Context Markers - Place - Virtuality

In previous post I introduced the idea of context markers and focused on marker n:0 1 - Time. Please read it first, if you haven´t done it yet.

The idea of context markers is from systemic thinking. Shortly an overview: context markers are building the stories and meaning. Context is seen always from individual perspective. The more you share the contexts the more you probably share the meaning. Two people in the same place, at same time may tell totally different stories about the same happening or issue...

Now I am thinking about marker n:0 2 - PLACE as a context marker. What it means today in the complexed collage of F2F and virtual work. Traditionally it has been clear, what PLACE ment: the physical presence in a place where you are in the moment. Now it isn´t that clear anymore. It´s more about where your mind is and where you are interacting. It about been present somewhere, where your mind is focused. You can be more embodied in a virtual place than in the place where you body actually is. We probably need new skills to be present in a new way and agility to move between physical and virtual environments - quick mental jumps.

You might sit in a cafe and participate to a web meeting, chat discussion,...and your mind is more in the virtual place than in a real place where you are. If you are multitasking, you can be in several "places" at the same time or the place just don´t matter at all. Can I be "placeless" - nowhere? Being somewhere is also part of us - a basic human issue. It´s easier to remember things, which are connected to certain place. If we are using standard web meeting tools, that look always the same, can we remember the "place"? If place is not anymore a meaningful context marker, how is it replaced in our mind? Is there new context markers or is some of them becoming more important? I think, that markers 3 (definition of relationship) and 5 (language game) are nowadays more important than earlier. What do you think?

I have been quite critical to 3D collaboration solutions until now(2nd life, Qwaq etc.). Anyhow their are creating a "real places" and building context much more effectively than web meeting rooms and text-based forums.

I have been thinking about dialogical blogging and still writing this alone. I hope, that I could invite you to "dialogue" with me with all these questions.

Context Markers and Virtual Collaboration

I´m aiming to dialogical blogging. This is the next step. I just had an inspiring discussion with my collegue OP about web 2.0 & collaboration & context markers. And that inspiration is now behind this post. OP said that, there´s lot of space between documents / document management and Facebook -style communication and that space is still quite unclear. Wikis and Blogs have their own role. Twitter has taken it´s place and in the field of social media there´s a huge amount of development going on right now. Great thinkers, brilliant brains are working in that area.

What I am looking for is professional, creative, dialogical and goal-oriented collaboration: inside companies, projects and networks.

In systemic thinking there´s five context markers (Risto Puutios notes, thanks Risto)

1. Time (when): what has happened before and what is supposed to happen after
2. Place (where): where the conversation is carried out (“history as geography over time”)
3. Definition of the relationship (who): depending of the relationship we act differently (since we make a meaning out of the relationship)
4. Content (what): what are we talking about
5. Language game (how) : Wittgenstein notion of language as a ‘play’. We learn to use words in different ways. The way we use the grammar the context changes: a new working place as an example of game. We are always in language games.

Althought this is a list, the context markers are the factors or view points behind stories. Context is about stories. Every individual tell their own story and have their own meaning of these different context markers.

Maybe I start today with just the marker 1: TIME. How time is related to virtual collaboration? How could we create useful support for it? What kind of phenomenon there is according to individual experiences (stories) of virtual collaboration? How time is connected to the commitment and our own idea of commintment of the participants in a process.

In collaboration platforms, the history is quite often available: version history and action logging.We are making assumptions of future based on that history and at the same time we are defining the relationships (marker 3) based on those assumptions. We (in Humap) have been developing dialogical tools for "dialogical history". It´s really adding value to the version / content based historical view. How could we connect the future to the process in a dialogical way instead of project management orientation? How could we support realistic assumptions and trustful relationship and how to avoid dissappointments? Is it about collaborative dreaming, shared plans? How do we build shared understanding and meaning, when we start virtual collaboration processes?

A lot of questions. I hope these are relevant and meaningful questions for someone else also. So please join this journey of connecting context markers and virtual collaboration. I´m eagerly waiting for comments.

Some background of myself before telling stories about context, storytelling, thinking, connecting and working

I guess I have to still continue blogging alone for a while. Maybe I should tell something about my self first. I´ve been working as a collaboration software designer and consultant for more than 10 years. I´ve been studying:
- educational science (M.Ed + Graduate School: professional growth, action research, narratives)
- digital media (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)
- psychology (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)
- communication science (University of Jyväskylä, Finland)
- systemic thinking (KCC, London)

In software development we have been developing Collaboration Software since 1997 and we are just about to publish a new version (7.0) of our Collaboration platform Humap Tool. We have been developing this version for a year now and it is a huge step to enable really flexible Web 2.0 practices for communities, organizations and networks. I will be sharing our ideas and practices about contextual dialogues, storytelling and making connections.

Dialogical Blogging?

I´ve been twittering actively for a week or so and I´ve been blogging (or actually micro-blogging) only in our internal collaboration platform. Now I think it´s time to open up and share thinking with others. I´m wondering, should I write this just by myself or could I do it in "humap way", dialogically: each post could have a form of a discussion. I haven´t seen any dialogical blogging. Could it work?