Quality of collaboration in design meetings: methodological reflexions

Abstract

This paper provides a critical appraisal of methods for analysing the quality of collaboration in design meetings. After a discussion of how effective collaboration can be related to successful design, some existing approaches to evaluating the quality of collaboration are reviewed, and one specific method for analysing and evaluating socio-cognitive processes involved in design meetings is presented in some detail, together with its strengths and weaknesses. The concluding discussion aims to deepen and extend previous methods, with a view to outlining future research perspectives. The need for taking into account the additional dimension of the dynamics of interpersonal relations, involving the mutual regulation of tensions and affects, is discussed. It is argued that there is no privileged standpoint from which to evaluate the quality of collaboration: the qualities to which precedence will be given depend on the objects of co-design activities, what is at stake, and the alternative viewpoints of social actors involved, including researchers. The problem of articulating multiple views of the quality of collaboration is discussed.

Keywords:

• design meetings
• collaboration processes
• CSCW
• CSCL

Acknowledgements

This article has benefited from critical discussion on the theme of quality of collaboration with Kjeld Schmidt (of Copenhagen Business School), as well as from discussions that took place during the COOP conference workshop on Quality of Collaboration (Détienne, Baker and Burkhardt 2010: http://www.iisi.de/international-reports-on-socio-informatics-irsi/), organised by the authors of this paper in 2010 at Aix-en-Provence. This paper also draws on work carried out with Stéphane Safin and Pierre Leclercq (University of Liège). We thank the anonymous reviewers of the first version of this paper for their constructive critiques.

Notes

1. The judges directly apply the rating method on the basis of video recordings. Thus they do not rely on time-consuming transcriptions.

2. Such indicators and questions were in part inspired by the judges’ training manual of Spada’s method.

3. We can interpret these difficulties as being related to the ‘fractured’ space of interaction (which refers to the notion of ‘fractured ecology’ introduced by Luff et al. 2003), in particular for visibility at distance. Indeed, visibility was fractured in two spaces: the visibility of the state of the design artefact on a virtual desktop and the visibility of gestures (deictics …) and gazes on a videoconferencing display.

4. We are grateful to Kjeld Schmidt of Copenhagen Business School for enlightening discussions on this point.