ac)vity system – components that mediate human ac)ons

The structure of a human ac)vity system (Engeström, 1987, p. 78) visualizes what are important components in media)ng mo)vated ac)on and meaning‐making

hRp://pagi.wikidot.com/engestrom‐expansive‐learning

The object of ac)vity is intersubjec)ve, nego)able and moving target, it is not reducible to conscious short‐term goals.

Computers support the forma)on of intersubjec)vity

Computer as a mediator: connects distributed people, ar)facts, tools, ac)ons in )me and space

Interac)on with the computer: enhancing, scaffolding, augmen)ng people

How does computer interface play ac)ve role in media)on? How does cultural interface play ac)ve role in media)on?

Computer as a mediator: communica)on mode in )me and space

Is computer interface ac)ve or passive mediator?

Computer a as mediator: parallel, embedded or linked messages

Figure 3. Linked CMC

Ar)fact Discourse about the ar)fact

Suthers (2001). Collabora)ve Representa)ons: Suppor)ng Face to Face and Online Knowledge building Discourse

Working in wiki or other collabora)ve authoring tools

Personal learning environment a as mediator: distributed ac)ons with

distributed tools

Human‐machine interac)on

•  A machine may have various (and mutually exclusive) ways of behaving.

•  Each behavior is defined by the machine’s input, output, and states, as a func)on of )me.

•  And for each behavior, or mode, various types of inputs (e.g., constraints or target‐values) may be imposed either by the operator or by the machine.

Human‐machine interac)on Thinking of how humans interpret messages in communica)on, what might the constraining factors in human‐machine interac)on be?

“cultural interface”

•  “While opera)ons [like selec)on] are embedded in soTware, they are not )ed to it. They are employed no only within the computer but also in the social world outside it. They are not only ways of working within the computer but also in the social world outside it. They are… general ways of working, ways of thinking, ways of exis)ng the computer age.”

Manovich, 2001: The language of new media

Cultural interface Can culture, communi)es, cultural artefacts or in general cultural interface be used as a general “model” to model “the human” for the machine?

Intelligent tutoring systems

computer must par)cipate in a non‐obtrusive manner

Intelligent tutoring systems

As 'external mediators' the machine and the community must have some situa)onal awareness or understand the conversa)onal context such that it intelligently enhances and assists the overall interac)on.

Media coordina)ons in technological environments

•  People take up each other's contribu)ons or traces: they reuse someone's phrasing, re‐express their ideas, begin to aRend to an issue because someone else raised that issue, react emo)onally to a statement, etc.

•  Ac)ons taken by par)cipants in the technological environment are “media coordina)ons” because these ac)ons are the means through which par)cipants coordinate between personal and public realms (Hutchins, 1995).

Read: Tracing Interac)on in Distributed Collabora)ve Learning (2008) by Daniel Suthers and Richard Medina

the sensory‐motor interac)ons between humans and machines

Human and machine can interact with each other via their sensory and motor channels.

the sensory‐motor interac)ons between humans and machines

•  Human sensors (receptors) record the physical state of the human body and the surrounding environment.

•  Sensory informa)on is perceived by the human central nervous system.

•  Human cogni)on is required to interpret the perceived informa)on and generate a motor reac)on.

•  Similarly, in machines technical sensors detect the state of the machine and its environment.

•  Sensor data is processed in order to drive actuators and displays.

Hype Cycle for Human Computer Interac)on

Cris Crawford: Star Wars considered as a social network

Types of networks

•  Two views of mapping networked communi)es prevail: networks of people and networks of content.

•  The former is a mainstream person‐based view to the community, the laRer suggests that contribu)ons in blog act as separate ar)facts that convey meanings, enable meaning translability and interpreta)on and generate similarity‐based connec)ons between ar)facts.

SNA e. Social Networking Analysis

object‐centered sociality

•  Jyri Engeström (2005) wrote: we can use the object‐centered sociality theory to iden)fy new objects that are poten)ally suitable for social networking services.

•  hRp://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/why‐some‐social‐network‐services‐work‐and‐others‐dont‐or‐the‐case‐for‐object‐centered‐sociality.html

Artefact‐Actor‐Networks

•  Artefact‐Actor‐Networks connects social networks and artefact networks in order to make claims on the seman)cal connec)ons between persons and manifold artefacts.

•  “Artefact‐Actor‐Networks as )e between social networks and artefact networks” by Wolfgang Reinhardt, MaRhias Moi, Tobias Varlemann

•  hRp://artefact‐actor‐networks.net/2009/09/what‐are‐artefact‐actor‐networks/

Artefact‐Actor‐Networks

hRp://artefact‐actor‐networks.net/2009/09/what‐are‐artefact‐actor‐networks/

Knotworking – a succession of ac)vity system configura)ons

•  Engeström, Engeström and Vähäaho (1999) write that subjects in work communi.es are involved in workflows that consist of combina)ons of people, tasks and tools that get connected for rela)vely short periods of )me. These workflows are con.nuously repeated and evolving.

•  These temporal trajectories of successive task‐oriented combina)ons of people and artefacts are knotworking situa)ons in ac)vity systems.

Knotworking – a succession of ac)vity system configura)ons

•  The no)on of knot refers to a rapidly pulsa)ng, distributed and par)ally improvised orchestra)on of collabora)ve performance between otherwise loosely connected actors and ac)vity systems.

•  Knotworking situa)ons rely on the fast accomplishment of intersubjec.ve understanding, distributed control and coordinated ac)on between actors.

•  In knots the subjects get connected and perform ac)ons upon certain shared objects using or crea)ng artefacts.

a rhizomic knowledge (Deleuze & GuaRari, 2002, p. 7‐9)

•  For Deleuze and GuaRari, a rhizomic knowledge was the opposite of the arborescent or tree‐like knowledge with its hierarchical systems of understandings and where everybody and everything had its place in an economy of power and totalising theory.

•  ‘rhizome ceaselessly establishes connec)ons between semio)c chains…a rhizome or mul)plicity never allows itself to be overcoded…a rhizome may be broken, shaRered at a given spot, but it will start up again on one of its old lines, or on new lines’.

•  The rhizome is an accentered, nonhierarchical, nonsignifying system without a General and without an organizing memory or central automa)on, defined solely by a circula)on of states.

Rhizomic or taproot?

•  There is some antagonism between he community of prac.ce ideas which seem to be following the taproot kind of central area ideas and the totally center‐free rhizomic model.

•  The taproot communi)es are formed around people while the rhizomic communi)es are ar)fact and meanings centered.

•  If we want to create a knowledge‐building community, it seems the rhizomic model, which centres ideas is more valid than the person‐based taproot‐model.

Connec)vism

•  G. Siemens “Knowing Knowledge” (2006) •  He suggested Connec)vism as the learning theory for new

Digital Age. •  Siemens formulated that Connec)vism is the asser)on that

learning is primarily a network‐forming process (Siemens, 2006, p. 15).

•  He relies on the ideas of Downes (2005) who wrote that: A property of one en.ty must lead to or become a property of another en.ty in order for them to be considered connected; the knowledge that results from such connec.ons is connec.ve knowledge. The act of learning is one of crea.ng an external network of nodes – where we connect and form informa.on and knowledge sources (Siemens, 2006, p. 29).

Connec)vism

•  Connec)vism focuses on the knowledge, situated externally from people in the web.

•  Siemens (2005; 2006) assumes that crea)ng meanings and rela)ons publicly in social soxware environments would aid through connec)ve processes the forma)on of new knowledge ecologies and learning cultures.

•  Siemens writes: The pipe is more important than the content in the pipe. ‘Know where’ and ‘know who’ are more important today that ‘knowing what’ and ‘how’ (Siemens, 2006, p. 32).

From networks to communi)es

Virtual communi)es

•  Virtual communi)es are oxen bound by reference to common objects or goals, and not by personal rela)ons.

•  It is generally a mistake to equate virtual communi)es with tradi)onal communi)es, because computer‐mediated groups actually show novel characteris)cs and tend toward looser, more impersonal forms of interac)on.

•  Many virtual communi)es do not require any group awareness to func)on correctly and do not usually lead to personal rela)onships.

•  Daniel Memmi, The nature of virtual communi)es AI and Soc (2006) 20: 288–300

Does it s)ll apply?

Community iden)ty

•  Flexible group membership – A typical modern behavior has emerged, where group membership is constantly re‐evaluated and renego)ated.

– The modern individual belongs to several groups (professional, cultural, poli)cal…) at the same )me but doesn’t iden)fy too closely with any of them.

•  Daniel Memmi, The nature of virtual communi)es AI and Soc (2006) 20: 288–300

hRp://lithosphere.lithium.com/t5/Building‐Community‐the‐Playorm/Community‐vs‐Social‐Network/ba‐p/5283

Features of virtual communi)es Characteris)c features of computer‐mediated communi)es

(Gensollen 2004):

–  par)cipa)on is oxen occasional, or a one‐off occurrence, –  par)cipants are frequently anonymous or use pseudonyms,

–  groups may be quite large, with hundreds or thousands of par)cipants,

–  there are ac)ve par)cipants, but also many passive readers,

–  group membership is oxen temporary,

–  there seems to be liRle group awareness, –  group structure is highly flexible.

Where is it relevant? Does it s)ll apply?

Features of virtual communi)es –  contribu)ons to the discussion are oxen addressed to no one in par)cular,

–  many contribu)ons are apparently ignored, –  there are few personal rela)onships, and they are unstable,

–  the discussion style is usually cold and unemo)onal, (except for some aggressiveness which serves social control purposes),

–  interac)ons are not between persons, but revolve about a common object, goal or task,

–  interac)ons contribute to the construc)on of a common workspace,

–  contribu)ons are mostly goal‐oriented. Does it s)ll apply?

•  Communi)es of prac)ce are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it beRer as they interact regularly.

Community of prac)ce

identity

structure

negotiability identification

communities economies of meaning

Forms of membership Ownership of meaning

Mode of belonging

engagement

imagination

alignment

Identities of participation

Identities of non-participation

Identities of participation

Identities of non-participation

Close circle of friends doing

everything together

Experience of boundaries through

a faux-pas

Having one’s ideas adopted

Marginality through having one’s ideas

ignored

Affinity felt by the readers of the

newspaper

Prejudice through stereotypes

Vicarious experience

through stories

Assumption that someone else understands what is

going on

Allegiance to a social movement

Submission to violance

Persuasion through directed experience

Literal compiliance as in tax returns

Wenger, 1998. Social ideology of iden)ty

Community types

•  Blog based community shows up in three main paRerns with a wide variety of hybrid forms emerging between the three: – The Single Blog/Blogger Centric Community,

–  the Central Connec)ng Topic Community and –  the Boundaried Community.

•  Blogs and Community – launching a new paradigm for online community? By Nancy White hRp://www.fullcirc.com/weblog/2006/12/blogs‐and‐community‐launching‐new.htm

The Single Blog/Blogger Centric Community

•  owned by one owner or organisa)on with strong iden)ty

•  liRle opportunity for members to change, add to or adapt the environment e.g. some forms of ‘backchannel’

Central Connec)ng Topic Centric blog community

•  is a network forma)on •  users are less interested in posi)oning themselves, as they are in the topic they write about

•  beyond the visible membership of linked blogs is the wider and mostly invisible network of readers.

Boundaried community

•  Are hosted on a single site or playorm

•  Elgg •  Moodle •  Power in boundaried communi)es is held in part by the ‘owner’ of the playorm who can impose rules on the community

Spa)ally determined community Loca)on‐based tools allow new types of spa)al communi)es to emerge based on mutual awareness

Awareness

Chris Crawford: Pacman considered as a social network

Awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's percep)on and cogni)ve reac)on to a condi)on or event or paRern, it does not imply understanding: ‐  self‐awareness ‐  awareness of others and the surrounding situa)on

Mutual awareness may trigger interac)on

Think when you become more aware of other people in your virtual community?

Swarming is a self‐organized way of interac)on

•  Describes self‐organizing behavior in popula)ons by which local interac)ons between decentralized simple agents can create complex global swarming behavior.

•  Every agent is only responsible for its individual ac)ons.

•  Swarm intelligence refers to systems which accomplish complex global tasks through the simple local interac)ons of autonomous agents.

•  Swarm intelligence relies upon the emergent proper)es of its components to manifest itself. Emergence is the process by which complex paRerns form out of the interac)on of simpler rules.

Same inten)ons

Mutual awareness

Dissipa)ng signals

ARractors are lex on the trail

•  Foraging is a behavior of loca)ng food and transpor)ng it back to the nest.

•  The ants are individuals responding to their own sensory informa)on and pheromone signals.

•  Pheromones are chemical basis for ant communica)on deposited/detected by ants.

Deposit aEractant pheromone on the trail from food. Follow the pheromone up its concentra)on gradient to the source. Increase pheromone concentra)on to aRract more. This posi)ve feedback loop produces a swarm of ants to quickly transport the food source.

Individuals become trail markers •  For a low density of individuals it is beneficial to use linear chains to form a path for search.

•  With high density of individuals, a more branched structure is a beRer choice for search.

Campo & Dorigo, 2008

Accumula)ng signals

ARractor is connected with building blocks In the first, a termite picks up a soil pellet, mas)cates it into a paste and injects a termite‐ aRrac)ng pheromone into it. When the pellet is deposited, the pheromone s)mulates nearby termites to pellet‐gathering behavior and makes them more likely to deposit their pellets nearby. Second, small obstacles in the terrain s)mulate pellet deposits and can seed pillars. Finally, a trail pheromone allows more workers to be drawn to a construc)on site. Building the termite nest is a swarming behavior

Swarm‐individual viability

•  In social swarms individuals rely on the swarm behaviour.

•  Swarm level ac)vi)es create condi)ons for viability.

Social soxware

mashing

pulling

social retrieval

Par)cipatory surveillance •  When many ac)ons are

aggregated, paEerns become visible.

•  Individuals’ ac)ons may be used to assemble a detailed profile revealing the ac)ons, habits, beliefs, loca)ons frequented, social connec)ons, and preferences of the individual.

•  Par)cipa)ng in social networks resides on social surveillance.

•  Swarm members can use it as environmental informa)on to adopt them beEer to the environment and to ini)ate swarm ac)ons.

Ques)ons to answer in the end

•  How does a community serve as a “cultural interface” to mediate communica)on with computers?

•  Think of the terms related with social interac)on with new media. Draw a concept map of social interac)on.

Education

Newmedia2