Plan, Action, Collaboration: Reflecting on an Interdisciplinary Collaborative Process
Kristin Carlson, Greg Corness and Thecla Schiphorst, School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University, Surrey, Canada
Abstract: We explore an interdisciplinary collaborative process through the lenses of Situated Actions and Distributed Cognition. These frameworks are adapted from the field of Human Computer Interaction to illuminate components of the decision making process. We approach this study through Participatory Autoethnographic methods by recounting a recent collaboration on an interactive dance performance project. We reflect on actions taken in order to explore how the distribution of cognition and modes of communication affect the authority guiding the project. We present collaboration as actions take from knowledge situated in the communal content developed by the team. By exploring this process in a performance-as-research context, signifiers emerge that help us to understand the role of authority in the decision making process.
Introduction
Interdisciplinary collaborations fuel new ideas by combining different types of expert knowledge towards a shared solution. These combinations of knowledge contribute multiple backgrounds, skill sets and goals, which in turn requires fervent sharing of viewpoints and clear communication. Conceptual goals are given authority as the driving force behind viewpoints, which aid in communicating shared understanding. During collaboration, the development of shared interdisciplinary knowledge rapidly becomes complex. Numerous layers of knowledge are created, become embodied and absorbed into the overall work flow. This rapid absorption contributes to difficulties with identifying, analyzing and articulating complex creative processes within interdisciplinary design. To provide a different perspective to understanding these layers, we turn to the field of Human Computer Interaction.
Computational modeling has become increasingly important for representing and better understanding human cognitive processes from new perspectives. HCI has identified frameworks that define and describe interactions between technical systems and humans.
Two such frameworks, Distributed Cognition (Hollan, 2000) and Plans and Situated Actions (Suchman, 1987), can be applied to Performing Arts to identify and understand the authorities, communications, development of decisions and actions made in collaborative artistic process. These frameworks have parallel approaches to performance practice in improvisation, devising and cross-disciplinary influences, yet provide a fresh focus through technical analysis of the interactions between people and computers. Artistic design decisions can use this focus to examine the collective formulation of plans and execution of actions towards creative goals. We apply these two research frameworks from HCI to an interdisciplinary performance research project in order to reflect and analyze design decisions made through collaborative process.
Our performance research project is an interactive contemporary dance performance entitled Typographic Entanglement. It explored the development of character personified through animated Typography that was used in a process of collaborative storytelling. In this project, the development of character through typography became an overarching authority behind design decisions. These decisions directed the project towards a narrative structure in order to support the portrayal of Type as an independent performer. Towards the end of the process the team had refined and developed a mode of communication based in shared experience and embodied action. By reflecting on the process in which this mode of communication developed, the role of actions, decisions and authority becomes apparent in a performance-as-research project. We found that the intersubjective nature of an embodied mode of communication, such as body storming or structured improvisation, seemed to provide a constant reassessment of shared understanding in intuitive form. However, in verbal modes of communication the descriptions or even demonstrations of individual ideas could easily be misunderstood or misinterpreted. Yet when the team improvised together, the group tended to be focused on the same aspects of the idea being expressed which developed more effective contextualization and hence communication.
The Project
Typographic Entanglement was initiated as a research project by a graphic design-based researcher who was interested in the possibility of developing Typography as a character in a live interactive dance performance. The project was part of long term research goal exploring how the perception of animated text could include qualities of emotion and character. This portion of the project aimed to create an artistic work at the end of an eight month period. The project was to be carried out by developing interaction between projected words and two dancers, to focus the exploration on movement as the source of meaning (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Final Performance of Typographic Entanglement
The project required the realization of a broad set of skills including animated graphics, human-computer interaction and live performance. The team was comprised of four individuals taken on primarily for their skills as a Visual Media Artist, a Computer Music Composer/Interaction Designer, a Choreographer and a Dancer. The Visual Media Artist worked with a Physical Model to design the visual appearance and movement of the Type. The Composer used his expertise in Computer Vision to develop a system that could track the performers, working alongside the Visual Media Artist to create interactive Type. The Choreographer explored how interaction with Type could support an abstract performance with the aid of the Dancer. However all team members had experience with multiple roles (and some in all roles), creating a strong overlap that was assumed to provide intersubjective perspectives.
The research vision provided the interdisciplinary team with a start point for exploring potential plans towards executing actions. However, discussions around the vision were ephemeral, which left the concrete definition of the context to the individual. This created five individual perspectives of the context, generating inconsistencies when sharing information and ideas. As the project progressed ideas and plans were developed, actions were executed and iterations were made towards developing a shared understanding of the context for the production. In this paper we are interested in how the shifts occurred from the individually based knowledge that characterized the group at the beginning of the project to a solid, shared group knowledge at the end.
Outcomes of the project included one in-progress performance at month four, and a finished work was created and publicly presented in month eight. The completed work took the form of a 20-minute dance theatre piece. It was performed on a shallow stage with the animated Type projected on a scrim (see-through theatrical fabric) hung downstage (closest to the audience). The dancers performed upstage of the scrim, lit with footlights that allowed them to look at the text with their faces still visible to the audience. A camera located behind the audience was used to track the motion of the dancers in order to interact with the projected text. The structure for the performance was developed in collaboration by the team, and followed a simple journey narrative of exploration, curiosity and discovery undertaken by both the live performers and the text. Towards the end of the process guest theatre practitioners were asked to observe and comment on the narrative. Each was able to provide an account of the intention behind the performed actions, though the specific understandings were left to their own interpretation. We view these understandings of intention to mean that the work successfully communicated the driving authority developed at the beginning of the project.
Character
The term character was introduced by the primary investigator early in the project, although agreement on the meaning of the term came much later. For several members of the team, the term character held implications of narrative, story-telling and theatre. These implications carried the assumption of a script, acting, extensive sets, costumes and lighting designs and an event-driven, often linear narrative. The theatrical reference of character is less apparent in contemporary dance, though is used in abstract form (Banes 1987). Contemporary dance emerged by revolting against dream-like pantomime ballets to bring dance to the common public through concrete explorations of the physical body in space (Foulkes 2002). So aside from performer acting or emoting, character could simply refer to movement qualities without reference to an individual’s personality traits or emotions. The varied background of the team made both theatrical and abstract understandings of character influential in developing the final piece, though not always in a consistent direction. Character definitions shifted and developed through the team’s explorations in agency (the text’s ability to mimic, develop, or affect a dancer’s motion), movement quality (the text’s ability to follow, avoid, move fast, slow) and construction of narrative (the perception of motivation and intention in the text) to create the final work out of collaborative communication and process.
Frameworks
To provide points of departure for the reflection of collaborative process, we look to the field of Human Computer Interaction for support. Exploring interaction through the Distribution of Cognition between collaborators and tools illustrates the complex skills brought together to create a cohesive work (Hollan 2000, Gill 2007). The term Distributed Cognition explores the backgrounds, skills, personal goals, understanding of current goals and location of attention that affect how decisions are made between people and systems. Social intelligence can include person-to-person cognition as well as person to object, tool or environment. Intelligence can be distributed by placing memories, facts or knowledge on the objects and individuals in the collaboration to facilitate the prioritizing of actions. For example, an airline captain relies on first and second officers to fly a plane along with the flight controls, gauges and the radio to the control towers. Though there is a hierarchy to the system, this distribution of cognition ensures a safe flight (Engestrom 1998). The components work together, to create a social intelligence that can respond to most situations in an efficient nature. An artistic collaboration automatically depends on the distribution of cognition to enable a successful process. From this perspective we incorporate Type itself as the technical system and another collaborator in the work. During the process the team was both creating and feeding off of the Type. Occasionally, programmers designed certain qualities into the Type then found later the dancer’s engagement with of the Type’s was focused on components not intentionally designed. In this way the Type was not always a simple manifestation of the programmer's work but acted as a separate entity adding to the collaboration (See Figure 2).
Figure 2. Diagram of Interaction Between Collaborators
Improvised decisions based in the current contextual situation and previous knowledge of the collaborator are referred to as Situated Actions and do not necessarily follow a path defined by Plans (Suchman 1987, Nardi 1995). Although plans require goals towards which one executes actions, obstacles and new directions arise to constantly adjust the current work process. These environments often require responsive thinking and quick actions in order to continually progress, which often results in unprecedented decisions. Situated actions are defined as improvisatory actions that emphasize that human action is constantly constructed and reconstructed from dynamic interactions with the environment, tools and other individuals. Gaining knowledge through experience helps to design actions intelligently towards the execution of a plan. Experience includes the current environment and circumstances as well as one’s background, skills and resources. One’s experience helps to create intelligent plans by refining communication with others and prioritizing between actions. Improvising on a concept or action is a common method for developing material and collaborative communication in theater and dance. Where Plans refer to the loose goals or structures that are designed, the improvised responses of performers is similar to the term Situated Action, or actions taken in response to a developing situation. Every action made by the collaborative team was situated in the context, experiences of the member and the goals of the group. The final production reflected the decisions, actions and priorities that were constructed by the group. These priorities in turn reflect different authorities that arose during the work and directed particular actions.
As an ideal, the plans and situarted actions framework views the common comprehension of research goals between team members (the plan) as an authority behind the chosen decisions. Since the affordances and limitations of contextual situations developed results that differed from what was initially envisioned, common understandings become extremely important. They do require a variety of communication skills (referred to by Suchman as common language) to ensure that the shared understanding of the goals or plan drives the actions taken. We found that Team members often believed they held the same understandings of authority and were communicating well. However, perceived understandings were often based on a foundation of personal experience and personal interests that directed an individual interpretation of the context. These perceived (but yet unspoken) views infused team communication and though understandings were believed to be the same, they were later found to often be substantially different from one team member to another. Our analysis identifies processes that can be added to interdisciplinary collaboration that could support stronger and more legible forms of communication.
Viewing language as a form of action is necessary when executing a plan. We communicate through an intersubjective understanding of language, an understanding based on common yet subjective experiences (Johnson 1987). The transference of meaning is successful when we can accurately contextualize each other’s intentions. The listener’s goals are altered depending on the speaker’s intention in order to maintain a conversation that achieves a goal. By including other collaborators’ views, one can relate to and communicate with those people, forming an intersubjective understanding. In practice the team found that having the same understandings of intention was very difficult to accomplish, resulting in misunderstandings and less than optimal intersubjective understandings for portions of the complex collaborative process.
Within any collaborative process, cognition is not distributed equally among all individuals. Priorities in goals, plans and actions need to be designed while authority must be agreed upon to guide decisions. Intersubjective understandings of language and terminology must transcend all areas of expertise. In this reflection we illustrate the collaborative process of Typographic Entanglement through the frameworks of Distributed Cognition (Hollan 2000) and Situated Actions (Suchman 1987), exploring how beliefs of authority developed and changed based on the communications between the team.
Reflection
Participatory Autoethnographic methods are used to collect data from this project through notes, videos, program logs, discussions, interviews and individual journals. To facilitate our reflection of the collaboration we have broken the process into four stages, marked by significant milestones in the project that are recognized by all the members of the team (See Table 1). Stage 1, “developing foundations” is defined as the first 90 days of the project. This stage encompasses the team member’s initial assessments and actions. Stage 2, “Initial Sketch” focuses on the further exploration and development of material and the initial actions during the following two months of work leading up to an in-progress showing. Stage 3, “Reassessment” refers to the next month when the team was engaged in reassessing the previous work while developing different approaches to all aspects of the project individually. Stage 4, “embodied structuring” continued explorations of new ideas while beginning to solidly bring all components together, culminating to the massaging of all components into the final work.
| Developing Foundations | Initial Sketch | Reassessment | Embodied Structuring | ||||||||||||
| Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | ||||||||
Table 1. Timeline of Typographic Entanglement Project
We have structured the discussion into stages to highlight a selection of actions taken within the team that are situated in the contextual conditions. In the following discussion we outline the shifting situations at each stage of the project. We then trace the decisions made throughout the team by looking at how cognition was currently distributed, what methods of communication were being utilized and the current authority behind the decisions. For this purpose we has constructed a model of the collaborative process (see Figure 3). We have illustrated how the actions taken by a group are dependent on the distributed cognition of the group. The distribution of cognition with in the group is in turn dependent on the common language thereby reflecting the perceived authority in the group. We have used this understanding of a collaborative process to guide our discussion.
Figure 3. Steps of Decision-Making Process
Stage 1: Developing Foundation
Documentation of the principal investigator’s previous research in Typographic meaning was presented to the team to supply contextual information about the current research question. As the previous work had explored character in typography through size, color and font, the current project aimed to continue this investigation through motion, without utilizing color or font. The newly formed team, explored contemporary dance as a medium, and believed focusing the research on qualities of motion could support the perception of character in a more abstract and improvisatory production. The project set up the overarching goal or authority of expressing character through animated text. However, the situation at the beginning of the project had a more immediate authority: to initiate action. The ideal actions would produce an ‘interactive’ performance for exploring the perception of character in Typography. Through verbal discussions, the group assumed they had a collective understanding of the context even though definitions of interaction and character were not explicitly identified. This situation meant decisions behind all initial actions were theoretically based within individual’s previous experiences, skills, goals and understanding of the current authority.
As an example, one action taken by the team was to design a loose storyline. Citing the knowledge of personal experience, the team agreed that a narrative would provide a structure to base future decisions on and provide additional context from which to communicate. The principal investigator had used storyline in the form of a theatrical production to explore the research question in a previous project. The team felt it was reasonable to start the project from a similar point then progress by focusing on motion as the means of expressing meaning. Each member brought in samples of their own work and pieces they felt would help communicate their ideas around character and interaction by providing visual context. Although the sample work brought in by the team helped provide a visual context to the developed narrative, much of the process for designing the storyline came from verbal discussions about story progression and character development. Individuals tended to brainstorm on their own and later presented verbally to the team for discussion. In this way the authority behind decisions was entrusted to individual’s concepts of character development and interaction, guided by the story line. As was mentioned earlier, the definitions of character and interaction were not yet agreed upon and the discrepancies in individual understandings not yet made apparent. Eventually, through member’s individual development of ideas, it became apparent that significantly different understandings of these terms had evolved through their personal experiences. This often meant that the verbal based conversations in the first two stages of the project had to be revisited many time to accommodate unexpected directions taken by individual members.
A similar structure for the process of making decisions is evident in the initial actions taken by the choreographer to develop movement. These actions focused on the exploration of movement material based on the content laid out within the loose storyline. Exploration took the form of improvising motion based in the choreographer’s personal movement interests; desire to explore physical theater techniques and previous experience with programming and interactive systems. Movement material was explored physically and later presented to the group in verbal reports. The verbal descriptions were periodically supplemented by demonstrations but out of context these held little meaning. At one level we see the authority in these actions being given to the expertise of the choreographer. But it is also interesting to note that the choreographer’s decisions were based on giving authority to their current understanding of the goals of the project, the perception of character in the text. Without the motions of the text to work off of, the exploration at this time was simply the development of interesting movement that was loose enough to build in interaction and be abstractly built into the constructed narrative. The communal hope was that character would arise from the interaction in the narrative.
On the technical side we see a different set of issues causing a new pattern in the decision process. The programmers took action to develop a system that displayed Type with interactive behavior, deciding to use a combination of computer vision and physical modeling techniques. This decision was founded in the programmer’s individual skills and experience. It also divided the design task into two tasks each of which the programmers had individual expertise in. In general, the programmers were interested in developing a system that responded to the dancers in a manner that would allow the emergence of a character from the interaction. This approach would require time for the system to be developed in conjunction with the dance through iteration and improvisation; however, a basic version of the system needed to be functioning first. Building off of the discussions happening in the group, the programmers initially focused on developing their part of the system to reflect on the example works selected by the team. Much of the discussion between the programmers used verbal language that focused on a product. This method of communication leads the technical decisions away from the exploratory development with the choreography initially discussed. The development time of the system inhibited group work and encouraged the individual programmers to act on their own understanding of what was needed. The project’s overarching authority was overshadowed by the need to put in place a working interactive system and address the development of exploratory components later on.
Stage 2: Initial Sketch
The first stage of the project was focused on developing a foundation for the project. From the dancers this meant working together through improvisation to develop movement material. For the programmers it meant dividing the tasks into problems they had personal expertise in and individually coming up with solutions. Though the individuals recognized the interdependence of each facet in the project there was a trust that the piece would come together in the end. The group cognition was distributed as pocket of knowledge but was not taking advantage of the influence of combining the knowledge. Stage 2 forced the group for the first time to put their piece together and see the fruits of their method. The team had tried, and largely believed that they were working together with a common understanding and goal. There was a substantial level of skills in the group; however, in putting the pieces together in Stage 2 it became apparent that the separated mode of working was interfering with the collaboration.
The second stage was largely defined by the deadline for an in-progress showing at the end of month four. An unspoken decision was made to present performance segments as opposed to conceptual demonstrations. This directed technical actions towards the most easily accessible production techniques. Decisions behind the system design focused on familiar programming languages, development of the selected visual examples and the traditional placing of the projection screen upstage of the performers. Communication methods used to make these decisions relied on individuals verbalizing their opinions on the direction of decisions based on their expertise. Authority behind these decisions favored a specific visual aesthetic and simple interaction.
Choreographic actions were focused on developing movement material that contained visually interesting content referencing the selected examples. The now visually based technical system was combined with visually interesting movement phrases, adhering to the loose narrative structure developed in Stage 1. Choreographic concepts had become shared between the dancers through embodied methods, but were still verbal between the rest of the team. We take this disparity in communication as an indication that the authority behind decisions was based in personal interests that complied with the imposed narrative structure.
Stage 3: Reassessment
In the first two stages artistic and research priorities were overshadowed by the need to initiate the project, generate material and construct a prototype system. To construct a work, it had been assumed that members needed to bring their piece of the puzzle. The actions prioritized by the group in the early stages were based in an individual’s expertise and did not require group decisions past the general direction of the project. In contrast, the third stage saw a shift to a more embodied mode of working. This was especially evident in the technical development where qualities of motion were explored, requiring more empathetic/ intersubjective understanding from the programmer. The presence of the performer’s body within the virtual space on the screen was also acknowledged. While the technicians and dancers were continuing to work separately, the programmers had to use their own bodies while working. This developed a greater embodied understanding of the work, laying foundations for a stronger mode of communication that connected the whole team by Stage 4.
The third stage emerged as a period to re-assess all the decisions made to this point. Much of the work created for the in progress showing supported a strong visual aesthetic for moments in time, but was not strongly developed as a performance over time. By this point the team had seen all their concepts and decisions in action, situating the current state of the project in context, and could now be re-assessed from a practical rather then theoretical perspective. Without an immanent deadline, the group’s situated response was to take the time to re-asses their work, their direction, and their plans from the bottom up rather than the previous top down approach.
The team agreed to shift focus to explore artistic and technical content more deeply while placing explorations in structure on hold. Though the group was intent on moving the project forward, they generally agreed this would be impossible without further bottom-up development of the individual elements. Both the system and the choreography needed to be further developed in attempt to actually answer the research question’s goal of developing exploring character through motion of Type. Decisions were continuing to be addressed verbally, with the assurance that individuals were most productive working solo and reconvening at a later time. The authority behind decisions was leaning more towards creating a ‘successful’ artistic venture while answering the research question.
The affects of the re-assessment can be strongly witnessed in the decisions made by the choreographer. Movement explorations shifted away from personal movement habits and interests and towards performative qualities insinuated by the research question. During these explorations the assessment of gesture was based on its ability to convey emotion subtly through movement and its potential to support and reveal relationships between performers. Decisions were made to best prepare for interaction with the Type as a character through motion. These decisions were based on the choreographer’s expertise, the reflection on the previously designed content and the authority of the research question. Dancers wanted to explore how storyline elements could materialize strictly out of movement, extracting qualities and emotion through dynamics of movement, spatial proximity and eye contact. The dancers verbally discussed concepts to work from as they explored the concepts through motion. The resonance of ideas was communicated through a combination of verbal and embodied methods.
The decision to re-asses was also largely affected by their perception of the performer-text relationship presented in the demonstration performance. The team agreed that it would be helpful to explore new approaches to the system design that would include changing the stage environment as well as developing a representation of the dancer’s body in the system. Primarily the team did not want the dancers to turn their backs to the audience in order to interact with the Type. Based on their backgrounds and interests the programmers felt the project should also avoid triggering behaviors in order to project a sense of interaction. The first of these issues was addressed by a decision to place a scrim down stage that would act as a projection screen (See Figure 4). The placement would allow the dancers to view the text while still focusing downstage towards the audience. This decision was arrived at through verbal discussions around the extreme distance between the performers and the projected Type in the previous showing. The authority for the solution was given through team members who had prior experience with similar setups. However, this now concrete decision complicated the second issue of establishing a detailed representation of the dancer in the system. No member of the group had prior experience tracking performers through a scrim or representing a dancer’s from in the graphics environment being used. Technicians were forced to adopt a more exploratory method of working that was based (similar to the dancers) on trying out ideas in the studio. The shift in method affected a shift in authority. Because no member could claim expert experience, authority shifted to the demonstration of success, again stressing the importance of physical exploration.
Figure 4. Final Performance of Typographic Entanglement
Towards the end of this stage another major action was taken. One of the programmers who held previous theatrical experience shifted his role to include dramaturgy. An ‘outside’ eye was needed to help define what movement explorations could be successful (as the choreographer was also performing). The programmer also understood the technical issues at hand, had previous performance experience and could suggest ways of working around or utilizing the issues. As the technical and movement exploration where still largely being conducted separately, it was believed that this decision would help bring the two components together. The programmer and choreographer developed a strong communication about artistic choices through a combination of verbal and embodied methods. They could both work with movement and technical concepts and quickly shift roles to decide on the most effective choices. Though the goal was still to answer the research question, the technician and choreographer’s theatrical ideas of independent character drove the current authority.
Stage 4: Embodied Structuring
The shift towards physical studio work in Stage 3 by both the dancers and programmers provided source material and examples that could be discussed. This situation encouraged the authority of the research question to take priority over the initial authorities of creating a working system and facilitated artistic development. A final performance provided a new deadline to affect the artistic and embodied exploration. The tasks for the system needed to be finalized and put in place, once its ability to address the artistic and the research goals was assessed. Similarly, the movement vocabulary for the work needed to be set. As expected, the response was based on the knowledge of the group; however, this knowledge now included the experience the group had developed with the system and the movement vocabulary that had been created. Perhaps more importantly the team was developing new methods of communicating to connect the distribution of their knowledge within the group.
These new developments are evident as a subtle shift in the process of creating movement material. One section of the work was developed in which the dancer’s held hands and kept their feet stationary while they rocked back-and-forth. This moment developed from a new direction arising in the developing narrative. The dancers needed to portray the feeling of wandering through a forest while the Type could inconspicuously mimic their movement. Every attempt at choreographing large or travelling movements for this section didn’t fit. The above solution was not one that any single member of the group would have come up with on their own or that the group would have come up with in a strictly verbal discussion. Every team member had their own theory on what the problem was, but no consensus on a solution had emerged. Rather than discussing the problem verbally, referencing theories, past experiences felt to be similar or following one person’s authority, the group tackled the problem through a physical discussion. Until this point the movement vocabulary had been developed through improvisation between the dancers. This time the discussion went beyond simple improvisation when all the members of the group took turns performing the motion, adding their experience and knowledge. In this way the language supporting the distributed cognition of the group shifted to a physical language based in the interpersonal experience of the group.
The rocking theme was one of numerous moments developed this way, demonstrating how language was a component to the distribution of the group’s knowledge and supported their response to the changing situation. The importance of physical discussion was also effective in the technical design. The push to develop a cohesive performance on a deadline prompted the group to re-evaluate their goal of developing autonomous or emergent characters from the interaction. Discussions moved towards developing performance controls on the system to guide the interaction. By having a human guide the controls for interaction we could develop modes of interaction that progressed through the piece. Once again, though the group agreed that this would be the path to take, the form and magnitude of the control needed to be further explored. The programmer’s approach to assessing the problem involved imitating with their own bodies the movements being developed by the dancers. This enabled a fuller understanding of what parameters in the system needed to be controlled for the scene to work. These controls were then refined using the actual dancers. With these actions the group was able to develop an actual common understanding of what decisions needed to be made through physical explorations. The process lead to a performance interface that allowed the illusion of interaction to be performed alongside the computer vision system that aided in full interaction.
Conclusion
Our reflection on this collaborative project has lead us to view process as a series of actions taken by a group, based on the knowledge distributed between individuals and systems, utilizing a common language and guided by goals that act as authorities. In Typographic Entanglement, the overarching authority was the development of character through the movement of a projected image of Type. Because the term character alone didn’t provide enough guidance, a simple script was proposed to guide structure. The emergence of a strong authority in this project did not arise solely from one individual or the research question. In the beginning of the project, many decisions were situated in the individual’s understanding of the task, goals and resources available. Though there were specific skills sets and assigned roles, cognition was not equally distributed through the team due mainly to the intricacies of finding a common language. It was initially believe that overlapping knowledge would supply a language they could share ideas through. However, it was found that the technical language was not universal enough to communicate the ideas, even within a single discipline. Demonstrations and examples for communicating were relied on, but they still required context to give meaning to the interaction being presented.
The concepts of Distributed Cognition and Situated Action are natural components of the collaborative process. During collaboration, an individual or concept is given authority in making decisions and take action in a situation. Having a clear understanding of the current authority helps to create a stronger intersubjective experience that can support more effectively the communication, decisions and actions of the group. The intersubjective experience is constructed by allowing a subjective experience to be shared in a physical manner allowing the shared humane experience to affect the interpretation. We demonstrate this concept by highlighting the shifts in authority throughout our reflection of the collaborative process. The project began with an ephemeral understanding of the research question that was acted upon through individual’s expertise and goals. Frequent shifts in authority based on the situations at hand fueled the project from a demonstration of accomplishment early on to development of qualitative content to the final construction of an engaging narrative.
The distributed cognition of the group relies on an individual’s abilities to both communicate their intended response to the situation and actively listen. During a creative process, intention is not easily articulated. We see a pattern in this project of communication being more effectively transferred within the group, there by integrating the cognitive distribution of the group when a shared or “intersubjective” experience existed or was evoked. This occurred primarily when physical or embodied modes of communication were used. The collective language that allowed for the most effective use of the team’s distributed cognition (and therefore the most effective response to a situation) was a physical language born of improvisation that incorporated the team’s interpersonal experience.
Our analysis identifies the need to develop communal knowledge in every collaborator’s immediate experience, to create a common context that supports a holistic form of communication. We have found that such modes of communication support a stronger integration of the distributed cognition throughout the group, which encourages the authority to shift from an individual’s understanding to group goal. We believe this understanding is applicable to collaboration in performance.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Jonathon Aiken, Ben Bogart and Rayann Gordon for their work on this project. We would also like to acknowledge the support of the School of Interactive Arts and Technology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada and the financial support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
References
Banes, S. (1987). Terpsichore in Sneakers: Post-Modern Dance. Wesleyan University Press.
Engeström, Y. & Middleton, D. (1998). Cognition and Communication at Work. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press.
Foulkes, J. (2002). Modern Bodies: Dance and American Modernism from Martha Graham to Alvin Ailey. The University of North Carolina Press.
Gill, S.P. (2007). Cognition, Communication and Interaction: Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Interactive Technology. 1st ed. Springer.
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E. & Kirsh, D. (2000). “Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research.” ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7/2, 174-196.
Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: the Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination and Reason. Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
Nardi, B.A. (1995). Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. The MIT Press.
Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
