Research Update: Ecology of Ideas

or, The Analysis Ate My Homework

based on "Ecology of Ideas: A Primitive Analysis of Collaboration"

Kym Buchanan
May 3, 2004
Punya Mishra | CEP 917: Design of Media for Learning

Abstract

Collaborative design is complex, as designers interact with other designers and with their ideas. Through these interactions, ideas are suggested, adopted, or rejected. This process is similar to an ecosystem, in which organisms are spawned, nurtured, and killed. Careful analysis of a design group's interactions can suggest a map of these phenomena. By mapping a design group's ecology of ideas, researchers may gain deeper insight into the unique combination of roles and processes underlying the moment-to-moment interactions. Furthermore, a group may benefit from studying a map of their own ecology.

Ecology: A Metaphor for Analyzing Collaborative Design

• e.g., parenting and predation, major idea producers and major idea rejecters
  • Most powerful individual may be the most creative, offering many suggestions
  • Or power may reside with the most prolific idea-killer
• Want to understand idea ecologies in general and for specific groups, to create and maintain desirable, effective groups
  • Primitive map: Based on prior experience, speculate about how the group or specific individuals will respond to certain behaviors and ideas
  • Need more sophisticated tools and understanding
• How can we create and maintain effective classrooms, military units, corporate divisions, creative design groups, etc.?
• Mapping a group's ecology is one tool (among many)

Some smart people say...

• Barab et al. (2001) mapped diffusion of practices ("initiators")
• Rowell (2002) views collaboration as social negotiation of meaning and solutions
  • Effective collaboration fostered when participants assume "complementary roles" (e.g., manager, assistant)
• Vygotsky: causal power of roles in learning and development. (1978)
• Collaboration central to potentially-powerful teaching strategies, e.g., reciprocal teaching, and cognitive tools and intellectual roles. (Palincsar and Herrenkohl, 2002)
• Killing is good!
  • "Sometimes the most brilliant design stroke is to kill the idea." -Chris Crawford, game designer (2003)
  • "Learning is most effective when children build personal, meaningful objects." (Kafai, 1995)
  • The aim is creating "an environment in which learners use their minds and bodies as they would if they were practitioners in a domain." (Honebein, 1996)

This analysis primarily conducted just to explore and illustrate mapping

• Should be combined with more traditional methods (e.g., correlational analysis of coded transcripts)
• Expected results:
  • Major producers
  • Major nurturers
  • Major killers
  • Fertile time periods
  • Roles and power
  • Interaction

Methodology Highlights

• Found interactions using Design process: How
• Each interaction was classified as (S)pawn, (N)urture, or (K)ill, after careful study
  • Detective work: studying both observers’ notes, working backwards and forwards in time, judging idea similarity, etc.
  • MoNOSeros: You should start off on earth I think, and then stop off at the moon for refueling and maybe then play sports for a little while; [Spawn: stages, Spawn: sports]
    MoNOSeros: And I think food fights should be a part of the trip as well; [Spawn: food fights] (TM, day 4, line 72-73)
  • Telescopium shouts, “No man, No sports! Get that into your head!” [Kill: sports] (TM, day 10, line 76)
• Collated and classified interactions are imperfect set of data points
  • Many challenges, especially granularity
  • Seemingly pervasive ideas (e.g., mars tycoon) could have been broken down into disparate elements.
• PowerPoint slideshow examined for "the survival of the fittest"

The Ecology Map

Summary Statistics

Table 1a: Analysis by Person, Counts.

• H appears most active, followed closely by T and M
• H, M, and T are major producers
• TF, H, M, and T are major nurturers

Table 1b: Analysis by Person, Percents.

• Appropriate questions:
  • How many of a group's actions are constructive versus destructive?
  • How does an individual's balance compare to the groups?
  • Does the group's productivity depend on a few hyper-active individuals?

Table 1c: Analysis of Contributions to the Group, Percents.

• Reinforces lack of influence L and S had

Table 2: Analysis by Ideas, Counts.

• Given the amount of time spent by the group, is the number of orphaned ideas too large, too small, or just right?
• H spawned and had a strong nurturing influence on the success of the most-acted-on idea, mars tycoon

Table 3. Spawners and Their Killers.

• Who killed who's ideas?

(Additional analyses by day and by RO)

Discussion Highlights

• Any map only a representation, hence imperfect picture
  • Be clear about assumptions and compromises
  • Weigh significance of patterns against these issues
• The teacher-facilitator (TF) had an unexpectedly significant influence
  • To authentically capture the ecology of just 8th grade boys, the TF would have to be far less active
• Expected 8th grade boys would be better at talking through game design. Maybe not
  • H knows he is the leader
  • Not clear they knew what a tycoon is
• Analysis was time-consuming. Streamline and automate!
• One further, critical idea. Just as ecosystems change over time, groups change.
  • A collection of maps: time-lapse photography

Mapping a group's ecology is one potentially powerful tool (among many) for understanding and reforming the group, as well as understanding groups in general. Such maps would be particularly useful if they foster new ways of discussing the history and goals of a group and its members. Perhaps such an analysis early in a group process would help the group mature over time, in the direction they and their clients or supervisors desired.