Backchannel Persistence

and Collaborative Meaning-Making

Brian J. McNely
Ball State University
Department of English
Muncie, IN 47306
1.765.285.8580
bjmcnely@bsu.edu

ABSTRACT use as a secondary or background complement to an existing

Digital backchannel communication has become an increasingly
important area of study for researchers and practitioners in several
fields. From the emergence of wifi-enabled Internet Relay Chat
(IRC) to contemporary instances of microblogging and SMS
messaging, the role of digital backchannels in enabling
collaborative affordances has received much recent attention. As
backchannel communication continues to become more prevalent
at professional conferences, in educational curricula, and in
organizational settings, robust frameworks for understanding the
role of backchannel environments in collaborative meaning-
making are needed. Drawing upon cultural-historical activity
theory and actor network theory, this paper explores the
development of backchannel persistence through microblogging
platforms, and suggests an approach to studying the collaborative
affordances of backchannel communication by focusing on the
related concepts of mobilization and recursive writing
collaboration.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
H.5.3 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Group and
Organizational Interfaces – computer-supported cooperative
work, web-based interaction, theory and models. K.4.1
[Computers and Society]: General.
General Terms
Human Factors, Theory.
Keywords
Backchannel, persistence, mobilization, recursion, microblogging,
Twitter.
1. AFFORDANCES OF DIGITAL
BACKCHANNEL COMMUNICATION
While definitions of backchannel communication vary with
context, generally “the central function of the backchannel is its
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
SIGDOC’09, October 5–7, 2009, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Copyright 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-559-8/09/10...$10.00.
frontchannel,” where the frontchannel discourse is driven by any
number of potential actors, such as a speaker at a professional
conference, a member or members of an organizational team, or
an instructor in an educational environment [1, p. 852]. Digital
backchannel communication has become more prevalent in recent
years with the proliferation of wireless networking and mobile
hand-held devices which leverage the capabilities of cellular
networks. Moreover, the increasing ubiquity of such technologies
has led to a concomitant acceptance of these tools in a variety of
settings as a standard accompaniment to frontchannel discourse.
Early studies of digital backchannel communication were focused
on MUD and MOO environments [2], and more recently, on
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channels that operated within the
context of professional or academic conferences [3]. Backchannel
communication has often been characterized as informal, and in
many cases it has been considered disruptive, ephemeral, and
inconsequential [4, 2, 3]. On the other hand, studies of the
backchannel have indicated the potential affordances of such
environments, where invention can be fostered [5], common
ground can be developed amongst participants [6], and learning
can be enacted and transformed in significant ways [1]. The
growing acceptance of digital backchannels has led to research
which explores these potentially positive collaborative
affordances in more detail.
1.1 Microblogging as Backchannel Activity
Microblogging involves the “posting of small pieces of digital
content—which could be text, pictures, links, short videos or
other media” to web-based sharing services [7, p. 1]. Scholarship
and organizational study of backchannel communication has
recently developed in concert with the growth of microblogging,
primarily due to user-driven trends which have seen
microblogging services privileged as platforms for backchannel
activity. Consequently, some current research on backchannel
communication has simultaneously explored microblogging, or
vice versa [8, 9, 10].
Part of the reason for the success of microblogging as a means for
mediating backchannel discourse can be explained by describing
attributes which previous backchannel platforms lacked. For
example, backchannel communications occurring in MUD
environments or chat rooms were by nature ephemeral; they also
lacked public visibility and were seen as discursive spaces
available only to a very limited set of users [2]. Moreover, a
primary complaint of researchers was that such backchannels
were not persistent; in other words, conversations were difficult to
catalogue or otherwise preserve for later study and analysis [2].
Microblog services, by comparison, are both persistent and
searchable—like blogs and databases—while simultaneously
providing the lightweight and conversational architecture of IRC
or SMS messaging. The leading microblogging service, Twitter,
is markedly visible and public, and messages posted to the service
are searchable within its proprietary search engine and also
indexed by search engines such as Google or Bing.
Consequently, the persistence of microblogging as a platform for
backchannel communication has led to increased affordances for
collaboration, since the backchannel is no longer ephemeral or
restricted by time and space to a particularized frontchannel event
(such as a professional conference, for example). Most importantly
for the purposes of this paper—at least in the case of Twitter—
microblogging as backchannel technology carries the added
affordance of mobility through SMS messaging capabilities [8].
2. RESEARCH ON DIGITAL
BACKCHANNELS
Studies exploring digital backchannels and microblogging have
been undertaken in organizational settings [6, 8], in education [1,
2, 5], and within the broader public [9, 10]. Most studies point out
the positive and negative features associated with these forms of
discourse, while seeing potential in the rapid adoption and growth
of backchannel communication in these settings. Several studies
have focused on Twitter because of its publicly available and
searchable data set. There are, however, a number of competing
services which offer microblogging capabilities, such as Jaiku,
Facebook, FriendFeed, and Yammer.
A study by Kellogg, et al, contends that “in professional and work
settings research consistently shows a high degree of
appropriateness in use of chat and backchannel tools” [6, p. 452].
They also suggest that backchannel communication can help users
develop and/or build from common ground in work environments.
Zhao and Rosson [9] argue that informal communication in the
workplace can potentially support the following activities: the
“sharing of work-relevant information among employees;
coordination of group activities; and social functions such as the
transmission of office culture and maintenance of common
ground and a feeling of connectedness between co-workers” [p.
243]. They also suggest that microblogging provides a
communication channel for sharing information in the workplace
which is not likely to be shared using existing channels such as
telephone, IM, or email [9, p. 243].
Backchannel communication in educational environments has
been studied in a variety of disciplines. In an exploration of a pre-
digital backchannel, Brooke [4] argued that discourse which
accompanies frontchannel instruction “necessarily involves
standing outside the roles and beliefs offered by a social
situation—it involves questioning them, searching for new
connections, building ideas that may be in conflict with accepted
ways of thinking and acting” [p. 141]. Yardi [1] argued that
backchannel communication could foster a form of peer-to-peer
learning and collaborative discussion, where students could be
afforded the digital space to work out amongst one another the
ideas being discussed by the instructor. Yardi suggests that
“students are creating their own knowledge by having the
freedom to direct the backchannel discussion in ways that are
relevant, contextual, and instructional for their own learning
purposes” [1, p. 854].
A recent report from Educause [7] claims that “microblogging is
an increasingly important tool for communities of practice”
within higher education, “enabling scholars to communicate
informally on subjects of shared interest and to open windows
into their own projects, sparking interest and discovery among
peers,” a contention which echoes discussion of microblogging in
workplace settings [p. 1]. The report similarly argues that when
microblogs are used as a collaborative tool, the platform can
allow “colleagues to share information while providing an easy
means for them to stay connected through a project life cycle” [7,
p. 2].
Finally, studies of Wikipedia that closely examine the talk pages
and edit history for a given article are ostensibly exploring
backchannel environments which display robust persistence.
Shirky [11] discusses the spontaneous division of labor and power
law distributions1 which can be traced in the edit history pages of
a given Wikipedia article, and both Swarts [12] and Slattery [13]
argue that these edits may constitute a form of backchannel
communication which results in the negotiated construction of
“fact” within Wikipedia's “extra-organizational hub of distributed,
ad-hoc activity” [13, p. 2]. In these instances, the preservation of
the backchannel is crucial to the exploration of collaborative
meaning-making, as the edit history pages allow for the
“surfacing” of the “conditions of fact construction” [13, p. 4].
3. WRITING AND COLLABORATIVE
MEANING-MAKING
Perhaps the most important characteristic common to each of the
studies of backchannel communication discussed above is the
practice of writing as essential mediator in the construction of
meaning. Dautermann [14] argues that “writing can be thought of
as mediation among the perspectives of those who generate,
regulate, and use the discourse produced” in a given
communication environment [p. 99]. Dautermann [14] studied
workplace writers in a hospital setting and noted that informal
communication between members of team helped build a sense of
community and pave the way for more formal writing work.
Following LeFevre [15], Bruffee [16], and several other
researchers in writing studies, Dautermann [14] saw collaborative
writing activity as a key driver of social meaning-making.
Similarly, Swarts [12] notes that “knowledge is negotiated and
negotiation requires a different kind of cognitive effort than
simple sharing” [p. 2]. In forms of coordinative online activity
mediated by writing production, such as the construction of a
Wikipedia article or participation in a persistent backchannel like
Twitter, meaning-making is built “through back and forth writing,
editing, and revising, through periods of negotiation” [12, p. 2].
1
Exploring power law distributions helps explain unaffiliated
yet coordinative activity in complex online systems. According
to Shirky, “power law distributions tend to describe systems of
interacting elements, rather than just collections of variable
elements” [11, p. 128]. “My use of Wikipedia is not
independent of yours,” he says, “as changes I make show up for
you, and vice versa” [12, p. 128].
These periods of negotiation may be seen as tests in the
development and ongoing configuration of provisional
knowledge. Persistent digital backchannels, therefore, act as
stable writing environments for the continual mediation of
provisional knowledge, whether in workplaces, classrooms, or
publics.
Because Wikipedia, as Slattery [13] notes, is infinitely editable,
knowledge and facts are theoretically provisional. Shirky [11]
argues that contributions to a Wikipedia article can be
incremental; “every edit is itself provisional,” he suggests [p.
118]. The often incremental, provisional nature of meaning-
making on Wikipedia is beneficial because it allows poor or
disruptive changes to be negotiated and remedied; more
importantly, however, the provisional and negotiated nature of
knowledge construction on Wikipedia is important because, as
Shirky contends, “human knowledge is provisional” [11, p. 119].
Meaning-making in this framework is collaborative, definitions
can shift, and such activity is surfaced in writing work which is
persistent and searchable.
The kinds of negotiated meaning-making that take place in the
development of Wikipedia articles are also prevalent in digital
backchannels. In discussing weblogs, Shirky [11] suggests a
continuum of audience size and communication pattern that varies
from “broadcast” to “tight conversation,” with a nebulous
construct of “loose conversation” that falls somewhere in
between. Microblogging, for most users, tends toward loosely
formed, potentially coordinative networks mediated in and
through writing activity, where meaning-making can be
negotiated collaboratively without many of the formal strictures
which govern fact creation in Wikipedia.
In organizational and educational settings, such loosely formed
collaborative networks may be ideal, as they afford both tight
conversation (with co-workers or classmates) and interaction with
a public community through direct and informal addressivity [see
8]. Moving forward, researchers of digital backchannel
communication will need strong frameworks and methods for
investigating these complex writing environments. The remaining
sections of this paper explore such frameworks, drawing from
cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) and actor network
theory (ANT) to consider recursion and mobilization in the
persistent digital backchannel of microblogging. There are
inherent tensions in bringing together these different theoretical
approaches, the exploration of which are beyond the scope of this
paper. However, exploring the complexity of persistent digital
backchannels requires the simultaneous consideration of multiple
theoretical frames; this paper acknowledges the difficulties of
doing so, and suggests approaches for further study.
4. ACTIVITY THEORY: MOBILIZATION
AND RECURSION
Recently, several scholars in rhetoric and technical
communication have drawn from cultural-historical activity
theory (CHAT) and actor network theory (ANT) in an effort to
explore distributed writing work in online environments [12, 13,
17, 18]. While there are similarities and affinities in both
theoretical frameworks, the relationship between CHAT and ANT
is contested. This paper does not suggest a seamless connection
between the two theories; instead, this section calls upon related
research from both actor network theory and cultural-historical
activity theory to posit an approach to the study of backchannel
persistence and collaborative meaning making that considers the
complex notions of mobilization and recursion, suggesting but
two components of a framework for further research on
backchannel communication. Consequently, this paper draws
primarily from actor network theory, but calls upon cultural-
historical activity theory to posit a broader understanding of
recursion in distributed, networked writing.
4.1 Mobilization
While the term mobilization may connote the notion of “mobile”
or “mobile technologies” for many audiences, in actor network
theory, mobilization is meant to evoke a sense of “mobilizing,” of
bringing about action. Yet in this section, both connotations
should be considered simultaneously, for persistent backchannel
communication as practiced in microblogging carries the potential
for a broader, multivalent sense of mobile technology, mobility,
and mobilization.
Potts [17] argues that “Latour's ANT is a relatively simple yet
enormously effective means of pinpointing instances of sharing
and cross-referencing information across the social software
ecosystem” [p. 285]. Potts contends that ANT can allow
researchers to “look across the mediascape of technologies and
people to identify and understand the traces of movements” which
constitute online work [17, p. 285]. Significantly, ANT traces
such movement through actors in a given network, who may be
human or non-human, and who have “equal agency to affect any
given situation” [17, p. 286]. In this framework, the
microblogging service, the mobile devices and computers which
are used to post messages to that service, and the individuals
writing those posts are all actors who comprise “an entire
landscape of active participants [. . .] that come together to create,
share, and validate information” [17, p. 286]. As Potts notes,
Latour [19] and Callon [20] refer to these participants as
translators who translate “data into information through an
extended process of problematization, interessement, enrollment,
and mobilization” [17, p. 286].
Drawing from Callon's [20] four-stage schema for the translation
of information, Potts [17] describes the fourth and final
movement, mobilization, as the collaborative effort to “mobilize
[...] peers to action” [p. 290]. Interestingly, the notion of
mobilization is especially multivalent when viewed within the
context of Latour's [19] formulation, and when applied to
persistent and mobile backchannels such as the microblogging
service Twitter. Latour [19] sees mobilization as displaying
characteristics of “mobility, stability or combinability” [p. 223].
Latour, it should be noted, sees these factors as potentially
contributing to power inequities and domination—factors which
should always be considered in explorations of collaborative
work.
Perhaps most importantly, the notion of mobilization in Callon’s
[20] work may also refer to a unifying agent or spokesperson who
helps organize and prompt the involvement of other actors. In
Potts’ [17] study, an individual named “Storey” acted as a
moderator (and thus spokesperson) for the most active Flickr
group tracking the London bombings of July 7, 2005. Similarly,
the user-generated tag “bomb” also acted as a unifying agent for
actors uploading or searching photos about the event. In
backchannel platforms such as IRC or Twitter, hashtags (user-
generated text-based signifiers) can serve to mobilize actors, as in
the recent and widely publicized use of Twitter as a source of
information following the contested elections in Iran. In this
instance, the hashtag “#iranelection” arguably served as a
spokesperson, and at the least, as a significant unifying agent for
both users around the world and those searching Twitter for
updates originating in Iran. In instances where Twitter is deployed
as a backchannel for a specific event or ongoing project, its
inherent persistence and searchability can help provide
intermediary stability for mobilization among actors.
The growing use of Twitter for backchannel communication is
significant for its ability to help mobilize peers in collaborative
meaning-making, for its persistence as a stable and searchable
online environment, and for its mobility when associated with a
hand-held mobile device such as cellular telephone. This last
characteristic is especially noteworthy, as it has the potential to
foster recursive writing activity that extends beyond the confines
of work and classroom.
4.2 Recursion
Cultural-historical activity theory has documented recursive
writing work in ways which have added to our understanding of
knowledge acquisition and retention. Bazerman and Russell [21]
note that writing “powerfully and persuasively mediate[s] and re-
mediate[s] human activities” [p. 1]. An activity theory approach
to language and the role of writing in negotiating knowledge
“locates rhetorical action within the complex and differentiated
activity systems of the contemporary world, and opens up for
analysis the many influences written language may have beyond
persuasion” [21, p. 4].
Similarly, Prior and Shipka [22] are concerned with applying
CHAT to the tools which mediate writing work, which alter “the
flow of behavior” and thus contribute to meaning-making [p. 1].
Prior and Shipka trace “the dispersed and fluid chains of places,
people, and artifacts that come to be tied together in trajectories of
literate activity” [22, p. 2]; among the factors that they explore is
the notion of cognitive recursion which is often prompted by
material, spatial, and social cues in a continual process of
negotiating new knowledge within the context of prior knowledge
through writing activity. Their work is significant for its
application of CHAT as a methodology for tracing the actors—
both human and technological—which interact recursively in the
formation of meaning. Their study builds upon prior research in
writing studies, and is corroborated by contemporary research in
cognitive science which confirms the role of recursion in
epistemological development.
4.2.1 Writing Research on Recursion
In researching the writing practices of twelfth-graders, Emig [23]
appropriated the notion of recursion from applied mathematics in
order to explain the seemingly haphazard cognitive activity that
accompanied discursive production. The writers she studied
continually shifted among various activities while writing,
including brainstorming, reading, note-taking, composing,
reflection, and revision, without a clearly identifiable order or
rationale. Later research by Emig [24] draws upon Vygotsky [25]
and Bruner [26] to argue that “writing represents a unique mode
of learning,” primarily because “writing as process-and-product
possesses a cluster of attributes that correspond uniquely to
certain powerful learning strategies” [24, p. 122]. This work leads
Emig to suggest that “writing involves the fullest possible
functioning of the brain, which entails the active participation of
both the left and the right hemispheres” [24, p. 125]. Writing is
therefore a bispheral cognitive activity that relies on complex
patterns of recursion to mediate meaning-making.
Later research in writing studies has continued to explore
cognitive recursion in the reception and production of discourse to
varying degrees. For example, Sommers [27] saw recursion as a
key component of the relationship between thought and
language—the act of translating cognition into discourse (and
back). Other empirical studies, such as those by Eklundh [28] and
Reynolds and Bonk [29] used keystroke analysis to study
recursion in computer-mediated writing production.
Researchers in writing studies have long viewed writing as
placing unique cognitive demands on individuals, seeing writing
in particular as an inherently epistemological activity. The act of
internally contextualizing and reformulating knowledge through
writing leads to the development and dissemination of new
knowledge. These cognitive demands are negotiated recursively,
leading to writing (and reading) practices that are similarly
recursive. Cognitive recursion, therefore, can be seen as necessary
to rhetorical invention and creativity, and to the acquisition of
new knowledge, activity which is always already social and
culturally contingent.
4.2.2 Recursion in Cognitive Science
While there are many excellent studies in several disciplines
which explore cognitive recursion to varying degrees (e.g., Nagel
and Newman [30]; Sterelny [31], [32]; Lienhard [33]; Small and
Vorgan [34]), the primary focus of this section is recent research
in the cognitive sciences. Research on intelligence,
metacognition, and subject formation suggests that recursion
constitutes a fundamental mechanism of perception.
For example, Hawkins [35] argues that the brain constructs a
model of the world. He contends that “everything you know and
have learned is stored in this model”, and that the brain “uses this
memory-based model to make continuous predictions of future
events” [35, p. 4]. For Hawkins, the brain's ability to recognize
complex patterns and make predictions is the “crux of
intelligence” [35, p. 4].
His work is concerned with developing a theoretical,
neurophysiologically hierarchical model of the neocortex which
consists of columns that enable prediction through continuous
bottom-up/top-down feedback loops within the cortical structure.
He suggests that “every moment in your waking life, each region
of your neocortex is comparing a set of expected columns driven
from above with the set of observed columns driven from below.
Where the two sets intersect is what we perceive” [35, p. 156].
Meaning-making in Hawkins' theory, therefore, is a product of
continuous cognitive recursion. He argues that “if you study a
particular set of objects over and over, your cortex re-forms
memory representations for those objects further down the
hierarchy” [35, p. 167]. As representations are embedded further
down the cortical hierarchy, the uppermost layers of the neocortex
are enacted for “learning more subtle, more complex
relationships” between old knowledge and new [35, p. 167].
“According to the theory,” he explains, “this is what makes an
expert” [35, p. 167].
Hawkins defines prediction as “the application of invariant
memory sequences to new situations” [35, p. 184]. These
invariant representations and memory sequences are often
triggered by “novel situations,” and this leads Hawkins to
speculate on the nature of recursion and invention: “creativity is
mixing and matching patterns of everything you've ever
experienced or come to know in your lifetime. It's saying ‘this is
kinda like that.’ The neural mechanism for doing this is
everywhere in the cortex” [35, p. 187]. Hawkins' theory of
intelligence, based upon a hierarchical model of the neocortex,
suggests that pattern recognition and cognitive recursion are at the
very heart of meaning-making and knowledge acquisition.
Like Hawkins, Hofstadter [36] frames perception and knowing in
terms of the recursive negotiation between remembered constructs
and new inputs. He contends that “symbols in a brain are the
neurological entities that correspond to concepts” [36, p. 76].
Hofstadter suggests that “every symbol in our brain's repertoire is
potentially triggerable at any time” [36, p. 76], echoing Hawkins'
claims about reservoirs of accumulated memory representations.
He notes that “there takes place a kind of negotiation between
inward-bound and outward-bound signals”, the mixture of which
“makes perception a truly complex process” [36, p. 77].
Hofstadter [36] calls upon symbolic analogies in much the same
way that Hawkins [35] articulates frameworks of meaning-
making based upon a memory-prediction model. In large measure,
recursion is the mechanism by which meaning is made, and tools
and technologies which prompt recursion through collaborative
writing activity (such as directed writing in persistent and mobile
digital backchannels) can therefore promote significant
opportunities for meaning-making.
Hofstadter explains that “analogies and mappings give rise to
secondary meanings that ride on the backs of primary meanings.
We have seen that even primary meanings depend on unspoken
mappings, and so in the end, we have seen that all meaning is
mapping-mediated, which is to say, all meaning comes from
analogies” [36, p. 158]. This is similar to Hawkins' assertion that
meaning-making is found in the negotiated recursion of saying
“this is kinda like that” [35, p. 187]. Hofstadter sees such
analogous meaning-making as structured in “strange loops” [36,
p. 102], and argues that recursion is central not only to
epistemology, but to consciousness.
In both writing studies and cognitive science, and particularly
within the rich framework of cultural historical activity theory,
recursion is seen as key to creating new understanding and
disseminating new knowledge through discourse, and especially
through writing. Technologies that are both mobile and social can
help foster this rich cognitive activity beyond the environments
where learning and research are often situated—in the classroom
and in professional workplace environments.
5. TWITTER AS PERSISTENT AND
MOBILE/MOBILIZING BACKCHANNEL
Returning to the concept of mobilization, the use of Twitter as a
digital backchannel (or other microblogging services which
enable the linking of SMS or other lightweight mobile
connectivity) creates greater affordances for collaborative activity
that is both mobile and mobilizing. Honeycutt and Herring's [8]
study indicates that Twitter users who explicitly engaged in
collaborative activity posted updates which were “more likely to
provide information for others, and more likely to exhort others to
do something” [p. 6]. That these forms of mobilization may be
enacted through mobile devices only increases the opportunities
for fostering cognitive recursion which tests and shapes
provisional knowledge.
Zhao and Rosson's [9] study of Twitter suggests that mobilization
of the backchannel can extend the social graph, allowing users in
a professional setting to easily follow the work and ideas of others
in the field beyond the immediate organization, allowing for the
coordination of loose, but related conversations, exchanges, and
aggregations of knowledge in a given professional domain.
Twitter's web and SMS-based architecture provides workplace
users with a backchannel that is both mobile and pervasive, where
professionals can share information with co-workers when ideas
arise, theoretically prompting cognitive recursion [9].
Yardi [1] notes that “the more shared context participants [in a
digital backchannel] have, the easier it is for them to negotiate
their sense of interpersonal trust and reputation and therefore
facilitate discussion and conversation online” [p. 856]. Most
importantly, a persistent backchannel comprised of a “fostered
community of learners will result in greater levels of
metacognition, reflection, discourse, deep content knowledge,
[and] distributed expertise” [1, p. 856]. Ultimately, the persistent
backchannels of microblogging services can promote cognitive
recursion and mobilization in obvious, yet important ways: by
remaining aggregable and searchable so that discussions can
continue beyond finite events, allowing collaborative writing
activity to mediate provisional knowledge.
5.1 Twitter and Mobilization
The growth of Twitter as a persistent backchannel and as an
important actor in professional and educational activity systems is
predicated finally upon several attributes which may explicitly
foster cognitive recursion and enable mobilization through
collaborative meaning making. They include:
5.1.1 Low Barriers to Participation
Twitter's web-based user interface is extremely simple; new users
can establish a free account in minutes, and can begin connecting
with other users immediately. While hand-held computing devices
and latest generation mobile phones can yield rich user
experiences through dedicated Twitter clients (such as TweetDeck
and Twhirl), such devices and applications are not necessary for
mobile participation in the Twitter network.
5.1.2 SMS Functionality
Twitter allows users in many areas of the world to send and
receive updates via SMS, giving users who own traditional mobile
phones the opportunity interact with their Twitter network via
text-messaging. This is a key factor in enabling ambient research
practices, as users needn't be online or in possession of an
expensive hand-held or mobile device in order to follow and
engage conversations about a given content area.
5.1.3 Simple Syntax
Users who have device updates enabled for SMS-ready mobile
phones can engage their Twitter network anywhere through a
simple syntax. For example, user-defined hashtags (e.g., #mobile)
create pivots for conversation and research that are aggregable
and searchable. SMS users can also exchange direct messages
(i.e., messages which are not publicly viewable) by way of a
simple syntax: “d bmcnely Can you elaborate on your last tweet?”
Mobile users can store important messages for later, by way of a
“favorite” function which stores the last update of a given user:
“fav bmcnely.”
5.1.4 Asymmetric Social Relationships
Whereas several social networks are built upon one-to-one social
ties, the premise of Twitter's network is asymmetry: not every
person that a user chooses to follow is obligated to reciprocate in
order to receive the benefits of reading public updates. For
example, an undergraduate computer science student researching
software development might choose to follow the updates of a
highly respected (and heavily followed) Twitter user, who may
not reciprocate. This does not diminish the potential collaborative
value of receiving updates from the influential user, nor does it
obviate occasional conversation that can occur through the
exchange of “@replies,” responses among users which are
conveniently indexed by Twitter.
5.1.5 Aggregation
Because Twitter aggregates updates in much the same way that
blog software aggregates posts, and because these updates remain
searchable, recursion is built into the network's architecture. In
other words, public conversations remain publicly available,
indefinitely, providing researchers with an archive of information
on a given topic. The “favorites” function mentioned above also
allows users to collect a subset of important insights or links for
later use.
5.1.6 Distribution
Distribution is tied to the architecture of simple aggregation. The
computer science student mentioned above can easily share
information gleaned from an influential user with others in his
network. A research leader in a professional organization can
easily provide updates to members of her distributed network, no
matter where they are.
5.1.7 Real-Time Delivery
For users receiving updates on SMS-enabled mobile phones, new
posts from others in the network may populate in real-time,
allowing users to engage in collaborative research anytime and
anywhere.
Real-time delivery to mobile devices can trigger consistent
recursion in a given research area or professional domain,
bringing individuals collaborative discussion opportunities
ambiently, allowing them to accumulate and discuss new
knowledge beyond the traditional spaces of research and
knowledge work.
6. CONCLUSION
Affordances for collaborative writing activity—and thus
collaborative meaning-making—were expanded at the outset of
widespread wifi-enabled IRC availability, giving users a means
for negotiating frontchannel discourse socially and rhetorically.
With the development of microblogging services such as Twitter
and Yammer, and the subsequent user-driven adoption of such
services as a platform for backchannel communication, the
affordances for collaboration have been enhanced still further,
primarily due to the reality of backchannel persistence.
By leveraging persistent backchannel environments in the form of
microblogs, users and researchers alike have come to see digital
backchannel communication as a viable tool for knowledge work
in professional organizations and educational environments. The
contemporary persistence of backchannel communication has
likewise fostered a more robust and stable platform for recursive
thinking and writing.
This paper posits actor network theory as an appropriate
framework for further study of backchannel communication and
its role in enabling (or possibly constraining) collaborative
meaning making. While the limitations of space unfortunately
prohibit an in-depth study of backchannel communication within
the framework of actor network theory, this paper is meant to be
suggestive of future research.
This analysis has taken the notions of mobilization and recursion
from actor network theory and cultural historical activity theory
and examined them within the context of the persistent digital
backchannel, exploring how mobile writing work can mobilize
actors and foster knowledge acquisition by triggering cognitive
recursion and enabling collaboration. Yet these arguments are by
no means complete or definitive. Future study is needed to trace
mobile consumption and production in the persistent backchannel,
and to trace both recursion and mobilization within organizational
and educational contexts. Enacting these studies is complex work
which may yield new insights into actors collaborating and
negotiating knowledge in burgeoning social networks.
7. REFERENCES
[1] Yardi, S. 2006. The role of the backchannel in collaborative
learning environments. In Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference of Learning Sciences
(Bloomington, IN, 2006), 852-858.
[2] Codgill, S., Kilborn, J., Fanderclai, T. L., and Williams, M.
G. 2001. Backchannel: Whispering in digital conversation. In
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, 1-8.
[3] McCarthy, J. F., and boyd, d. m. 2005. Digital backchannels
in shared physical spaces: Experiences at an academic
conference. In Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors
and Computing Systems (CHI 2005, Portland, OR, USA),
1641-1644.
[4] Brooke, R. 1987. Underlife and writing instruction. College
Composition and Communication 38 (May 1987), 141-153.
[5] Golub, E. 2004. On audience activities during presentations.
Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 20 (Feb. 2005),
38-46.
[6] Kellog, W., Erickson, T., Wolf, T. V., Levy, S., Christensen,
J., Sussman, J., and Bennett, W. 2006. Leveraging digital
backchannels to enhance user experience in electronically
mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 20th
Conference on Computer Supported Work (Banff, Alberta,
Canada, 2006), 451-454.
[7] Educause. 2009. 7 things you should know about
Microblogging. Technical Report. Educause Learning
Initiative, http://www.educause.edu/eli
[8] Honeycutt, C. and Herring, S. 2009. Beyond microblogging:
Conversation and collaboration on Twitter. In Proceedings of
the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on Systems
Sciences (Los Alamitos, CA, USA), 1-10.
[9] Zhao, D., and Rosson, M. B. 2009. How and why people
Twitter: The role that micro-blogging plays in informal
communication at work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009
International Conference on Supporting Group Work
(Sanibel Island, FL, USA), 243-252.
[10] Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., and Wu, F. 2009. Social
networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First
Monday 14 (Jan. 2009), 1-10.
[11] Shirky, C. 2008. Here comes everybody: The power of
organizing without organizations. The Penguin Press, New
York.
[12] Swarts, J. 2009. The collaborative construction of ‘fact’ on
Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International
Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC,
Bloomington, IN, USA).
[13] Slattery, S. 2009. ‘Edit this page’: The social-technological
infrastructure of a Wikipedia article. In Proceedings of the
27th ACM International Conference on Design of
Communication (SIGDOC, Bloomington, IN, USA).
[14] Dautermann, J. 1993. Negotiating meaning in a hospital
discourse community. In Writing in the Workplace: New
Research Perspective, R. Spilka, Ed. SIU Press, Carbondale,
IL, 98-110.
[15] LeFevre, K. B. 1986. Invention as a social act. SIU Press,
Carbondale, IL.
[16] Bruffee, K. 1986. Social construction, language, and the
authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College
English 48 (Dec. 1986), 773-790.
[17] Potts, L. 2009. Using actor network theory to trace and
improve multimodal communication design. Technical
Communication Quarterly 18 (July-Sept. 2009), 281-301.
[18] Pickering, K. W. 2009. Student ethos in the online technical
communication classroom: Diverse voices. Technical
Communication Quarterly 18 (Apr.-June 2009), 166-187.
[19] Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
[20] Callon, M. 1986. Some elements of a sociology of
translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen
of St. Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action, and Belief: A New
Sociology of Knowledge?, J. Law, Ed. Routledge, London,
196-229.
[21] Bazerman, C. and Russell, D. 2002. Introduction. In Writing
Selves/Writing Societies: Research from Activity
Perspectives, C. Bazerman and D. Russell, Eds. The WAC
Clearinghouse, Fort Collins, CO, 1-6.
[22] Prior, P., and Shipka, J. 2002. Chronotopic lamination:
Tracing the contours of literate activity. In Writing
Selves/Writing Societies: Research from Activity
Perspectives, C. Bazerman and D. Russell, Eds. The WAC
Clearinghouse, Fort Collins, CO, 180-238.
[23] Emig, J. 1971. The composing processes of twelfth graders.
NCTE, Urbana, IL.
[24] Emig, J. 1977. Writing as a mode of learning. College
Composition and Communication 28 (May 1977), 122-128.
[25] Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and Language, trans. E.
Hanfmann and G. Vakar. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
[26] Bruner, J. S. 1971. The Relevance of Education. W.W.
Norton and Co., New York.
[27] Sommers, N. 1980. Revision strategies of student writers and
experienced adult writers. College Composition and
Communication 31 (Nov. 1980), 378-388.
[28] Eklundh, K. S. 1994. Linear and nonlinear strategies in
computer-based writing. Computers and Composition 11
(May 1994), 203-216.
[29] Reynolds, T. H. and Bonk, C. J. 1996. Facilitating college
writers’ revisions within a generative-evaluative
computerized prompting framework. Computers and
Composition 13 (May 1996), 93-108.
[30] Nagel, E. and Newman, J. R. 1958. Gödel’s proof. NYU
Press, New York.
[31] Sterelny, K. 2001. The evolution of agency and other essays.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[32] Sterelny, K. 2003. Thought in a hostile world: The evolution
of human cognition. Blackwell, Malden, MA.
[33] Lienhard, J. H. 2006. How invention begins. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
[34] Small, G. and Vorgan, G. 2008. iBrain: Surviving the
technological alteration of the modern mind. HarperCollins,
New York.
[35] Hawkins, J. 2004. On intelligence. Owl Books, New York.
[36] Hofstadter, D. 2007. I am a strange loop. Basic Books, New
York