--
~~~~~~~ BRITISH HCI GROUP NEWS SERVICE ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ http://www.bcs-hci.org.uk/ ~~
~~ All news to: [log in to unmask] ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ NOTE: Please reply to article's originator, ~~
~~ not the News Service ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Due to several requests, the paper submission deadline for the
Workshop "Do We Really Need to Share to Cooperate?" at COOP 2012 has
been extended t o next:
APRIL 10, 2012
=======================================================================
CALL FOR PAPERS
=======================================================================
“DO WE REALLY NEED TO SHARE TO COOPERATE?”
A Workshop in conjunction with
COOP 2012 - The International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems
http:// www.coopsys.org
http://coop-2012.grenoble-inp.fr/wprogram.html
Marseille (France) - May 29, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(PDF version of the CfP:
http://coop-2012.grenoble-inp.fr/COOP-2012-CfP-Workshop%201-Necessary-Sharing.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEME OF THE WORKSHOP
It is often taken for granted that for cooperation to succeed,
cooperating partners need to share, e.g., some common knowledge about
the situation in which they are involved. As a result, cooperative
systems are often claimed to support this sharing (cf. Boujut et al.,
2010). However the “Sharing for cooperating” assumption is the subject
of controversies: Various research communities disagree on what is
necessary to share (e.g., symbolic and/or subsymbolic representations;
simple reactive mechanisms of coordination; …) and how much it is
necessary to share (e.g., the maximum or minimum). This disagreement
is illustrated for example in the controversy between the
psycholinguists H.H. Clark and D.J. Barr (and their collaborators), a
controversy summarized by Barr (2004) in a deliberately provocative
manner: “Is common knowledge necessary?” Controversies of this kind
also exist in the Cooperative Work / Cooperative Systems community
(see, e.g., Koschmann & LeBaron, 2003; Nova, Sangin & Dillenbourg,
2010). Because these controversies reflect diversity in approaches,
models, methods, or work situations considered, it seems to us
interesting and useful to clarify and to make explicit the approaches,
models, and so on, underlying the positions about sharing.
In our opinion, there should be a tight articulation between
theoretical statements and design stance. The appropriateness of
models and methods is thus crucial for informing and determining the
design properly. For example: an incorrect model of users’ sharing
practices can lead to design a system that will not support such
practices; an inappropriate method for studying situations can lead to
not identify practices that would need to be supported. Helping
cooperative systems’ analysts, designers and evaluators navigate in
the variety of existing views (encompassing approaches, models,
methods, and situations) could help them make appropriate design
decisions.
Given these two reasons for undertaking the work of clarification and
explicitation, the workshop thus addresses two levels of questions:
• Level 1: Questions about the “Sharing for cooperating” issue (Do
we really need to share to cooperate?), e.g.:
•
Why sharing? What are the motivations for sharing (or not sharing):
enabling a better orchestrated, less conversation heavy, smoother
cooperation? avoiding or solving conflicts or ambiguities? aligning
representations between actors involved in joint activities?... •
What is to be shared: knowledge, practices, culture, emotions...?
• What do we really share?
• To what extent do we need to share? To what extent are we
prepared to share? Is the amount of sharing directly related to
cooperation effectiveness? How is offset the lack of sharing?
• How can we share? By means of which actions? By means of which
tools? By means of which practices?
• With whom do we need to share? Or with whom can we share?
• What are the situations/conditions which facilitate sharing?
• Which sharing functionalities or sharing spaces can be
implemented? Or which sharing functionalities or spaces have been
demonstrated effective?
•
Level 2 (meta-level): Questions about the connections between the
different views of “Sharing for cooperating” , e.g.:
•
Which views do co-exist: Common Ground, Common Frame of Reference,
Shared/Team awareness, Mutual Intelligibility, Mutual Understanding,
Shared Context, Alignment, Joint Action, Shared Representations,
Coordination Mechanisms...?
• How to navigate in the different views? How to map these views?
How to select a view given the kind of work situation to be supported
by the cooperative system?
• How to articulate and contrast the views: Where the differences
are: in the problem setting, the naming of the shared entity (common
ground, common frame of reference, shared context, shared awareness,
etc.) and of the sharing process (grounding, aligning, harmonizing,
coordinating, articulating, etc.), the models, the methods, the
situations studied? How to explain these differences?
• Are the views reconcilable? If so, how? If not, why?
WORKSHOP GOALS AND ACTIVITIES
The workshop aims to contribute to the work of clarification and
explicitation, in order to deepen our collective understanding of the
“Sharing for cooperating” issue and to transfer this understanding to
the design of cooperative systems. Two complementary contributions are
expected from potential participants to the workshop:
1. An individual contribution: potential participants will be
invited to submit a paper of 4 to 8 pages reporting a study related to
the workshop questions. The nature of the contribution may be:
• Theoretical and methodological studies.
• Empirical field studies.
• Cooperative system design.
2.
A collaborative contribution: potential participants will be invited
to participate to a collective activity on mapping existing work
related to the “Sharing for cooperating” issue. To assist in this
mapping work, potential participants will be asked to complete a
common grid of analysis; the completed grids will be distributed among
all the actual participants for feeding the discussion on the “Sharing
for cooperating” issue
TYPE OF INTERACTION PLANNED FOR THE WORKSHOP
Three types of interaction are planned:
1. Pre-workshop Interactions: To prepare the discussions during
the workshop, these interactions will take place through an online
shared space; participants will upload online version of their papers
and grids, and begin the discussions about these contributions.
2. Workshop Interactions: (a) Participants will first present
their individual contributions and their position on the “Sharing for
cooperating” issue. Contributions and positions will be discussed. (b)
Secondly, workshop organizers will provide a synthesis of the grids
completed by the participants, and the synthesis will be discussed by
the participants. This second step will be an opportunity to assess
and improve the quality of the grid (formulation, relevance of items,
etc.). (c) Thirdly, organizers and participants will discuss the
follow-up on the initiative of cooperative work on the “Sharing for
cooperating” issue.
3. Post-Workshop Interactions: Interactions will continue around
the actions decided at the end of the workshop.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
The number of participants will be limited to 15 in order to
facilitate discussions. We expect the participation of senior
researchers as well as graduate students.
RELATED WORK
Recently, several special issues of scientific journals have been
devoted to the “Sharing for cooperating” or “Sharing for acting
jointly” topic, with contributions from various disciplines (such as
social, cognitive and developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience
and philosophy, artificial intelligence, CSCW, HCI, etc.). Let us
cite:
• “Joint Action: What is Shared?” – a special issue of the Review
of Philosophy and Psychology (Stephen Butterfill & Natalie Sebanz,
eds., 2011), where one of the main questions discussed was, “Is
sharing constitutively necessary for joint action?”
• “Joint Action: Current Perspectives” – a special issue of Topics
in Cognitive Science (Galantucci & Sebanz, eds., 2009), where one of
the main questions discussed was, “Does effective communication
require processing information related to the mental contents [or
‘common ground’] of the people engaged in the conversation?”
• “Supporting Shared Representations in Collaborative Activities”
– a forthcoming special issue of the International Journal of Human
Computer Studies (Boujut, Castellani, Roulland & Willamowski, eds.) ,
the focus of which is “on investigating the dimensions related to
mediation that should be considered when designing new collaborative
systems involving representations of shared objects”.
Our workshop initiative is part of this trend with the following
difference: we want not only to gather different views on the “Sharing
for cooperating” issue, but also to bridge some gaps between these
views. Hence our intention to provide workshop participants with a
common grid of analysis to facilitate the bridging between views or at
least mutual understanding between participants. Note that this grid
was developed, tested and used by French-speaking researchers as part
of the action research REFCOM (Common Frame of Reference) of GdR
(Research Group) CNRS “Psycho Ergo”.
Moreover, in order to contribute to the COOP 2012 reflection on “what
have been the successes and the failures, and what are the remaining
challenges in our relevant domains”, we will look back at the work
presented on the “Sharing of cooperating” topic in the past editions
of COOP, i.e., papers presented at the conference itself or papers
presented in associated workshops such as “The mediation role of
shared representations in cooperative activities: new challenges”
(COOP 2010) or “The use of Herbert H. Clark's models of language use
for the design of cooperative systems” (COOP 1998).
DURATION
Full day.
SUBMISSIONS
As previously said in Section “Workshop goals and activities”,
potential participants to the workshop are expected to submit two
complementary contributions: (1) an individual contribution in the
form of a 4-to-8-page paper; (2) a collaborative contribution in the
form of the common grid of analysis completed.
1. Concerning the paper: potential participants are invited to
first submit an extended abstract of their intended paper; authors of
accepted abstracts will be then invited to send the final version of
their paper. The template to be used for the paper is the template
available on the Website of the COOP 2012 conference:
http://coop-2012.grenoble-inp.fr/callforpaper.html.
2. Concerning the grid: the common grid to be completed is
available is available at this address:
http://coop-2012.grenoble-inp.fr/COOP2012-WS-Necessary-Sharing-GRID.doc
. Note that this grid is provisional. Consider it as “under
collaborative construction”; in other words, you can adapt it
according to your needs; you can also comment i t.
Papers and completed grids must be sent in PDF format to: Alain Giboin
([log in to unmask]) and Pascal Salembier
([log in to unmask]).
REVIEWING PROCESS
Papers will be reviewed by a reviewing committee. Note that to be
reviewed, papers must be sent with a completed grid. Papers with no
completed grid will not be considered.
IMPORTANT DATES
• Papers and Grids
•
Deadline for Extended abstract and Grid submission April 10, 2012 (extended)
• Decision : April 15, 2012
• Final version of paper: May 10, 2012
•
Workshop
•
May 29, 2012 (1st day of the COOP conference)
WORKSHOP ORGANIZERS
Alain Giboin (INRIA Sophia Antipolis-Méditerranée, France)
Pascal Salembier (Université de Technologie de Troyes, France)
Carla Simone (Universitá Milano Bicocca –Italy)
Cyril Bossard (UFR STAPS de Brest, France)
REFERENCES
• Barr, D.J. (2004). Establishing conventional communication
systems: Is common knowledge necessary? Cognitive Science 28, 937–962.
• Boujut, J.F., Roulland, F., Castellani, S., Willamowski, F., &
Martin, D. (2010). “The mediation role of shared representations in
cooperative activities: new challenges” Workshop. In Gunnar Stevens
(Ed.) Workshop Proceedings of 9th International Conference on the
Design of Cooperative Systems, International Reports on
Socio-informatics, volume 7 issue 1, 2010, pp. 170-320,
http://www.iisi.de/fileadmin/IISI/upload/IRSI/IRSIV7I1.pdf
• Butterfill, S. & Sebanz, N. (2011) Joint Action: What is Shared?
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(2), June 2011, 137-146.
• Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
• Galantucci, B. & Sebanz, N. (2009). Joint Action: Current
Perspectives, Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), pages 255–259, April
2009.
• Koschmann, T. & LeBaron, C. D. (2003). Reconsidering Common
Ground: Examining Clark's Contribution Theory in the OR. In:
Proceedings of the 8th conference on European Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, p. 81-98.
http://www.ecscw.uni-siegen.de/2003/005Koschmann_ecscw03.pdf
• Nova, N., Sangin, M., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Reconsidering
Clark’s Theory in CSCW. In: Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, pp. 132-143.
http://coop.wineme.fb5.uni-siegen.de/proceedings2008/4_01_nNova_al_132-143.pdf
=======================================================================
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ To receive HCI news, send the message: ~~
~~ "JOIN BCS-HCI your_firstname your_lastname" ~~
~~ to [log in to unmask] ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Newsarchives: ~~
~~ http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/bcs-hci.html ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ To join the British HCI Group, contact ~~
~~ [log in to unmask] ~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
