r & dflora.insead.edu/fichiersti_wp/inseadwp2002/2002-101.pdf · interactions. theories such as...
TRANSCRIPT
Working Papers
R & D
THE VIRTUAL STAGE: VIDEO-MEDIATED
BEHAVIORS AND PRESENTATION OF SELF IN A VIDEO-MEDIATED ENVIRONMENT
by
A.L. FAYARD*
2002/101/TM/OB
* Assistant Professor of Technology Management, INSEAD, 1 Ayer Rajah Avenue, 138676Singapore.
A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intended as a means whereby a facultyresearcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers. The paper should be considered preliminary in nature and may require revision. Printed at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Kindly do not reproduce or circulate without permission.
THE VIRTUAL STAGE: VIDEO-MEDIATED BEHAVIORS
AND PRESENTATION OF SELF IN A VIDEO-MEDIATED
ENVIRONMENT
Anne-Laure Fayard
Assistant Professor of
Technology Management
INSEAD
1 Ayer Rajah Avenue
Singapore 138676
Fax: 65 6799 5337
I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the MBA students who took the
course and participated in the study.
Special thanks to Ariella Aschheim for her help in collecting and analyzing the data,
and to Gerardine DeSanctis, Theodoros Evgeniou, Austin Henderson, Jill Klein and
Anca Metiu for their thoughts and suggestions.
2
THE VIRTUAL STAGE: VIDEO-MEDIATED BEHAVIORS
AND PRESENTATION OF SELF IN A VIDEO-MEDIATED
ENVIRONMENT
Abstract: Grounded on a field study of MBA students interacting over
videoconference in the context of a distributed course between a campus in Europe
and a campus in Singapore, this paper describes how video mediation affects
behaviors: what alterations video mediation introduces in the way people interact and
communicate as well as how they adapt to this new context and adjust their
behaviors.
My observations show that people tend to produce new types of behaviors in order to
communicate and interact in a video-mediated environment. I propose the notion of
virtual stage – based on Goffman’s concepts of stage and presentation of self (1959,
1974) – to describe and analyze communication mediated through video. I argue that
the video-mediated behaviors I observed are more than replacement strategies for
face-to-face interactions, and that they should be analyzed in their own specificity.
Keywords: Virtual Stage, Video-mediated behaviors, Video communication,
Interaction analysis.
3
1. Introduction
As organizations become more global, they have to cope with an increasingly
distributed workplace, crossing geographic boundaries as well as language and
cultural boundaries. They rely heavily on distributed teams formed by co-workers and
collaborators who are remotely located. One of the abiding features of a modern
organization is that people collaborate to perform work, and it is hoped that
information technology will support and enhance collaboration in these distributed
contexts. One of these technologies is videoconference which is believed to be able to
replace face-to-face meetings or, at least, to minimize the amount of travel between
distant sites. People usually assume that using videoconference would be very helpful
for supporting collaborative work, because they believe it will replace face-to-face
interactions. Theories such as the media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), which
proposes that communication can be arrayed along a continuum of media richness –
face-to-face being the richest medium, – support this common sense intuition.
However, in most cases, participants are disappointed, and tend to blame the
technology. Many experiences with videoconference have resulted in failures (Egido,
1990). These failures are consistent with some experimental results, which contradict
some of the assumptions of the media richness and social presence theories
4
concerning the richness of video communication and its position on the continuum of
media (e.g., Chapanis, 1975, and Gale, 1989). An important body of research has
focused on examining differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face
communication (Finholst and Sproull, 1994; Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire., 1984, Straus
and McGrath, 1994, Walther, 1995).
A second important line of research has focused on comparing audio, video and face-
to-face communication, and examined the advantages of video over audio-only
connections for remote communication (Boyle, Amderdsom & Newlands., 1994,
Chapanis, 1975, Egido, 1990, Olson, Olson & Meader., 1995, Short, Williams &
Christie., 1976). Most of this research has shown very little advantage of video over
audio-only connections for remote communication. A growing body of research has
experimented with the use of video and audio to either provide a sense of
teleproximity to small distributed groups who need to tightly coordinate their efforts
(Olson and Bly, 1991; Tang and Rua, 1994) and to support informal communication
in the workplace (Abel, 1990; Bly, Harrison & Irwin, 1993; Dourish and Bly, 1992;
Dourish Adler, Bellotti & Henderson., 1996;Fish, Kraut, Root & Rice., 1993; Heath
and Luff, 1991). Heath and Luff (1991) describe the organization of video-mediated
communication in collaborative work in a dispersed multi-media office environment.
They report a naturalistic analysis of use and interaction through audio-video
technologies, and show how technology introduces certain asymmetries in
communication and transform both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Thus, they find
that people tend to exaggerate their movements and gestures, as they have been
unnoticed – or they think they have been unnoticed – by their colleagues.
Naturalistic studies of face-to-face communication have shown that participants
constantly monitor one another’s behavior and are very sensitive to them. Speakers
5
adapt their speech to the responses of the interlocutor(s) – gestures, facial expressions
(Ekman and Friessen, 1969; Goffman, 1967; Heath & Luff, 1991; Kendon, 1977;
McGrath, 1990). Although video provides some visual cues, it may be inadequate to
support communication and coordinating interactions. Lack of context in video-
mediated settings creates asymmetries that are critical to explain and understand
behaviors in these settings. Thus, in video-mediated context, people do not share the
same physical context, e.g., limited peripheral awareness, eye gaze, body language,
etc. (Heath and Luff, 1991; Henderson & Henderson, 2000), and they do not share the
same social context (Heath and Luff, 1991; Mackay, 1999). They have fewer cues to
interpret others’ behaviors: have the remote participants heard them properly? Have
they noticed their quizzical expressions? Are they bored, tired, or is it just an
impression due to the quality of the video image? They therefore have a different
frame of reference to interact, and tend to be more explicit to build a common frame
of reference. Moreover, video technology constrains behavior and communication
patterns, and induces new or modified verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
The theatrical performance metaphor, developed by Goffman (1959; 1974) in his
study of everyday interaction, provides a useful theoretical framework to analyze
people’s behavior and communication patterns in video-mediated settings. I extend
the theatrical performance metaphor and the notion of stage to propose the notion of a
virtual stage, which provides a relevant framework for exploring video-mediated
interactions. The notion of virtual stage is a powerful construct to describe the
asymmetries we observed in video-mediated communication and can explain some of
the dramaturgical nature of the modified behaviors we observed. I argue that the
behaviors developed in order to bridge the asymmetries created by video-mediated
communication may not be negative or inefficient for communication. These new
6
forms of interaction may be “the foundation for the emergence of new forms of
sociability” (Heath & Luff, 1991).
Most of the research which has focused on comparing audio, video and face-to-face
communication, has typically used artificial groups – with no shared history and
context– performing artificial tasks in a pre-determined period of time. Only by
observing mediated interactions in the context of an on-going activity for a period of
several weeks (in the case of our research, video-mediated interactions), can we begin
to understand the impact of video on communication and interaction patterns. This
paper reports an exploratory field study of MBA students interacting over
videoconference in the context of a two-month distributed elective between two
campuses, one in Europe and one in Asia. It suggests that one reason for the
disappointment might be due to false expectations concerning video (“it is like face-
to-face”) and lack of awareness of the transformations in nonverbal and verbal
conduct induced by the technology.
Behavioral and societal effects of computer-mediated communication were said to be
critical research topics (Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984). Behavioral and societal
effects of video-mediated communication are similarly becoming critical research
topics as increasingly distributed organizations are looking to technology to help
support communication and to reduce travel expenses (in terms of both time and
money). This paper describes some of the issues raised by video communication. The
objective of this research is to explore how video mediation affects behaviors: what
alteration video mediation introduces in the way people interact and communicate and
how people adapt to this new context and adjust their behaviors.The first section
provides a brief review of Goffman’s theoretical framework and the naturalistic
studies of face-to-face interactions, focusing on the role of nonverbal and
7
paralinguistic cues in communication. In the second section, I describe the research
site and the qualitative approach I used for collecting and analyzing the data. The third
section provides a definition of the virtual stage, while the fourth section examines
the roles, practices and behaviors that emerged in video-mediated settings in order to
reduce the asymmetries created by the video. The last section examines how the
notion of virtual stage provides an explanatory construct to describe and understand
video-mediated behaviors and their dramaturgical nature. It suggests that these new
forms of interaction may be more than replacement strategies.
2. Background
2.1. The Theatrical Performance Metaphor
Goffman (1959, 1974) analyzes human behavior in social situations. He uses the
metaphor of theatrical performance as a framework: individuals present themselves
and their activity to others, consciously or unconsciously, using some techniques in
order to sustain their performance as actors and present a character to an audience. He
defines two main regional boundaries in which social interactions take place:
“frontstage” and “backstage”. The front region ( or Frontstage) is “the place where
the performance is given” (1959, p. 93). [ or Backstage] is “a place, relative to a given
performance, where […] the performer can relax; he can drop his front […]) The back
region will be the place where the performer can reliably expect that no member of the
audience will intrude. Very commonly, the back region of a performance is located at
one end of the place where the performance is presented, being cut off from it by a
partition and guarded passageway”(1959, p. 98). In everyday interactions, the notions
8
of frontstage and backstage are often “functional”: you are frontstage when you are
performing, that is, presenting your “personal front” to the audience.
Goffman’s use of the notion of stage, performance and roles to describe social
interactions and presentation of self can be understood at a micro and macro level. At
a macro level, the roles Goffman refers to are the social roles that people play. A
nurse, for example, has to “play the nurse” when she is in a certain context, i.e., at the
hospital, and being backstage then refers to a situation –at home – when she does not
need to present herself as a nurse. The theatrical performance metaphor provides
Goffman with a means of distinguishing between the individual actor (e.g., the
individual woman, X, who is a nurse) who appears on stage and the character she
assumes as a nurse.
Goffman is also interested in the micro level analysis of people’s interactions: how
they present themselves, interact and influence one another, what roles they play and
how they shift from one role to another in face-to-face encounters. Goffman (1959;
1974) treats an interaction as a dialogue between two groups, the actors and the
audience. The roles between these two groups shift depending on the interaction. In
everyday interactions, the stage does not exist physically. It is a matter of roles: who
the actors are and who the audience is, who is frontstage and who is backstage are
functionally defined. Goffman also identifies a director who is someone who has “the
right to direct and control the process of the dramatic action” (1959, p. 84).
In this paper, I use the theatrical metaphor to describe interactions at a micro level,
and focus on the verbal and nonverbal communication occurring in a video-mediated
context. Goffman’s work has been used by other researchers to understand and
evaluate communication behaviors. The focus, however, was on “face work” and
symbolic interactions (e.g., Cool, Fish, Krant and Lowery 1992; Zach, 1993).
9
Goffman (1967) argues that people in communication – both direct and mediated –
aim, by “face work”, to maintain their own and others’ self-images. As bandwidth
narrows, face work is harder to achieve as it is highly grounded on non-verbal and
paralinguistic cues. The notion of stage is extremely relevant for analyzing video
communication. The boundaries of the stage are more defined than in everyday
interactions: the TV monitor and the camera angles cut off the interacting space from
what is out of sight. I develop the notion of virtual stage to describe and analyze
actors’ interactions in video-mediated settings. This construct provides a powerful
framework to describe the context of video-mediated communication and thus helps
the understanding of some of the behaviors we observed. The virtual stage is a frame
of reference that is only partially shared by the participants. This restricted
overlapping, as well as the ambiguity as to what we share and what we don’t share,
create situations where people give extra information to build a common background
and exaggerate certain of their gestures to make sure that the remote site has
understood them.
2.2 The importance of nonverbal and paralinguistic cues in communication
All communication and interactions are always situated in a physical, organizational
and social context. To communicate, we rely on social contextual cues, i.e., those
aspects of the physical environment and nonverbal behaviors that define the nature of
the social situation and the actors’ role and relative status (Goffman, 1959; 1974). In
video-mediated settings, the access to the physical, organizational and social context
is restricted and this limitation creates asymmetries between the two sites. There are
gaps in the common background – e.g., the weather, who’s in the room, the level of
10
attention, the interest of the participants, and on which interactions between
participants are grounded.
Naturalistic studies of face-to-face communication have shown that participants
constantly monitor one another’s behavior and are very sensitive to them. Speakers
and listeners coordinate their interactions relying on the feedback provided by
nonverbal behaviors such as head nods, smiles, eye contact, glances, expressions and
gestures (Kendon, 1977) and objects of reference in their environment (Ekman and
Friessen, 1969). Speakers adapt their speech to the reactions of the interlocutors –
gestures, facial expressions (McGrath, 1990; Heath & Luff, 1991). In a similar line,
Goffman (1967) has stressed the interactive nature of communication and the
importance of continuous feedback provided by the nonverbal and paralinguistic cues.
The “glances, gestures, positionings” (Goffman, 1967), “tone of voice, manner of
uptake, restarts and the variously positioned pauses” (Goffman, 1981) are highly
significant cues that allow speakers to monitor their speech and modify accordingly.
Extensive research has focused on comparing computer-mediated communication
and face-to-face communication, and shown how social context and nonverbal cues
have dramatically changed the nature of communication. A reduction in cues, such as
eye contact, head nods, and voice inflection creates disruption in the flow of
communication (Argyle, Lalljee, and Cook, 1968; Kendon, 1967). The inability to
perceive such cues as quizzical expressions, nodding and frowning, reduces
information on other to understand and agree or disagree with one’s remarks (Strauss
and McGrath, 1994).
Videoconference is usually thought to be closer to face-to-face as participants have
access, at least partially, to nonverbal cues as they use both the audio and video
channels. However, the video medium constrains access to the nonverbal and
11
paralinguistic cues, and creates asymmetries, as participants are never sure that these
nonverbal and paralinguistic cues have been noticed, and/or correctly interpreted by
the other site (Heath and Luff, 1991). As it has been shown that people develop ways
of sending computerized screams, hugs and kisses (Pollack, 1982), I observe how
people, in video-mediated settings, modify their verbal and nonverbal behaviors –
they tend to be more explicit and share context with the other site and develop
exaggerated gestures.
3. Methods
Many studies comparing computer-mediated, video-mediated and face-to-face
communication are experiments where participants have defined tasks to execute in an
experimental context (e.g., Isaacs, Morris, Rodriguez & Tang. 1995; Olson, Olson and
Meader, 1995; Williams, 1977). This study is not a comparative study of different
mediated interactions but it treats video on its own merit. It is grounded on a field
study, which, by its very nature, aims to take into account the situated nature of
cooperation and communication. It focuses on video-mediated interactions and the
evolution of practices for a group of participants during a 2-month period. I carried
out extensive, on-site field observations, videotaping and informal discussions with
the participants in the study (Blomberg, 1987; Suchman, 1987).
3. 1 Research Site
INSEAD – an International Business School in France – founded a campus in
Singapore as an integral part of their European campus. I used this structure to
experiment a distributed classroom experience with an MBA elective, “IT and
12
distributed organizations.”.1 I used off-the-shelf technologies (videoconference, an
electronic white board, Webcams, Audio Conference, e-mail and INTERNET forum).
Like all INSEAD MBA electives, this one lasted two months and was taught via a
video link to students located in both Singapore and France. Two major aims of the
elective were (1) to provide students with the experience of remote collaboration and
(2) to explore how one could create and nurture the experience of being part of the
same class.
3.1.2 Participants
This course involved the instructor (myself), two research assistants (RAs) and the
MBA students. I taught the first half of the course from Singapore, and the second half
in France. The two research assistants “hosted” the class at each site. They were
responsible for setting up the room, checking the technology, being there in case of
technological problems (being able to manage these problems or call in the technical
support) and managing the interactions in the classroom and between the classroom
and the remote site. Six MBAs2 took part in this experimental course, five in France
and one in Singapore. As there was only one MBA student attending the class in
Singapore, the research assistant hosting the class in Singapore acted as a student.3
She took an active part in the class discussion and worked on the project with the
students. We therefore had seven participants involved in class discussions and
working on a project on the concept of One School/Two campuses, and its
implementation from a technological, organizational and cultural perspective.
1 I was very much involved in the course, as I was teaching this elective. I will refer to myself as “the instructor”, or simply “I”. 2 This elective was taught during the year of the opening of the Singapore campus; the first promotion in Singapore was small. 3 The other RA hosting the class in France acted as an external/neutral observer.
13
3.1.2 Schedule
There were eight double sessions (3 and a half hours each, with a 15 minute break)
with a video link, scheduled over a period of two months. Four group4 work sessions
were scheduled during these eight sessions. The instructor taught the first half of the
course from Singapore and then from France The RA based in Singapore only came
after the first two classes. Thus, during the first two classes, there were two RAs in
France and the instructor in Singapore. Then, there were two classes with both the RA
and the instructor in Singapore and an RA in France. There was one RA and the
instructor in France and one RA in Singapore for the last 4 sessions.
3.1.3 Interaction style and room arrangement
As this elective was an experiment, I knew from the beginning that extra efforts
(compared to a co-located class) had to be made to create an interactive environment.
I involved the remote site as much as possible, particularly when I flew back to France
(because of the small number in Singapore). My informal style might have helped
enhance interaction and communication, and support the feeling of being part of the
same class. Humor was essential. The RAs and I tried to build a warm working
relationship with the students.
The video link was started 30 minutes before the beginning of the class, when the
research assistants and I arrived. Hence, when the students came in, the connection
was on, and they could immediately interact with the other site. During the break, the
link was maintained in order to facilitate informal interactions. Further, the video link
was disconnected 10 minutes after the official end of the class for the same reason. A
14
similar arrangement was used for group work sessions. This arrangement was found to
be very important to support informal interactions.
There were two TV monitors in each room. The first TV monitor, with the camera on
it, was located at one end of the room and the tables were organized as for a meeting
facing the camera. Participants sat around the table. The electronic white board was
located close to the first TV monitor. The second TV monitor was located at the other
end of the room. Its function was mainly to provide an image to the speaker (instructor
or student making the presentation) so that he could stand at the electronic white
board and see both the local and the remote audiences, while the local audience could
see the electronic white board, the speaker and the remote audience. After a few
sessions, some modifications were made in the arrangement. Some students suggested
that they did not need to see all the participants at the same time and that therefore one
TV monitor was enough. They pointed out that even in a face-to-face situation, they
did not see all the participants at once. Moreover, the location of the camera on one of
the TV monitors created a strange situation whereby a participant was talking, facing
the TV monitor with no camera, and the remote site saw the back of her head as she
had her back to the TV with a monitor.
They tried out several locations for the TV monitor, and finally decided to have it at
the end of the room, facing the electronic white board located at the other end. They
moved the tables closer to the monitors. Hence, tables at each site were connected by
the video at their ends into one long virtual table (See Henderson & Henderson, 2000,
for the description of a similar arrangement in the context of a distributed design
group at SUN Microsystems). Chairs were placed around this virtual table, an
arrangement that created a feeling of “being part of the same room” and supported
4 Due to the small number of students, there was only one group involving all the students and the RA.
15
interactions. To see people at one’s side, one turned one’s head left or right, and when
people were in the remote room, they also turned their heads and looked on through
the video. The presentations were given using the electronic white boards located at
both ends of the virtual table. Participants would turn in their chairs to see the
presentation, while those in the remote room would see it via the video.
3.2. Data Collection and Analysis
This course was an ideal opportunity to collect data on interaction patterns and
development of behaviors in a video-mediated setting. It was an interesting situation
as it was less formal than a videoconference meeting (it was held on a regular basis
for a two-month period). However, it was not as informal as a mediaspace.5 The two
research assistants and I wrote field notes during and after class and group sessions.
We videotaped all the sessions and collected 59 hours of video in total. We used a
tripod and a digital camcorder with an LCD screen so that the students could see what
was being videotaped. I explained the aim of the study at the beginning of the class
and students signed an informed consent (Mackay, 1995).
To analyze the videotapes, we applied the interaction analysis methodology (Jordan &
Henderson, 1995). We did content logs of 25 hours, and used an iterative approach.
We started with some foci of analysis that evolved over time: team building,
coordination, turns on the floor. New ones emerged: sharing context,
frontstage/backstage, the virtual stage, and “extreme behaviors”. We had regular
discussions to redefine the foci of analysis, and did a detailed analysis and transcripts
of clips that seemed relevant (according to the definition of the foci of analysis).
16
We had several interaction analysis sessions (Jordan & Henderson, 1995), during
which, one of us (one of the two RAs or I) presented several clips. The presenter
started by giving some context to the clip and then rolled the tape. The two other
participants reacted to what they saw, and provided their own analysis of the
interaction. One student6 joined us during one interaction analysis session to test the
analyses developed in the previous sessions for involving participants in interactive
analysis, see Jordan & Henderson, 1995; Karasti, 2001). During this session, we used
a similar methodology as before. We first made a brief summary of the foci of
analysis that had emerged from our analyses to get the student’s feedback. We then
showed him some clips to get his interpretation and to test ours. His analysis mainly
confirmed our interpretations.
4. The Virtual Stage
Goffman’s use of the notion of stage, performance and roles to describe social
interactions and presentation of self provides a powerful framework to analyze
communication in video contexts. One could argue that the activity of teaching is very
theatrical and that this might bias the observations. However, the research does not
look at how the instructor “plays” or “stands on the stage” and the object of analysis is
the interactions during the class discussions as well as during the group sessions.
The notion of virtual stage provides an interesting framework to understand the
experience of a videoconference. Hence, although it can be attractive to analyze a
videoconference meeting between two sites as a pair of connected local meetings, it
5 Mediaspaces are distributed video systems which “attempt to include a variety of forms of communication, ranging from informal encounters and peripheral awareness” (Mackay, 1999). Connections are always there; only people come and go.
17
seems that a videoconference – the class in our case, meetings in other cases – occurs
in a single constructed place – the virtual stage.7 This alternative framework is
described by Henderson & Henderson (2000) in their analysis of distance meetings at
SUN Microsystems, where they discovered that a distance meeting occurs in a single
constructed place, which they called a distance meeting place.
4.1 Being frontstage / being backstage
According to the original metaphor, the stage is easy to define in the theatrical
context, as it is a physical identifiable space. Let us call this first definition the spatial
definition. In the case of everyday interactions, the stage does not exist physically –
rather, it is a matter of roles: it is functionally defined according to who the actors are
and who the audience is, i.e., who are front stage and who are back stage (Goffman,
1959). Let us call this definition the functional definition. In contrast, the virtual stage
seems quite similar to the theatrical stage in that it can be defined as the connection
between two physical spaces connected by a video link. In video-mediated settings,
the stage is primarily defined by the scope of the camera and the image that appears
on the TV monitor. Thus, being in scope or out of scope defines whether you are on
stage or off stage.
In our elective, the spatial definition of the virtual stage was obvious during the
first class. Three students had enrolled in Singapore, but only one was present.
The setting for that first session was such that people in France could see either
6 The student at that time had already received his grade for the elective, and in fact, had graduated, so there was no risk of bias due to a professor/student relationship. 7 The virtual stage is the location where the interactions occur; the virtual class would involve the virtual stage and the back stage, and the interactions – class discussion, information sharing, group work.
18
the instructor or the student, and at the beginning, the camera was focused on
the instructor. Therefore, participants (F) assumed that there were three
students. As the instructor said “and here is the third one”, she “pointed” to the
student (S) by turning the camera on her. The student (S) then “appeared” on
the screen/stage in France.
Goffman (1959) describes an interesting example of backstage difficulties in radio and
television broadcasting. In these situations, the backstage region tends to be defined as
all places where the camera is not focused at the moment or all places out of range of
“live” microphones.
In other situations, the virtual stage seems closer to the functional definition
proposed by Goffman. Being “on stage” – which means you are in scope does not
imply that you are performing. You can be “on stage” according to the spatial
definition and backstage according to the functional definition. Hence, “by
invoking a backstage style, individuals can transform any region into a backstage”
(Goffman, 1959). Being backstage when you are “on stage” (in scope) means that
you are not an actor, but part of the audience, involved in side discussions, or
managing the interaction. Hence, during one class, the instructor (S) was talking
and did not notice that she went out of scope. Anna, the RA (S), made a sign to
inform her that she was out of scope. Anna was in scope and therefore spatially
frontstage, but functionally backstage. The instructor was functionally frontstage,
but spatially backstage for a while, as she was out of scope.
In certain situations, no one is functionally frontstage – i.e., involved in the class
discussion or in the group discussion – and there are side discussions at each site. In
19
fact, it is as if there were functionally two backstages and an empty virtual stage, even
if all the participants were in scope.
During the final session, there was an interesting case mixing both the spatial and the
functional definition:
While the students were presenting their projects to an external, invited
audience, a problem developed with the electronic white board, which the
instructor (F) and the research assistant (S) tried to fix. The student making the
presentation (S) was frontstage, both functionally and spatially. The instructor
changed some setting on the computer and then made a sign “via the video” for
the research assistant (S) to go and check the result of the modification. The
research assistant nodded to signal that she was aware of the request and went
out of scope to check if the modifications were “registered”.
In this case, they were both in scope, but used the “back” of the virtual stage (defined
as a space) to interact. Moreover, they were playing a manager role, and were
therefore functionally backstage. Thus, to define the virtual stage, we need to use
both spatial and functional criteria. This mix of the two types of criteria leads to
situations where people may think that they are on stage, because they are
functionally frontstage, but they are spatially backstage as they are out of scope. This
intertwining of the two criteria creates mixed situations that are hard to manage.
Insert table 1.
20
4.2 Roles: Actors, audience and stage managers
In the distributed classroom, all the participants are potential actors and audience, as
in everyday interactions. Goffman (1959; 1974) treats an interaction as a dialogue
between two groups, the performers and the audience. The roles between these two
groups shift depending on the interaction. At the beginning of the first class, students
were merely a passive audience, and the instructor put them in an acting position by
asking them to present themselves using the remote control to focus the camera on
themselves. As they took the remote control and had to present themselves, the
students got on stage and became involved in the performance. They also became
aware of the “physical” limits of the virtual stage. By the end of this first session, all
the students had become actors. Then, during the rest of the course, they were
alternately audience – when they were passive and just attending the performance
given by others on the virtual stage – and actors – when they were actively interacting,
as in everyday situations.
Goffman also identifies a director who has “the right to direct and control the process
of the dramatic action.” (1959, p. 84). I similarly identified a third role, that of stage
manager. The stage manager’s role is similar to Goffman’s definition of that of the
director, except that he might be involved more with details than the director is. The
stage manager is responsible for either changing the setting (using the remote control
to get a more focused image of the other site, or to present a more focused image of
her site; moving microphones), or for giving feedback or instructions to someone
performing on the stage (e.g., asking someone to move into the scope of the camera;
or telling someone to speak up).
21
5. Bridging the asymmetries: evolving roles, practices and behaviors
in video-mediated environments
Extensive research has shown the importance of nonverbal and paralinguistic cues for
communication (e.g., Ekman and Friessen, 1969; Goffman, 1967; Kendon, 1977), and
another line of research has shown how technology- mediated communication
constrains our ability to notice and interpret these cues (e.g., McGrath, 1990; Heath &
Luff, 1991; Williams, 1977).
In fact, even when co-located, we do not have equal access to all the information, but
we are not aware of this reality and/or tend to forget it as we use sophisticated skills to
overcome these difficulties: we frown when the communication is unclear, move our
chairs so that we can see better, cup an ear to show that we have trouble hearing
(Henderson & Henderson, 2000). Although video-mediated communication gives
access to some nonverbal behaviors, this access is very limited, and one cannot rely
(or only very partially) on peripheral awareness. The behaviors we developed to
compensate asymmetries in face-to-face situations are not very efficient in video-
mediated settings. These behaviors are difficult to recognize and interpret, and are
often misinterpreted.
In this study, I have focused on the behaviors (verbal and nonverbal) people develop
to bridge these asymmetries and establish and preserve mutual involvement. First, I
found that certain roles, such as that of stage manager, become crucial to manage the
technology as well as the social interactions. Moreover, people have to make an extra
effort to share context. Participants tried to build a common context by making
comments and giving extra information to the other site. Building a common context
22
contributes to the building of a virtual stage. It embodies the virtual stage in a context
that helps the actors, the audience and the managers to coordinate their interactions.
However, the virtual stage (and its dual nature, spatial and functional) creates a very
specific type of frame of reference where people can be both spatially frontstage and
functionally backstage, or vice versa. This duality and the fact that people are either
not aware or sure, on “which stage” (spatial, functional, both or neither) they are
interacting, lead to the emergence of two types of nonverbal behaviors – waving and
exaggerated behavior. Heath and Luff (1991), in their observations of co-workers,
whose offices were connected via a mediaspace, describe similar exaggerations of
behavior.
5. 1 Stage managers
The theatrical metaphor led us to define three main roles: actors, audience and stage
managers. Stage managers are key participants in video-mediated settings, as they
have to manage the interactions in the context of a technology-mediated setting. One
particular student, Mark, developed a keen interest in managing the setting and the
interactions. He often came earlier, or stayed during the break to arrange things, (e.g.,
relocate the TV monitor, check the lighting, move the microphones, etc.). He also
made these adjustments during class discussions and group work. He regularly
checked that the other students were in scope, speaking closely enough into the
microphone, and asked them to modify their behaviors when necessary. He was
therefore very often functionally backstage (and either spatially frontstage or
backstage).
Various studies (Mackay, 1990; Jordan, 1993, Nardi & O’Day, 1999) have shown
that, in the workplace, one always finds people – “translators” or “facilitators” – who
23
possess or develop technical skills and interests, and are particularly willing to help.
Mark was this kind of participant: he understood the technology better than the others,
was more aware of the constraints and limits introduced by it, and endeavored to
enhance interaction by modifying the setting and supporting others’ behaviors.
Apart from this self-emerging stage manager, there were two official stage managers:
the two research assistants, who were hosting the class. However, one of the RAs,
Anna, was more of the facilitator type than the other RA. Like Mark, she was very
much aware of the constraints of the technology – she kept rearranging the room to
enhance interactions. Hence, she suggested moving the table closer to the video
equipment in order to create the “virtual table” setting. The decision to keep only one
TV monitor was made after a first discussion between Anna, Mark and I, and on the
approval of the other participants after a “trial” class with only one monitor at each
site. She regularly checked that the technology was working. She was also aware of
the consequence of the mediation of technology on the behaviors of people, and
constantly reminded students to lean forward to be in scope and to speak into the
microphone.
Goffman (1959) shows that teammates, engaged in a performance, use staging cues.
He also observed that, “during radio and television productions, a vocabulary of signs
was employed by those in the control room to guide performers”. Similarly, stage
managers in the class often used signs and gestures to communicate with the other
performers. They pointed to the microphone to indicate to the performers that they
needed to move closer to it, made a sign to indicate that they were out of scope, waved
in a negative manner to indicate that there was a problem with the video connection or
that the slides were not being projected on the electronic white board.
24
In any videoconference meeting, it is very important to have a host who has the role of
an ambassador for the other site – involving them in the discussion, guaranteeing that
nobody talked “off camera”, monitoring the picture, etc. (see Henderson &
Henderson, 2000). In the context of this distributed class, hosts had a crucial role: they
locally took care of the group, indicated problems to the instructor who was at a
distance, pointed out time zone differences and context, etc. The host was a key actor
at the site where the instructor was not physically present, but was also important
when she was physically present, because she was not able to manage all the technical
details while leading the class discussion. For example, it was difficult, while
presenting, to regularly check that the video and the Internet connections (NetMeeting
used for connecting the electronic white boards) were working. When there were
technical problems, the hosts were in charge to try to solve them (reboot the computer,
reconnect NetMeeting) or contact the technical support team while the instructor kept
leading the discussion. Moreover, the host at the remote site also signaled when there
were questions at her site (a hand up, a puzzled look, say that had not been noticed by
the instructor).
The technology-mediated nature of the course led to an overlap of the tasks and
confusion as to the definition of the managers’ roles. While some of the tasks had
been allocated beforehand (the two research assistants were officially supposed to host
the class), some people emerged as facilitators. However, as in everyday interactions
(Goffman, 1959), different people were playing different roles at different moments:
any participants could be audience, actors or managers.
25
5. 2 Sharing context
In several situations, participants made comments in order to share context, which
would not have been necessary in a co-located situation. People make explicit what is
usually implicit and let the “other site” knows what is going on “on their site”.
Throughout the elective, we saw, for example, one of the participants acknowledging
the presence of new participants. This would not happen in a co-located situation, as
everybody would be aware of the presence of this newcomer. In a video-mediated
context, the participants at the other site might not have noticed the newcomer’s
arrival, who, in fact, might have been out of scope. This public acknowledgement
creates a common frame of reference for participants at both sites. In a similar vein,
we heard many similar comments of participants providing the remote participants
with information that they could not have access to because of the limited “shared
space”. It could be either information about what was going on outside or inside the
room, or even something pertaining to an element beyond the camera scope, such as
the weather. The weather difference between France and Singapore was constantly
referred to, with Singaporean participants teasing the French participants on the bad
weather they have in France. During one break, one student (F) turned the camera to
the window in response to a comment on the weather: it was a sunny day in France.
We observed another set of comments and questions that contributed to the building
of a shared representation. Clearly related to the presentation of self, they concerned
the image that the other site got from the site asking the question.
For example, during the first session, one student, Bob, asked Singapore: “Are
we dark? Can you see us? Can you see our features? The view the people on
the France site got of themselves seemed to be very dark, and Bob was worried
26
that Singapore might not see them. His question is also a way of sharing
context: he is telling Singapore what their representation of their mediated
image is, and he is reflecting on “what the remote site sees of us.”8
Along the same lines, participants frequently commented that they could not hear the
other site, and asked if they, too, could be heard and seen. They sought reassurances
that the link, both audio and visual, was intact. As Henderson and Henderson (2000)
claim, the “here” or the “there” is a clear reference to a common constructed place,
which is none of the “local” locations.
When participants had technical problems to solve, such as reconnecting NetMeeting
for the electronic white board, they were extremely articulate about both their actions
and the information they saw on the computer screen. The remote participants were
also very articulate about what was happening on their site. They pointed out that no
presentation was coming through, and received only a blank screen, displaying an
error message.
5. 3 Video-mediated behaviors
5.3.1 Waving
One of the most common nonverbal behaviors that I observed is waving. People kept
waving at one another across sites, often to accompany what they were saying.
Participants waved at the beginning and at the end of the sessions to enhance their
verbal greetings. When they wanted to interrupt, they first made small gestures and
8 By asking this question, Bob abandoned his audience role and became an actor as well as a manager.
27
then waved (if the remote participant did not break off). When the image looked too
still, people waved while asking the other site if the video link was still on.
Participants tended to behave as if they were greeting one another from far away:
adding the gesture to the words, as if they felt they could not be heard (people seemed
to speak more loudly in video-mediated settings). They always waved when they said
“hello” or “good-bye”. They were also waving when they were trying to get the
attention from the other site. When someone in France wanted to respond to a point
made by someone in Singapore, they would generally first use subtle body movements
as if co-located (e.g., bending forward, moving their mouth as if to start speaking,
raising their eyebrows). Then, as they realized that these signals were too subtle to be
interpreted through the video link, they usually made a sign with the hand. If this sign
was not seen, or at least ignored, they would wave in an increasingly animated way,
and finally interrupt.
Waving was also a key behavior in order to check that the link was still on. While
Clara (S) was discussing some data that she had collected for the project, she noticed
that the image seemed “frozen” and wanted to check that the connection was still on.
She asked if she could be seen, and waved. Students in France waved back and replied
that there was no connection problem.
This waving behavior is one type of behavior that was developed by the participants in
order to bridge the asymmetry between the two locations. When the usual body
language could not be seen and interpreted by participants at the other site, waving
was “visible” enough to be perceived, while still being some sort of body language,
and taking advantage of peripheral awareness (i.e., people did not have to interrupt the
speakers in order to make them aware of the fact that they wanted to intervene).
Moreover, although video allows people to be in a situation close to face-to-face in
28
the sense that they have access to both sound and image, they experience distance as if
the other site were extremely far away. Waving is an expression of this feeling of
distance – you don’t wave to someone who is sitting next to you. It is also a way of
getting the other site closer: by waving, you initiate a contact, which reduces the
distance and the formality created by the technology. In a sense, you re-humanize the
communication.
Certain gestures appear to lose their communicative impact when performed through
video (Heath and Luff, 1991). Video allows individuals to witness their colleagues’
nonverbal behaviors and therefore to coordinate their own behavior in response to
changes of facial expressions or body language. Heath and Luff observed individuals
attempting to establish contact – through a look or a wave, prior to engaging in
conversation – and upgrade their movements and gestures in an attempt to attract the
other’s attention: “The gesture becomes increasingly exaggerated and meets with no
response.” (1991, p. 101).
I observed similar exaggeration in waving: people first waved very subtly, and as they
thought that their sign had not been noticed by the remote site (in some cases, this was
because they had not seen the “body reply” of the other site), they made a bigger sign,
and this can continue to the point where they engage in exaggerated waving as if they
were kilometers apart.
5.3.2 Extreme Behaviors
We observed a second type of video-mediated behavior: shouting, jumping, waving
excessively, literally performing in the original sense of the word. We have called
these extrovert behaviors extreme behaviors. They are often the next step after the
waving behavior: people first use gaze, or other subtle body signals, then they wave.
29
They first make a little sign; then wave excessively, and finally jump or speak very
loudly to attract the attention of the other site.
During the second session, we observed an interesting case of extreme
behavior. The instructor (S) was preparing to leave after the first half of the
session, as the second half was intended to be a group work session. She gave
some indications to the students about the project, and waved as she said
“Good-bye.” As she was speaking, Harsh (F) waved. As he did not get any
response, two other students also waved, and one of them, jumping up and
down, waving, and shouting “No, no”. As the instructor did not respond to any
of these signals – in fact, she had moved toward the door – another student,
Bob (F), pleaded with her not to go yet – “No, don’t go – Don’t go yet”. Other
students (F) were waving. The instructor could only hear voices. As she was
far from the TV monitor, she did not see the students and could not hear
properly what they were saying. Anna (S) and the students were on the virtual
stage, while the instructor was off stage. Therefore, she did not have any idea
of what was happening on stage, although the students considered that she was
still frontstage (at least functionally, because she was no longer in the camera
scope). The instructor did not understand that the students wanted to ask a
question, and as she was about to leave the room, she added: “See you
Thursday”. Bob (F) shouted to Anna to call her back, which she did.
This is a good example of the exaggeration process. It is also interesting as it can be
interpreted as a form of catharsis: students would never have behaved in this way in a
face-to-face situation, but the mediation introduced by the video might have allowed
30
this behavior and its high level of informality. One could argue that, in fact, more than
informality, this behavior reflects just a different norm developed through necessity.
Our analysis of the data showed some cases where participants tended to perform for
the other site – dancing, showing off or making faces. The notion of virtual stage can
provide one possible explanation for this kind of “performing” behavior. The setting,
from a certain perspective, is very similar to a stage, and creates a situation where
people feel free to express themselves more informally and in a more extroverted
manner than in a face-to-face setting.
6. Discussion and conclusion
6.1 The notion of a virtual stage
The notion of virtual stage, derived from Goffrman’s theoretical metaphor (1959,
1974), provides a powerful framework and relevant distinctions (e.g.,
backstage/frontstage, various roles) for understanding video-mediated interactions.
The virtual stage is, by definition, a dual one: being on stage involves both spatial and
functional components. In some cases, they are correlated, in others, not: one can be
spatially frontstage and functionally backstage. This creates many unexpected
interactions compared to our usual everyday interactions. Individuals in video-
mediated settings often lose track of where the interaction space is. In a co-located
setting, I know whether you can see me or not, and if I leave the room, I stop talking
to you, because I know that you will not be able to hear me, whereas in a video-
mediated setting, I can speak and make some gestures assuming that you can see me,
while I am, in fact, out of scope.
31
The virtual stage is composed of two local stages (which are parts of two local
environments) and of a virtual space. Each site has only a limited and constrained
access to the other site, through the virtual space. Therefore, there is not a true
common frame of reference. However, it seems that individuals assume the existence
of this common frame of reference (Heath and Luff, 1991) which is argued to be
essential to communication and interaction. Our observations show that participants
put a lot of effort into sharing context and rebuilding a common frame of reference,
albeit a still quite distorted one.
In fact, the virtual stage is less than the shared frame of reference when we are co-
located, but more than a pair of connected places. Videoconference interactions take
place in a single distance place, which is a conceptually constructed place “there”,
holding all the participants together.
Participants develop specific communication mechanisms (sharing context) and
behaviors (waving and extreme behaviors) to achieve an equality in access between
the two rooms (never achieved) and to recover from the strange situation created by
the duality of the virtual stage (spatial and functional). The feedback that we have in a
face-to-face interaction is much more efficient and reliable than in a video-mediated
setting where one can always doubt that the others have seen one’s gesture. In fact, in
video-mediated settings, one’s behavior is produced not for the others, but for the
image of the others on the screen (Heath and Luff, 1991). Therefore, people tend to
emphasize and exaggerate their behavior to make sure that it has been noticed and
correctly interpreted by the remote participants
Insert table 2
32
Goffman’s analysis of the presentation of self (1959, 1974) focuses on the social roles
played in everyday life and impression management. His analysis also implies at a
micro-level, roles – audience, actors, and directors – similar to those described in this
paper. Technology mediation increases the complexity of interactions at the micro
level, as technology introduces many uncertainties and increases the work to be done
for managing face work.
Moreover, Goffman believes that communication is a constant interaction between
different performers. Nonverbal and paralinguistic cues are essential, as they provide
continuous feedback to the speakers, who, while they speak, can monitor their
discourse and adjust it accordingly (Goffman, 1959). Typically, staging cues used by
stage managers and performers are nonverbal signs (ibid.) The use of video distorts
and restricts the access to these nonverbal and paralinguistic cues and therefore highly
constrains the interactive nature of communication.
One could also argue that from the perspective of social roles, technology mediation
increases the complexity as the definition of roles such as those of students or
instructors are more ambiguous. In fact, this exploratory study shows that new roles,
such as facilitators and hosts – some of which have to be officially acknowledged –
have emerged.
6.2 “Beyond being there”
I believe that some of the frustrations experienced in video-mediated settings can be
explained by the fact that people assume that video-mediated settings reproduce
exactly face-to-face settings. They assume that there is “a natural and perfect state –
being there” (Hollan & Stornetta, 1992) and that when we are not co-located, we are
in an imperfect state, which technology should allow us to reproduce. Clearly, the
33
technology, as it is currently designed, fails to provide an environment where we can
interact as in face-to-face situations.
I observed that people develop specific behaviors to bridge the asymmetries
introduced by the use of video as a medium of communication. These video-mediated
behaviors are more than stopgaps or replacement strategies. These new forms of
interaction may be “the foundation for the emergence of new forms of sociability”
(Heath & Luff, 1991). As a matter of fact, some of the extreme behaviors we observed
are specific video-mediated behaviors that one could, in a way, overlook in a face-to-
face situation. In a similar way, answer machines have created contexts where people
call someone in the hope that this person will not be there, so that they can leave a
message. Nowadays, email is also used in situations where people could interact face-
to-face because sending email is less disruptive for both the sender and the recipient.
Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) claim that computer-mediated communication
was dramaturgically weak compared to face-to-face in the sense that it weakens social
influence by the absence of such nonverbal behavior such as taking the head seat,
speaking loudly, staring, touching and gesturing. Video-mediated communication
seems to be dramaturgically stronger, as participants can use some nonverbal
behaviors. However, video greatly constrains the use of these behaviors and induces
many asymmetries that create some sort of dramaturgical weakness. Participants, in
order to reduce the asymmetries created by the virtual stage, use the distance
introduced by the virtual stage to over-perform and produce extreme/ dramaturgical
behaviors.
I agree with Hollan and Stornetta (1992) who argue that the analysis of video-
mediated communication should not take face-to-face communication as the
comparison point, nor try to recreate it, as this is impossible. The strategy that takes
34
face-to-face as a perfect state, and attempts to recreate it, will always fail, as we would
never be able to reach a level of technology where there would be no difference
between people co-located and people at remote sites (Hollan & Stornetta, 1992; see
also, Dourish, Adler, Bellotti & Henderson, 1996). Even if we develop very powerful
communication systems, a question remains: will we “ever be close enough” (ibid.)?
One should try to understand the potential new behaviors that can emerge in video-
mediated environments. Being aware of the differences might help researchers shape
their demands and take advantage of the various types of media that they can use.
Technology cannot be considered as a stand-alone system. People have to develop
specific practices, depending on the specific context in which they are. Thus, we
should understand the affordances of each technology in terms of behavior and
interactions patterns, and keep that in mind while developing new practices, and while
designing new systems.
6.3 Future Work
This study is preliminary and exploratory. I am planning to collect more data –
complementary data from MBA courses and other contexts – in order to develop and
extend the framework of the virtual stage and our understanding of the new ways of
communicating that seem to be developing in video-mediated settings.
Moreover, I believe that the impact of culture of video-mediated behavior is an
interesting and important topic to explore. An important body of research has studied
cross-cultural differences in face-to-face encounters (e.g., Hall, 1959; 1966). Some
research has focused on examining cross-cultural differences in face-to-face and
computer-mediated communication (Tan, Wei, Watson, Clapper & McLean, 1998).
However, no research seems to have examined cross-cultural differences in video-
35
mediated settings. Since research on video-mediated communication is substantially
based on North American and European organizations and subjects, theories arising
from such work may not apply in other cultures. This research takes the Western
model of face-to-face communication as a standard. However, the literature on cross-
cultural (face-to-face) communication shows that the importance and the role of
nonverbal, paralinguistic and social cues vary a great deal from one culture to another
(Hall, 1959, 1966). Hence, eye contact and body language are said to be less important
for communication in Asian cultures (ibid.). How then will the constraints introduced
by video communication – distortion and limitation of verbal, paralinguistic and social
cues – be perceived in these cultures? How will Asians behave in video-mediated
settings? Will they modify their interaction and communication behaviors and how?
References
Abel, M.J., 1990, Experiences in an Exploratory Distributed Organization, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.) Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.
Argylle, M., Lallgee, M., and Cook, M., 1968, The effects of visibility of interactions
in a dyad, Human Relations, 21, 3-17 Blomberg, J., 1987, “Social Interaction and Office Communication: Effects on User’s
Evaluation of New Technologies”. In Technology and the Transformation of White Collar Work. R. Kraut (ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 195-210
Bly, S., Harrison, S., and Irwin, S., 1993, Media spaces: Bringing people together in a video audio and computing environment. Communications of the ACM special issue, 36 (1): 29-47.
Boyle, E., Amdersom, A, & Newlands, A., 1994, The effects of visibility on dialogue performance in a cooperative problem solving task, Language and Speech. 37, 1, 1-20.
Cool, C., Fish, R.S., Kraut R.E., and Lowery, C.M., 1992, Iterative Design of Video Communication Systems, Proceedings of CSCW’92
36
Chapanis, A., 1975, Interactive Human Communication, Scientific American, 232, 3,
36-42 Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel (1986), Organizational Information Requirements, Media
Richness and Structural Design, Management Science, 32, 5 May, 554-571 Dourish, P. & Bly, S., 1992, Portholes: Supporting awareness in a distributed work
group. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’92 (Monterey, CA), p 541-547. ACM Press, New York.
Dourish, P., Adler, A., Bellotti, V. and Henderson, A., 1996,Your Place or Mine? Learning from Long-term Use of Audio-Video Communication, Computer Supported Collaborative Work 5, 1, pp. 32-62
Egido, C., 1990, Teleconferencing as a Technology to Support Cooperative Work: Its
Possibilities and Limitations, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.). Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.
Ekman, P. and Friessen, W.V., 1969, The repertoires of Nonverbal Behaviour;
Categories, Origins, Usage and Coding. Semiotica 1, 49-98 Finholt, T., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S., 1990, Communication and Performance in Ad
Hoc Task Groups, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.), Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.
Fish, R., Kraut, R., Root, R. and Rice, R.E.,1993, Video as a technology for informal
communication. Communications of the ACM special issue, 36 (1), 48-61. Gale, S., 1989, Adding audio and video to an office environment. In Proceedings of
the First European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (London, Sept. 13-15), pp. 121-133
Goffman, E., 1959, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor Books Goffman, E., 1967, Interaction ritual, New York, Pantheon Goffman, E., 1974, Frame Analysis, Northeastern University Press Edition 1986. Goffman, E., 1981, Forms of Talk, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,
PA. Hall, E. T., 1959, The Silent Language, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Hall, E.T., 1966, The Hidden Dimension, garden City, NY: Doubleday Heath, C. and Luff, P., 1991, Disembodied Conduct: Communication Through Video
in a Multi-media Office Environment, in Proceedings of CSCW’91 `
37
Hernderson, A. and Henderson, L. “Supporting Distance Collaboration,” Performance Magazine, Fall, 2000
Hollan, J. & Stornetta, S., 1992, Beyond Being There, in Proceedings of CHI’92 Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K., and Tang, J.C., 1995, A Comparison of
Face-to-Face and Distributed Presentations, Proceedings of CHI’95 Jordan, B., 1993, “Ethnographic Workplace Studies and Computer Supported
Cooperative Work”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Informatics and Psychology, Dan Shapiro, M. Tauber & R. Traunmüller, eds., Amsterdam: North Holland.
Jordan, B., and Henderson, A., 1995, “Interaction Analysis: Foundations and
Practice.” The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4 (1): 39-103. Karasti, H., 1997b, Bridging the analysis of work practice and system redesign in
cooperative workshops. In van der Veer, G.A., A. Henderson and S. Coles (eds.): Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems Conference: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques (DIS’97), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 18-20, 1997, New York: ACM Press, pp. 185-195
Kendon, A. Studies in the Behaviour of Social Interaction, Peter de Rider Press, Holland, 1977 Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T.W., 1984, Social Psychological Aspects of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 1984, American Psychologist, 39, 10, 1123-1134
Mackay, W.E., 1990, Users and Customizable Software: A Co-Adaptive Phenomenon,
Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mackay, W. E., 1995, Ethics, lies and videotapes. In Proceedings of Human Factors
in Computing Systems, CHI’95 (Denver, CO), pp. 421-422. ACM Press, New York. Mackay, W.E., 1999, Media Spaces, in Computer-Supported Co-Operative Work,
Michel Beaudoin-Lafon, (ed.), John Wiley & Sons McGrath, J.E., 1990, Time Matters in Groups, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and
Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.), Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.
Nardi, B. and O’Day, 1999, Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Olson, M.H., and Bly, S., 1991, The Portland experience: A report on a distributed
research group. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34.
38
Olson, J.S., Olson, G.M., and Meader, D.K., 1995, What Mix of Video and Audio is Useful for Small Groups Doing Remote Real-time Design Work?, in Proceedings of CHI’95
Short J., Williams, E., & Christie, B., 1976, The Social psychology of
telecommunications. London; John Wiley & Sons. Strauss, S.G., and McGrath, J.E, 1994, Does the Medium Matter? The Interaction of
Task Type and Technology on Group Performance and Member Reactions? , Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 1, 87-97
Suchman, L., 1987, Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-machine
Communication. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. Tang,, J. and Rua, M., 1994, Montage: Providing teleproximity for distributed
groups. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’94 (Boston, MA), pp. 37-43. ACM Press, New York.
Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K-K, Watson, R.T., Clapper, D.L., McLean, E.R., 1998, Computer-
Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture, Management Science, vol. 44, N.9.
Williams, E., 1977, Experimental Comparisons of face-to-face and mediated
communication: A Review, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963-976 Zack, M.H, 1993, Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing
Management Groups, Information Systems Research 4:3
39
Table 1. Definition of the virtual stage The Virtual stage
Physical definition
Functional definition
Frontstage
In Scope: �� In the camera frame �� In the TV monitor frame
“Being frontstage”: �� “Performing”: being
involved in the “public”, “central” discussion
Backstage
Out of scope: �� Out of the camera frame �� Out of the TV monitor
frame
“Being Backstage”: �� Being part of the audience �� Being a stage manager �� Being involved in side
discussions
Table 2. Comparison between theater performance, everyday interactions and video-mediated interactions
Theatrical performance
Everyday interactions
Video-mediated behaviors
Stage:
Spatially defined region: “The special boundaries of the stage sharply and arbitrarily cut off the depicted world from what lies beyond the stage line” (Goffman, 1974)
Mainly a functional definition: being frontstage and being backstage – Acting vs. being part of the audience
Virtual stage: dual definition �� Physical: in scope / out of
scope �� Functional; being
fronstage/being backstage
Roles:
Actors, audience and directors Roles are pre-defined before the performance and don’t change. Usually, directors don’t play a part in the performance they direct. “A theatrical performance …requires a thorough scripting of the spoken content… the performer knows in advance just what he is going to do…”
Actors, audience, and directors Roles are not predefined and they shift from one group to another: performers become actors at one point, and vice versa. Director: “When one examines a team-performance, one often finds that someone is given the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action…” (Goffman, 1959). Sometimes, he plays an actual part in the performance he
Actors, audience and stage managers. Actors and audience are not pre-defined roles, and they shift. Stage managers are designated. They are in charge of: �� Checking the technology
and the arrangement of the room
�� Redesigning the arrangement of the room before and during the interaction if necessary.
40
(Goffman, 1959)
directs. There is no script
�� Monitoring the actors’ and audience’s behaviors and asked them to modify it if necessary, e.g., they might ask an actor to get back into the scope of the camera or to speak closer to the microphone; or ask someone in the audience involved in an aside discussion to not speak close to the microphone.
Non-official stage managers – facilitators – should be supported. There is no script
Behaviors
The performance involves both verbal and nonverbal parts. Nonverbal cues are key; they constitute the actors’ “play”. They tend to be exaggerated in order to be perceived by the audience. As the audience has only access to what is happening on the stage, actors tend to give them some extra information on what is happening outside of the stage.
Nonverbal cues and paralinguistic cues are key factors in the communication process. Peripheral awareness: People share the same physical and social context so a lot of the interactions are implicit (e.g., they don’t explicitly acknowledge the arrival of a newcomer). Participants rely on this common background.
Access to nonverbal and paralinguistic cues is limited. Participants are never sure that their behaviors have been noticed or properly interpreted. They tend to use more visible body language such as waving and to exaggerate their behaviors. These video-mediated behaviors can be seen as new ways of interacting. Explicit reference to context to build a shared context.