Exploring the gap between interaction and institutional ordersinteraction and institutional orders

in Pragmatic Web Design

Mark AakhusDepartment of CommunicationDepartment of Communication

Rutgers University

Purposep

Ever more designed support for communication Increasing capacity to design support

Yet, the tacit dimension of communication still plays a role

How?

With what consequence?With what consequence?

With what design opportunities?

2

Approachpp

Illustrate ways tacit, often unintentional aspects of interaction & communication shape whatof interaction & communication shape what becomes explicit.

Map the pragmatic terrain between intentional design of communication support and communication.

3

Orienting Conceptg p

Institutional Talk = ‐> Interest of pragmatic web practice

Goal Orientation for InteractionConstraints on InteractionPreferred Patterns for Reasoning

. . . to improve “the quality and legitimacy of collaborative, goal oriented discourses in communities” through design and use of web‐based

h lg

Evident in . . .Formal RolesTurn Taking Procedures

technology

‐> However,

Turn‐Taking ProceduresTurn TypesDecision Rules

The interaction order is not easily or readily tamed

Discourse typically takes on a life ofInstitutions for talk aim to put ordinary

interaction and reasoning to some purposeful, productive end

Discourse typically takes on a life of its own

4

Airline Crew Decision‐Making

5

Example 2.1 Indirectness in Airline Crewsp

(1)Copilot: Look how the ice is just hanging on his, ah, back, back there, see

that?Captain: Side there

(2) Copilot: See all those icicles on the back there and everything?Captain: YeahCaptain: Yeah.

(3) Copilot: Boy this is a this is a losing battle here on trying to de‐ice thoseCopilot: Boy, this is a, this is a losing battle here on trying to de‐ice those

things, it (gives) you a false feeling of security, that’s all that does.

Examples taken from Tannen 1994Examples taken from Tannen 1994

6

Example 2.1 Indirectness in Airline Crewsp

(4)Copilot: Let’s check these tops again since we been setting here

awhile.Captain: I think we get to go here in a minute.

(5)Copilot: That don’t seem right, does it? (3 second pause). Ah,Copilot: That don t seem right, does it? (3 second pause). Ah,

that’s not right. (2 second‐pause) (Well). . . Captain: Yes, it is, there’s eighty.Copilot: Naw, I don’t think that’s right. (7 second pause). Ah, p , g ( p ) ,

maybe it is.Captain: Hundred and twenty.Copilot: I don’t know

Examples taken from Tannen 1994

7

Example 2.1 Indirectness in Airline Crewsp

• Prevalence of Indirectione a e ce o d ect o– Easier to be misunderstood or ignored

• ‘Be Direct’ is no solution– Recognized and interpreted differently– Safest rated crews, rated highest in indirection

• Indirection is a Relational Issue– Cockpit not just about representing a state of affairs– Moves must be situated within ongoing context of

relational expectations and activityrelational expectations and activity

8

Relational

Despite intensive information & communication environment the pilots’ attention to theenvironment, the pilots attention to the relational dimension shaped the possibilities for expressing and managing differences offor expressing and managing differences of opinion

9

i di iDispute Mediation

10

Example 2.2 Digression in Dispute Mediationp g p

398 W: I still have my basic feelings, that maybe at some point, something like this could be worked out but I don’t, feel at this time

399 H: [ Isn’t this kind of a method, uh I‐aren’t you basic , yfeelings ((Pause)) basically trying to punish me, as opposed to what the children ((Pause)) (that’s all)

400 W: [ No it’s not not trying to punish ]you ((Pause)) I am not trying to punish you at all I, think you, I’d be punishing y (( )) y g p y , y , p gmyself by going with something like this at this time=

401H: =why402 W: Number one I know your involvement with the children ((Pause)) and how

you have stated in the past you would be involved and you would do certainyou have stated in the past you would be involved and you would do certain things and then you do not

403 H: Like what404 W: Like homework schoolwork ((Pause)) Also too, I do not feel that you’re

mentally stable at this point in your lifementally stable at this point in your life405 H: I don’t feel you’re mentally stable either406 W: Okay ((Pause)) um, so maybe we should go for the psychiatric

examinations ((Pause)) I’m more inclined to do that I’ve asked John to go to l f d h ’ f d h b lcounseling for years, and he’s refused I have been in counseling

11

414 W: =No, we went to Dr. H( ) for Michael

415 H: [That’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about I’m talking about the psychiatrist on ( ) Boulevard who we went to on two occasions and you just said I don’tthe, psychiatrist on ( ) Boulevard, who we went to, on two occasions and you just said, I don t agree with what this guy is saying so we’re not going back

416 W:[Oh okay] I know who you’re talking about sure

417 H: Okay

418 W: Then, I went to a different one, and I wanted to go to=

419 H: [ ( ) ]

420 W: =a different one420 W: =a different one

421 H: [Yeah]because he didn’t agree with you that’ why

you didn’t want to go there, that’s the whole problem=

422 W: =No, no I’ve got other feedback from other people

423 H: [How about Dr. (Frankel) ]

424 W: How ‘bout Dr. Frankel

425 H: [We stopped] going to Dr. Frankel because you didn’t like what he was saying to us

426 W: John, we, you were the one who stopped going, you were the one who said that we should stop Michael from going to Dr Frankel because you saw no progress being madestop., Michael from going to Dr. Frankel because you saw no progress being made

427 H: That’s right, I saw no progress being made but you didn’t want to go to him because he started asking about your background and you thought that was irrelevant

428 W: No I didn’t (Example taken from Jacobs & Jackson 1992)

12

Actional

Despite procedures and specialized roles, disputants abandoned the development of thedisputants abandoned the development of the argumentative potential of their contributions in their responses to each otherin their responses to each other.

13

Relational & Actional

Institutional aims for interaction are undermined by ytacit dimensions

Cockpit communicationRelational shapes possibilities for expressing and managing differences of opinion smanaging differences of opinion s

Dispute mediationDispute mediationActional shapes possibilities for finding argumentative potential

14

Technological Designs for Communicationg g

Generic Tools (e.g., threaded discussion, chat)Support communicationNeutral to interaction Form of interactivity and communication quality left to users

Yet implicit design for interaction –Tools highlight some aspects of making moves in interaction and leave other aspects unmarked

Technologically Institutionalized Interaction Formats Clash: Implicit designs for communication and community use Results: Invisible, unanticipated, and at times perverse consequences for discourse quality

15

The Danger of Cell Phones

Investigative News Story Report

Online Threaded Discussion

16

Example 3.1 Threaded Discussion

Message Type Example + ‐Message Type Example + ‐

Supportive (thanks, acknowledges reports’s truth value

Thanks for this interesting report. Although, I don’t plan to stop using my cellular phone, I appreciate your explaining how to use it more safely.

5

Questions seeking clarification of report or its implications

So, you move the phone away from your head. You are not getting the maximum risk of radiation but, what about the cell phone emitting radiation to other parts of your body…while it is in your pants pocket, your purse, sitting next to you on the car seat? Should

10

p p , y p , g ythis also be a consideration? Other than giving up the use of our phones, is there a way to avoid this potential hazard?

Replies to others that I sort of agree and disagree with this posting. You can only cover so 1support the reporting ofthe news

much on the television. TV is not the media for extensive coverage. A better choice is to ask Consumer Reports to do a thorough study of all wireless devices, such as remote controls, pagers, Palm VII, GPS, cordless phones, cellular phones, walkie‐talkies, etc., to see what

3

effect they have on human biology. Perhaps a new standard will be developed to not just apply to Cellular phones, but to all wireless devices that transmit and receive data.

2

Taken from Aakhus 2002

28

17

Example 3.1 Threaded Discussion

Message Type Example + ‐

Challenge ’

Come on…the “cell phones cause cancer” thing a‐GAIN? Get l If di d I hi k ’d

42report’s conclusion or implications+

real. If two‐way radios caused cancer I think we’d see an increase in the incidence among emergency service workers, who have been using higher powered two‐way radios in these frequencies for decades. Your microwave oven is qlegally allowed to LEAK about 30,000 times the energy it takes to power a cell phone.

Replies to others challenge the report

I guess the “news” industry had to go Hollywood to pay the “reporters” the salaries they demand these days. A favoritequote of mine that perhaps the powers that be should heed is “your standards are a reflection of what you allow” it is

41

is your standards are a reflection of what you allow it is clear to me that abc standards are not worth the paper they are printed on. What a shame!

Taken from Aakhus 2002 83

18

Relational

Community of viewers could not use theCommunity of viewers could not use the information rich environment to effectively raise their objections and requestsraise their objections and requests

‐ Relational (e.g., pilot situation)

Discourse appears disjointed, complaint riddled

Leaves important aspects of investigation undevelopedp

Example 3.2 Chatp01 Insolente: AUB…YOU SAID that she did not

know she was breaking the law and that’s why she leaked the

02 Insolente: the tapes

14 Insolente: AUB..What do you mean by that?15 Insolente: AUB..what is the point you are

trying to make?16 AUBldr: INSOL…How many things can that

03 AUBldr: INSOL….nope, not once…04 Insolente: AUB…I’m tired for your moronic

laugh05 Insolente: Oh really AUB? What did you say

then?

16 AUBldr: INSOL…How many things can that mean?

17 Insolente: If any?18 Insolente: AUB…Is this how you do this?19 AUBldr: INSOL…you are too childish to debate

with shoothen?06 Insolente: AUB..why are you lying?07 Insolente: AUB.. what did you really say AUB?08 AUBldr: INSOL….I said in many states only 1

person has to know tapes are being made, thats all

with ….shoo…20 Insolente: AUB…Your reasoning means shit so

you don’t answer direct questions?21 Insolente: AUB…Shoo?22 Insolente: LMAO

thats all..09 Insolente: I gotta hear this one10 Insolente: AUB..Meaning what?11 AUBldr: INSOL…but apparently you still can’t

read…

23 AUBldr: INSOL…lol shoo24 Insolente: AUB…Is this how you do this>?25 AUBldr: INSOL…child

12 Insolente: AUB…That she thought she was cleared?

13 AUBldr: INSOL….Nope…

Taken from Weger & Aakhus 2003g

20

Actional

Participants express disagreement but could not make productive argumentmake productive argument.

‐Actional, like dispute mediator

Discourse appears incoherent, underdevelopedpp , p

21

Clash

Community of users attempts to handle Co u ty o use s atte pts to a d edifferences through normatively goodargumentation.

But, thwarted by affordances of internet based discussion support

‐> The mediated interaction produces a poor quality discourse

22

Clash

Web‐discussion

Audience pursued inquiryAudience looked like they were quarreling

Chat

P i i i d d h h iParticipants tried to draw each other inParticipants looked like they quarreling

23

Clash, so what?

It’s just a matter of momentary encounters, so a j y ,few instances of low interaction quality.

But, what if we are interested in the record produced and its prospects for furtherproduced and its prospects for further deliberation?

24

Earlier Internet technologies left communciationEarlier Internet technologies left communciation to ad hoc management of participants

New Web‐based technologies provide more and b i ibetter communication support

Can discourse still take a life of its own?

25

Supporting online learningSupporting online learning

26

Taken from Aakhus 2001

27

Taken from Aakhus 2001

The design for interaction appears to realize theThe design for interaction appears to realize the preferred form of interactivity

The product of the interactivity is a corpus of contentcontent

Corpus is shaped by relational and actionalCorpus is shaped by relational and actionalassumptions alive at the time the micro move was madewas made

28

Pragmatic Web ChallengePragmatic Web Challenge

The tacit dimensions of communication – theThe tacit dimensions of communication the pragmatics – continue to play a role

Designs for communication and any clash b ff d d i ibetween affordances and communities may have subtle if not profound effects on what b li i d il blbecomes explicit and available.

29

The Pragmatic Web ChallengeThe Pragmatic Web Challenge

Develop procedures and techniques that help

render discourse production process transparent

detect interactional drift, emerging commitments

reframe content and direction of interaction

30

ReferencesReferencesAakhus, M. 2001 Designing web‐based interactional tools to support

learning from experience. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Moor, A. de, Keeler, M. and Richmond, G. 2002 Towards a Pragmatic Web. In Proc.

of the 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2002), B B l i J l 15 L N i A ifi i l I lli N 2393Workshop on the Language‐Action Perspective on Communication

Modelling, M. Schoop and J. Taylor Eds.

Aakhus, M. 2002 The design of forums for online public deliberation and the consequences for argumentation. Kent J Comm 21(2), 139‐148

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992 Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.

Borovets, Bulgaria, July 15. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No. 2393, 235‐249 Springer‐Verlag.

Schmidt, K. and Simone, C. 2000, Mind the Gap!: Towards a unified view of CSCW. Paper presented at COOP2000, Sophia Antipolis, France.

Schoop, M., de Moor, A., & Dietz, J. 2006 The pragmatic web: A manifesto. CommACM 49(5), 75‐76.

Sing, M. 2002 The Pragmatic Web: Preliminary thoughts. In Proceedings of the Goffman, E. 1983 The interaction order: American Sociological Association,

1982, Presidential Address. Am Soc Rev 48(1), 1‐17.

Goffman, E. 1981 Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jacobs, S. and Jackson, S. 1992 Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argument 6, 161‐176.

g, g y g gNSF‐Onto Web Workshop on Database and Information Systems Research for Semantic Web and Enterprises.

Tannen, D. 1994 Talking from 9 to 5. HarperCollins.

Walton, D. 1992 The place of emotion in argument. The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Weger, H. and Aakhus, M. 2003 Arguing in internet chat rooms: Argumentative d t ti t h t d i d f bli

Linde, C. 1988 The quantitative study of communicative success: Politeness and accidents in aviation discourse. Lang Soc 17, 375‐399.

McInerney, C. and Day, R. 2007 Rethinking knowledge management: From knowledge objects to knowledge processes. Springer.

Moor, A de 2005 Patterns for the Pragmatic Web. In Proc. of the 13th

adaptations to chat room design and some consequences for public deliberation at a distance. Argument Adv 40 (Summer 2003), 23‐38.

Moor, A de 2005 Patterns for the Pragmatic Web. In Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2005), Kassel, Germany, July 2005. LNAI 3596, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1‐18.

Moor, A. de and Aakhus, M. 2006 Argumentation support: From technologies to tools. Comm ACM 49(3), 93‐98.

31