Location awareness and serendipity

Informal interactions between individuals nurture relationships by building trust. Trust, in turn, is a necessary component for creating social ties. In the professional world these ties can lead to a number of ancillary (but critical) benefits, including collaboration opportunities or the chance to be mentored by a knowledgeable coworker. Kraut and his colleagues (1990) investigated the ways in which coworkers interact in communal office spaces. They found that fully one third of all communication between colleagues is spontaneous--in other words, it is unplanned and (oftentimes) occurs on neutral territory in shared spaces such as at the water cooler, in the hallways, or near the coffee maker. Another 20% of interactions were found to be opportunistic--that is, situations in which one of the actors behaves as a sort of interloper, who sees an opportunity to chat with another colleague about a pertinent matter and then seizes on it. Thus, fully half of the face-to-face interactions that occur within the walls of an organization can be categorized as "informal". Specifically, they transpire outside of the more formal avenues for engagement (principally, the scheduled meeting). And, a crucial factor underlying these interactions is proximity. Having an unplanned, face-to-face meeting with a colleague is usually only possible when both parties happen to cross paths accidentally.

Because these chance encounters make up a huge portion of the interactions that take place within the confines of an office space, colleagues who regularly conduct business away from this setting miss out. Instead, many of the interactions they have with colleagues are scheduled in advance--or take place on the phone, over email, or via the use of IM. Not only does the use of such methods make communication more formal, in the case of the phone, email, and IM these mediums also lacks the richness of face-to-face interaction (Daft & Lengel, 1986). So, in the end, highly mobile and nomadic workers are confronted with few opportunities to enage in informal interactions with colleagues like the kind more traditional workers have access to.

The apparent cost for the nomadic worker is that with fewer opportunities to engage in informal exchange, the fewer opportunities they will encounter for possible future collaborations, exchange knowledge, or even foster social bonds (which, in turn, builds the trust necessary to collaborate or share knowledge effectively). In short, it leaves the nomad out of the loop.

Mobile location awareness technology can be used to draw the nomad back into the loop. A recent NYT's article discusses a few of the pros and cons of this technology--a notable recent example of which is Google Latitude. The application allows users to notify contacts of their physical location with varying degrees of specificity (i.e., country, city, or street), along with status updates.

It can be argued that the benefit of such technology is that it would allow the nomadic worker to meet-up, on the fly, with collaborators who are in close proximity. In the NYT article, that's precisely what the creator of another social location mobile application, Loopt, describes having done when he used the information from his contacts to spontaneously meet up with friends for drinks at a mutually convenient location. However, it must be underscored this particular individual helped bring location awareness to the mobile market--so, it's not really surprising that he regularly makes use of it! I can't help but wonder how others might use such information, in practice? For the average user, can location awareness facilitate serendipitous meetings, thus drawing them back into the loop? Or is it more likely that he or she would use it to see where an colleague is currently located (in the office, for example) and use it to help make a judgment about whether or not to contact that person on the phone?

On the Importance of Examining Relationships

A few of the benefits to staying in sync and in touch have been outlined elsewhere and in a previous blog post here. One benefit to being in sync, for example, is that it helps one get an overview of what's transpiring within the context of a particular project or, more broadly, an organization.

Although the benefits are described in terms of individuals, the underlying mechanisms that enable one to stay both in sync and in touch are better understood in terms of relationships. Both a sense of connectedness and the sharing of knowledge rely upon the extent to which communication channels remain open; and, the functioning of these channels necessarily is contingent upon (at least) two contributing parties: a sender and a receiver of information. In the case of informal exchanges--that is, those that can lead to a feeling of social cohesion between coworkers--it is never possible to describe the nature of this communication in terms of the isolated contribution of (and consequent benefits or costs to) individuals. In fact, doing so could lead to missing out on one critical half of the dynamic involved.

Why is it important to think of these concepts--in sync, in touch--in terms of relationships, anyhow? Because in order to examine the obstacles to staying in sync and in touch, it is of use to realize that breakdowns can occur on either side of the communication channel, and any plausible solution to these problems must take into account this possibility.

Recently I used Mind42.com to create an overview of the concepts. I found it helpful to conceptualize relationship outcomes in terms of symmetries. For example, a factor that fosters the development of symmetrical relationships is either: (1) a desire to stay in touch by both parties; or, (2) a lack of a desire to stay in touch by both parties involved. On the other hand, an asymmetrical relationship occurs when only one half of the communication channel is open. In terms of fostering a sense of connectedness, when an individual's attempts at staying in touch are not reciprocated, it can lead to a state of professional isolation. For a complete overview of these relationships, please see the mind map.

I am still looking into conducting a cultural probe study, but realize that in order to maximize the benefits of using such a technique I will need to recruit individuals who belong to the same co-located project team or organization so that I can examine what's going on at both ends of the communication channel simultaneously.

Moblogging as a cultural probe technique?

Cultural probes generally consist of a package containing such articles as disposable (or more commonly these days, digital) cameras, diaries, maps, stickers, pens, drawing paper, &etc--essentially any item the recipient might need to carry out the study's requirements. The methodology was designed to compel creative reactions from a population of interest. For example, one of the earliest reports of the use of cultural probes involved a comparison between levels of community support for aging citizens who were living in different cities (ie, near Oslo, Pisa, and Amsterdam). In this case, the probes were used to offer a (highly subjective) glimpse of the daily lives of the study participants; the purpose was to gain some early inspiration for later design concepts. Thus, the method has traditionally been used exploratively and therefore early on in the (iterative) design process.

Cultural probes, however, are not only inspirational for the designer--it can be argued that they are inspirational for the participant, as well. Assignments included in the aforementioned study included tagging locations on a map that identified areas where the participant felt both at ease and unsafe. A colleague here at TI told me about a cultural probe study that he had participated in; in that study, he was asked to draw an "onion" of human connections in which closer connections appeared towards the center and those who were more distant at the outer layers. Arguably such exercises are more enjoyable--and certainly more personal--for the participant than filling out a survey regarding his or her daily activities.

It could be argued that the strength of surveys lies in their ability pin point highly specific target information. Cultural probes are indeed messier, but also richer in the depth of information that they provide. And, some have argued that it is fallacy not to consider the methodology an informative data collecting procedure, as well (Hemmings et al, 2003; Boehner et al, 2007).

It is because this method can provide both inspiration and relevant information that I'm in the process of designing cultural probes for the current project. This strategy is well suited to the population of interest--that is, folks who are constantly working on the move and/or in different locations--as well, because it might be difficult to pin them down for an one-on-one interview. The problem, however, is that I don't want to hamper their mobility by bogging them down with a box of objects and assignments. That is why I'm considering the use of moblogging (i.e., mobile blogging) tools as a possible means of gathering information from participants. The benefit of moblogging is that pictures, text, videos, and other content can be quickly shared, oftentimes with little effort and few resources (all one needs is a laptop or smartphone--objects mobile workers already oftentimes carry--and a wifi connection).

The downside of moblogging is that it is not sufficient as a cultural probe technique (a point that was wisely brought to my attention by my coach here at TI). Part of the fun of cultural probes is that they are tangible, and invite a more intense level of physical interaction. So, in creating the probes (an activity which I hope to have done by next week), I need to strike a balance between finding quick and mobile solutions and contrast them with assignments that require more dedicated effort (such as drawing or the type of reflecting that is done in longer diary entries).

I used my last blog post as an opportunity to try moblogging in hopes of getting a sense of how easy it is to share information while on the go. I'll continue looking into other means of sharing content, so expect some of those efforts to appear here in the coming days.

Test 'utter'

Currently testing out various avenues for moblogging as a means of assessing which info sharing techniques might be integrated into a future cultural probe study. The choice of going with moblogging apps is in part because they would free the participant to report events in the moment, as they happen. A downside, however, is that the medium doesn't lend itself well to lengthy exposition, as I can certainly attest. The current entry was authored using utterli...More tests to follow...Whether I end up using moblogging as a data collecting tool is another story, however! :)

Mobile post sent by jennifercurtis using Utterli. Replies.