Extended Abstract

Tools in Support of Creative Collaboration Piotr D. Adamczyk♦†, Kevin Hamilton, Michael B. Twidale†, Brian P. Bailey‡ Division of Human Factors♦, Graduate School of Library and Information Science† School of Art and Design, Department of Computer Science‡ University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign { pdadamcz, kham, twidale, bpbailey @ uiuc.edu } ABSTRACT

Though expanding technologically focused multidisciplinary teams to include creative practitioners from the arts is an important step, equally important is how tools meant to support creative collaboration are able to accurately reflect relevant aspects of both artistic and technical practice. This workshop is meant to serve as a forum for exploration of novel and familiar collaborative tools, experience with these tools in practice, and an opportunity for discussion of how a broader understanding of multidisciplinary collaboration can extend existing techniques, as well as open new possibilities in research and design.

Creativity support tools are set an especially difficult task when they are applied to art/science collaboration. Not because of any fundamental incompatibility between the disciplines, but because creativity support tools are rarely supple enough to manage dramatically shifting requirements at various stages of design or handle the diversity of artifacts that might be generated. Traditional methods of evaluation of collaborative support tools may not address these aspects. This workshop aims to examine three specific areas open to expanded modes of evaluation; the social aspects of tools and tool use, how artifacts are created and manipulated in support tools, and how the expanding contexts of art/science collaborations may be rapidly changing support tool requirements.

WORKSHOP THEMES

These themes are meant to immediately inform the practice of researchers and practitioners, explore extensions in methodology and evaluation, and suggest how to convey the value of their collaborations to a variety of audiences.

Author Keywords

Creativity, collaboration, support tools, New Media, art and science, multidisciplinary

Social Aspects of Tools and Tool Use ACM Classification Keywords

Communication styles and ways of working are in some ways disciplinarily determined [8, 9]. Are tools that expose these aspects of creative collaboration helpful in these settings? Should collaborative support tools include a degree of awareness of the social roles present in teams? Or perhaps adjust dynamically to the kinds of communication roles represented? How do creativity support tools deal with issues of contested collaboration [10], situations where the value of a discipline’s contribution is not clearly communicated?

H.5.2. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): User Interfaces, Evaluation/methodology: H.5.3. Information Interfaces and Presentation: Group and Organization Interfaces — collaborative computing, theory and models; J.5 Arts and Humanities. INTRODUCTION

Collaboration that involves a diverse set of perspectives is more likely to generate novel ideas. Creative groups rely on effective communication across disciplinary boundaries while maintaining an atmosphere that preserves distinctive contributions. Given the persistent and newly reiterated interest [5] in including artists in engineering and science teams, tools that function well in these domains can make a significant contribution to creative practice.

Existing tools provide creative groups with lightweight, broadcast methods to distribute information to large audiences. For example, social bookmarking sites provide a way to quickly explore material and reflect on the meaning that a given resource has for distinct communities based on tags. Is social engagement a requirement for effective tools? Artifacts in Creative Collaboration

Sketching [7] and collaborative writing are the most widely studied aspects of creative collaboration. However, in many multidisciplinary settings, the artifacts generated throughout the process are not only drawings or text. Photographs, videos, physical models and prototypes, and more ephemeral or abstract artifacts, e.g. scenarios, experience designs, models of interaction aesthetics, are common.

1

How might annotation and versioning be handled with this expanded set of artifacts? When each contributor may have different competencies, how can they meaningfully engage with artifacts from a different discipline? We know boundary objects are particularly important when trying to create common ground in multidisciplinary groups. [1, 3] Are the models for representing boundary objects in creativity support tools robust enough to accurately reflect practice? Threshold concepts, described as ideas that define critical moments of irreversible conceptual transformation in educational experiences [2, 6], like those that occur in multidisciplinary collaboration, can be central when communicating concepts across disciplines. How can creativity support tools better embed threshold concepts in artifacts or in parts of the communication process? Can support for threshold concepts be generalized, or is it deeply contextualized? Expanding Contexts

Due to the breadth and complexity of scenarios moving computing research away from the desktop to more ubiquitous and social applications, there is a strong need to be open to modes of inquiry from other disciplines that already address these spaces. What can multidisciplinary teams rooted in science or engineering practice learn from models in the Social Sciences [11] or the Arts [4]? IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERM WORKSHOP GOALS

The goal of this workshop is to fulfill common needs of HCI and CSCW researchers, tool builders, and other creative practitioners; to understand the roles that tools can play in creative collaboration, discuss new modes of evaluation for these tools, examine successful methodologies, and expose points for mutually constructive future collaboration. Before the workshop, a web forum and listserv will prompt a debate dealing with the issues present in the workshop themes. Organizers will incorporate the proposals into the workshop website and examine potential commonalities for discussion leading up to the workshop. Workshop participants will leave with knowledge of how to incorporate techniques from other disciplines into their own work, and an understanding of the immediate contribution this can make to their practice. Within this context, the workshop will produce a working draft focused on the core themes, informed by participant presentations and discussion, to suggest areas for future research and expanded practice. Workshop participants will be solicited to provide longer versions of their position papers for future publication.

CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPANT SELECTION

Workshop participants will be selected on the basis of a submitted 2 to 4 page position paper. The position paper must outline the submitters view on the workshop themes and the reasons for interest in the topic. Participant position papers could either (i) situate the participants’ interests and background among the themes of the workshop, or (ii) report on preliminary research findings or case studies of tools in support of creative collaboration. Particular attention will be paid to gathering diverse examples of creative practice. REFERENCES

1.

Boujut, J.-F. and Blanco, E. Intermediary Objects as a Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12. 205-219. 2. Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Mostrom, J.E., Ratcliffe, M., Sanders, K. and Zander, C., Putting Threshold Concepts into Context in Computer Science Education. in ITiCSE, (2006), 103-107. 3. Hendry, D.G., Communication Functions and the Adaptation of Design Representations in Interdisciplinary Teams. in Designing Interactive Systems (DIS), (2004), 123-132. 4. Lacy, S. Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art. Bay Press, Seattle, WA, 1995. 5. Maher, M.L. Workshop on Synergies Between Creativity and Information Technology, Science, Engineering, and Design: Defining a Research Emphasis. NSF, Nov. 2-3, 2006, Arlington, VA. http://l3dswiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/creativit. 6. Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines. in Rust, C. ed. Improving Student Learning: Improving Student Learning Theory and Practice – Ten Years On., Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford, 2003. 7. Purcell, T. and Gero, J.S. Drawings and the design process. Design Studies, 19 (4). 389-430. 8. Schleifer, R. Disciplinarity and Collaboration in the Sciences and Humanities. College English, 59 (4). 438452. 9. Sonnenwald, D.H. Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies, 17. 277-301. 10. Sonnenwald, D.H. Contested Collaboration: A descriptive model of intergroup communication in information system design. Information Processing and Management, 31 (6). 859-877. 11. Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Harper, G.W. and Lewis, R. An Interactive and Contextual Model of CommunityUniversity Collaborations for Research and Action. Health Education & Behavior, 32 (1). 84-101.