Awareness, Planning and Joint Attention in

Awareness, Planning and Joint Attention in Collaborative Writing: From Fieldwork to Design Andrew L. Cohen Lotus Research Lotus Development Corporation Cambridge, MA 02142 USA +1 617-693-0851 [email protected]

Debra Cash New Century Enterprises 77 Marlboro St. Belmont, MA 02178 USA +1 617-484-3061 [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on a qualitative study of collaboration in the construction and editing of complex documents. Using the theory of distributed cognition, we describe how co-authors edit a document in both co-located and remote settings. To account for higher-level awareness and planning processes, we extend the theory of distributed cognition to include the notion of meta-representations. We show how these data have important implications for CSCW technologies. Finally, we discuss our designs for a “PeopleFlow” system we are building to support awareness, monitoring and joint-attention when co-authoring documents. KEYWORDS

Qualitative, field study, awareness, ethnography, CSCW, distributed cognition, collaborative writing. INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the cognitive processes involved when multiple authors collaborate to create a document in a professional setting. We extended the theory of distributed cognition, described below, to guide and inform our investigation. Using this new framework, our observations inspired a new system design to support the co-authoring of documents. Earlier research explored individual cognitive processes in writing [9,24]. Subsequent investigations described how co-authors subdivide the document construction process [2,22]. More recently, new ethnographic techniques, borrowed in part from anthropological traditions [4], have been developed and employed to understand a variety of processes about writing. For example, see Blomberg,

Michael J. Muller Lotus Research Lotus Development Corporation Cambridge, MA 02142 USA +1 617-693-4235 [email protected]

Suchman, and Trigg, [3] for an ethnography of the “practice of document retrieval and re-use in corporate law and database production activity in litigation” (p. 100). Finally, technologies to support collaborations about the writing process, such as awareness of a collaborator’s activities and roles [e.g. 5,17,20], and technologies to support specific writing processes [e.g., 1,7,23], have been developed. In our work, we have focused on the ways people interact with one another, with tools and with the different stages of the document -- its emerging representation -- as they work together. Adapting the framework of distributed cognition [11,12], we focus on the many ways a representation is created, distributed, challenged, changed and harmonized as a document is produced. We selected a corporate legal group as the subject for this study. The legal domain is a particularly rich setting for studying the complexity of document creation and editing. The document is the major tangible product of the knowledge work associated with legal professionals (and paraprofessionals). In this setting, documents are not merely instrumental in supporting or guiding some other behavior (such as collaboratively constructed meeting agendas or the generation of substantial technical documents). In a legal setting the document is the "deliverable." We have attempted to abstract from this study a set of conclusions that may apply to other document-centered work domains, such as journalism, advertising, and scientific collaborations. We intend to validate our conclusions through subsequent studies of some of these domains. Initially, we asked questions about issues such as how professionals handle changes to the document's content, its structure or organization, and how new participants are added to the process as reviewers or content experts. Soon, however, we widened our scope. We decided to explore not merely the document as an artifact with a range and

complexity of affordances supplied by paper and digital media, but also the multiple representations of the document that are distributed amongst the participants. We followed the sequence of behaviors from an initial document draft through the harmonizing of the ideas and contributions of different collaborators during the editing process. This beginning-to-end framework revealed a number of intriguing phenomena. Beyond this, we have come to recognize that other tacit cognitive and procedural processes are at work in the course of document creation. These involve meta-representations. Meta-representations include ideas such as the goals behind the document’s production, awareness of the people who will be involved in the production process, and the expectations about behaviors that must be enacted to keep the project coordinated and “on track.” We believe that understanding typical problems associated with propagating a shared representation lets us anticipate a number of situations in which co-authors will find it difficult to work together on a document effectively. In the discussion that follows, we introduce and summarize the theory of distributed cognition, briefly extending the theory to account for the tacit processes observed in our research. Then we turn to the qualitative data we gathered through observations and semi-structured interviews. We describe how distributed cognition illuminates problems with current technologies designed to support collaborative writing and editing processes especially in non-co-located situations. Finally, based on our framework and observations, new designs for software to support collaborative writing are proposed. DISTRIBUTED COGNITION

The theory of distributed cognition was developed in part to understand cognitive activities within workplace settings [11,12]. Traditional methods of analyzing workplace activities from the perspective of the individual have serious limits when it comes to addressing settings where people and mediating artifacts interact and function as an integrated cognitive system. Distributed cognition looks at the people, artifacts and tools as an integrated cognitive system. Distributed cognition examines how representational states are propagated throughout a given system, and examines the assembly, coordination and “re-representation” of multiple representational states. In attempting to understand a distributed cognitive system, researchers typically start by identifying the various individual representations maintained by the members of the system. These can be mental models – that is, located solely within the heads of individuals and therefore inaccessible to others by any direct means – or they can be embodied in physical formats. These include, but are not limited to, language in both spoken and written forms, symbolic expressions such as numbers, drawings, gestures and glances, and information displayed on a gauge or

other piece of machinery. Each of these ‘brings a different sort of information into the foreground.’[11,12] The next step of a distributed cognition analysis traces the changes, juxtapositions and sharing of various representational states among people and artifacts. Hutchins refers to this process as the propagation of representations throughout the system [11]. Hutchins also writes of “re-representing” information from other participants to solve problems in which diverse representations are assembled. Hutchins and his students have primarily focused their work on a class of activities that are relatively stable in their structure, in their cultural framework, and in the networks of people (or roles) who participate in the activity. In the next section we extend the framework of distributed cognition to address problems where the team of people, the constellation of tools, and the information brought together are all emergent. We introduce the notion of meta-representation in which collaborators reflect on and discuss the representation that they are creating together. Meta-Representations in Distributed Cognition

Flavell [8] offered a model of metacognition highlighted by reflective strategies used to monitor one's own cognitive activities. Karmiloff-Smith [16], extended the notion of metacognitive processes to the monitoring and regulation of procedures, calling these metaprocedural processes. Metaprocedural processes occur when the procedures originally employed to carry out goals themselves become the subject of reflection. Metaprocedural processes are important, for example, when one is planning or managing projects or when people discuss their practices. Dunbar [6] studied several scientific teams as they monitored and evaluated the work of collaborators. He showed that the intentional but ad hoc review of each other’s work had a critical impact on the group’s collective achievements. Just as people have the capacity to reflect on and discuss their practices, procedures, and monitoring activities, they also have the capacity to reflect on and discuss their representations of ideas and data. We hypothesize that authors of complex legal documents have well-organized representations of the procedures and processes associated with the construction of a given document. They keep track of who has seen the document (or substantive materials that have contributed to the document) and who may need to interact with the document during its production. We hypothesize that this meta-representation helps collaborators transform a collage of materials into a working document and ultimately into a polished version of a legal brief. Our intention is to point towards systems that can help authors express and retain alternate representations of a

problem, monitor and organize the problem, and reconceptualize and re-represent the problem iteratively throughout the course of editing and re-writing. The ultimate goal is for the authors to be able to develop a shared representation that can be instantiated in a final, agreed-upon version of the document. METHODOLOGY

Our study focused on a small group of corporate attorneys and their support staff, including a legal student, intern and experienced legal secretary. In Jordan’s terms, this was a person-oriented record, in which the field work design tracked a number of individuals rather than, for instance, artifacts or pre-defined tasks. [14]. Over a period of three months, two researchers observed and conducted semi-structured interviews with this group for 1-2 hour sessions on an opportunistic schedule for approximately 40 total hours. We also observed their periodic group meetings. A formal “debriefing” of our data halfway through the study validated our research direction and identified further areas of interest. Some of these conversations were audiotaped and transcribed. In addition, we photographed people interacting with one another and with the artifacts. OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS

In this section, we discuss five excerpts from a larger set of observations and notes. Each excerpt is representative of one or more themes that were important in our observations and in our subsequent software design. Excerpt 1 illustrates some of the problems that occur when co-authors cannot monitor the current status of documents. Excerpt 2 illustrates planning for document writing. Excerpt 3 illustrates the importance of recoverable social histories of the documents (who wrote them, who reviewed them, etc.). Excerpts 4 and 5 contrast co-located and non-co-located work in terms of the tasks of writing and planning. The excerpts are grouped into two themes: Meta-Representations of Co-Authors’and Documents, and Co-Located vs. Non co-located Editing. Meta-Representations of Co-Authors and Documents

When two or more collaborators work together to construct a document, they typically begin by assembling their initial ideas, their partial representations of those ideas, artifacts, tools and other materials that will help them work. This activity occurs in the rich context of social and organizational relationships, and the particular spatial affordances of the office environment(s) in which the collaborators meet. However, if the authors are not co-located, the organization of constructing the document becomes more difficult. Excerpt 1: Monitoring Current Documents

Cathy and David are early in the process of responding to a claim: 1

David: In paragraph 1 section 1.12 you said … Cathy: I think I don’t have that version … can you read it Later on … David: Cathy, in your [copy of the] agreement, you have a clause about the 1997 (inaudible) bonus … Cathy: I don’t have those documents in front of me. The collaborators experienced continual frustration about where the relevant documents were (even when co-authors had quick and simple access to them), and whether everyone was working from the same draft. We also observed that correcting any of these problems online was difficult, even though e-mail was available. Excerpt 2: Collaborative Planning

The activity of constructing a document involves planning the process of writing, both at the conceptual level (what the document is intended to convey), and at lower levels (how the co-authors will organize the collaboration). This example of discourse is from a session where Cathy and Leslie were sitting together planning how to draft a response document: Cathy: We’ll focus on this next week. I’ll have read this [claim for damages] and then you and I should sit down and go through this [same document] and go through the letter [the one that Leslie is going to write] … Cathy: I think he needs a letter that’s a baseline for negotiations … So, prepare, put a letter together that’s responsive, you know, but … kind of, gloss over the financial. Then we’ll duke that out1 when we get on the phone. And as it relates to more of the substantial parts of his claims, then I think you can respond, but in a way that doesn’t say everything. These passages illustrate two important points about planning. (1) In the first passage, Cathy is going over the process of what they need to do next on this letter. Only three clear steps are outlined: I’ll have read this (document); you and I will go through this; and you and I will go through the letter. (II) In the second passage, Cathy gives Leslie a high-level overview of the letter. While these authors seem to know and be able to plan who ought to be involved, and in the broadest terms what ought to happen, they only plan a few of the steps concretely. There is high variability in the planning process, with each step dependent on the outcome of the previous step. Excerpt 3: Past Activities

In the following passages, we turn to issues associated with monitoring activities that have already occurred. Consider the following comments between Cathy and Frank during a debriefing session:

The expression “duke that out” is US slang for “fight” or “battle.”

Cathy: … every deal would have, [Frank], what did they used to be called where you would have the name and telephone numbers of the people involved?

Subsequent steps are dependent on prior steps. Third, lawyers monitor the document history – who has seen what versions and when.

Frank: Distribution lists. I mean, shoe size and when to call.

These points have important implications for both our theoretical understanding of the collaborative writing process and for the tools we need to build to support such collaboration. Next we turn to processes directly related to editing the document.

[… ] Cathy: I never send anything to anybody unless I have a cover letter at least so it tells me who received it and the date so I know they got the first two drafts and that's one of the things I've always done. And it is helpful to know that this guy is giving you a hard time on this issue didn't get the previous two drafts because we thought about that [already] and we've agreed to this middle ground ... In the first section, the comments indicate that the main authors of a document have well-developed representations of the people who ought to be involved in its production. In addition, the authors hold informal notions about what they would like these people to do with the document. However, these notions are not explicit at the beginning of the document construction process, nor are they fixed in time. The process is ad hoc and the list of people involved (as well as their roles) changes and emerges. Notice how Cathy describes the cover letter “… it tells me who received it and the date so I know they got the first two drafts… ” The cover letter is a well-developed artifact that ostensibly is used to introduce the collaborators to the version of the document they are receiving. However, this author also uses it as a monitoring and tracking tool, recording the social/collaborative history of the document. In the later part of the passage “ … it is helpful to know that this guy is giving you a hard time on this issue didn't get the previous two drafts … ” she is noting that agreements about earlier drafts constrain the document’s development. In the process of constructing a document the authors know with whom they may need to collaborate, how to stay in contact with these people, and how to keep track of who has seen which versions of an emerging document. These are representations about both the relationships among the people who need to be involved and the shape of the final document. Lawyers learn to use simple artifacts, like the cover page, for purposes different from their original and overt intent. They use these artifacts to monitor their own and their group’s progress on the construction of documents. In sum, we observed three different points related to meta-representations: First, the difficulty lawyers have in coordinating multiple versions and multiple documents when they are not co-located. Second that planning is ad hoc. The high level goals and endpoints are known, but only a few concrete steps can be defined in advance.

Co-Located vs. Non co-located Editing

Toward the end stages of document production, an existing document is annotated by one or more collaborators, who make changes, indicate their concerns, or express their approval of an existing draft. Through this editing process, alternate representations are developed and shared. The document becomes the carrier of multiple and sometimes divergent or conflicting viewpoints or representations. Yet as other researchers have noted [18,21], the annotations and side notes alone are rarely adequate to support the exchange of ideas and negotiations required to reach the next stage of the document. This is why collaborators use the annotations as a framework for further conversation. Only after these conversations occur can we say that these alternative representations have been fully shared and propagated among the collaborating writers. Excerpt 4: Co-Located Editing

Authors Hal and Cathy, the senior corporate counsel, are collaborating to write a contract with an outside organization. Hal is a business manager with a responsibility to communicate with Jan, the field sales rep. Jan has sent Hal a contract from his customer as a starting point for their negotiation. Hal, knowing they will respond to Jan with an alternate version of the contract, has taken a first stab at rewriting the document, based on his own experience and sense of the company’s standard arrangements. He has used page markup technology to add his changes to Jan’s initial document. They appear in Italics and in red. He has then printed out a hardcopy that he has given to Cathy to review. When we arrive to observe Hal and Cathy’s meeting to discuss the contract, Cathy has already read and annotated a hardcopy of Hal’s version of the contract in red pen. (see figure 1). Hal and Cathy proceed to set out the documents on a table in Cathy’s office. Cathy has her copy of the document with its annotations. Hal has his copy of the document without the annotations (see figure 2). He also has a small personal notebook in order to take notes about their conversation.

Figure 1: Cathy’s annotations of the document Cathy: To the extent that we can throw some of these things their way we can deal, when we get to here [pointing to document clauses] we can't deal...just between you and me we could give this, but let's hold it back for now.… {short pause} Cathy: Where does that [clause] come from?

explain and amplify the meaning and context of the annotation. The authors depend on all three forms of communication -- the textual annotation of the document, conversation, and gestures that helped them coordinate their attention -- to completely propagate this new, emergent representation. We often observed Cathy and Hal looking at the same section of the document at the same time. We also saw them writing at the same time. However, at no time did we observe them needing to write and see what each other was writing at the same time. This point turns out to have significant implications for understanding the need for synchronous vs. asynchronous CSCW tools, which we will discuss toward the end of this article. In the next section, we analyze a session in which two authors are attempting similar editing work, but are not co-located. We will show the breakdowns and workarounds that occur when co-authors’ communication channels are constrained. Excerpt 5: Non-Co-Located Editing

Hal: From the terms of engagement {holds up unmodified template...}

Figure 2: Cathy and Hal review edit documents. Propagation of Representations Among Co-Located Authors

At the time of our observation, Cathy had already read the hardcopy document that reflected both the original version and the changes that Hal has recommended. She then added her own comments to Hal’s rewrite. Her annotations can be thought of as an alternate representation of the document-in-progress. The document becomes the carrier of these representations. However, Cathy does not just send the document back to Hal. They meet and have a discussion about her recommendations.

Frank, another senior legal counsel to the company, places a telephone call to Mark, the business manager for one of the company’s products. They are in the midst of a licensing negotiation with a third party. At the beginning of this session, Frank calls up an electronic version of the current version of the contract and puts his phone on the speaker. During the conversation that follows, he types directly into the file. A transcript of their discourse follows: Frank: Hi Mark, what's a good time to talk...they've done some things [he scrolls through the document online]: The first is 2C [referring to sections of the document].

We see three overlapping forms of communication during this fragment of discourse Cathy: … to the extent that we can throw some of these things their way we can deal, when we get to here {pointing to clauses} we can't deal...just between you and me we could give this, but let's hold it back for now. First Cathy has annotated the document. Then Cathy and Hal situate themselves at a table so that they can both see the same section of the document (and the annotation containing the ‘alternate’ representation) at the same time. The use of gesture is critical. When Cathy says “… when we get to here… ” she gestures to the sections and pertinent clauses (see figure 2). This assures visual coordination between the two authors. Finally, the discourse is used to

Mark: You want me to get it to look at it?

Frank: I want you to see what Rossi sent. Later, in the same conversation, Frank and Mark need to coordinate their attention as they discuss the document. Frank: They want our license to be perpetual and we don't want it to be...and we told them that at the outset. It [certain clause] means that our right to do successor, subsequent versions goes away and the decision to discontinue is irrevocable. Mark: Where’s that? Frank: Take a look at 2D that’s the other issue at 9E. It gives them a tremendous amount of bargaining power because that's the effect of that, because 2D goes away if you accept Rossi’s change. Breakdowns in the Propagation of Representation Among Non-Co-Located Authors

The communication between Frank and Mark reflects common problems associated with coordinating work whenever the collaborators have constrained communication channels. What they would communicate simply by gesture and gaze must be explained in discourse. In the first case, Frank’s opening comment “they’ve done some things” signals that he is introducing a new representation of the document, one that has been amended by the third party participant. We surmise that either Mark does not have access to this amended representation or he has not yet reviewed or been made aware of its suggested changes. Because the contract is an object that will have to serve parties with divergent goals, the document carries the negotiating stances of the two opposing sides. At the outset of the phone call, Mark is unaware that Frank is actually looking at the document online and not merely expecting to have a more abstract or strategic conversation about the state of the negotiations. The evidence of this miscommunication is conveyed by his response, “You want me to get it to look at it?” The oral instructions to open up the document were sufficient to handle this problem. It should be noted that Mark did not indicate whether he was reading from an electronic or hardcopy text. The coordination problem associated with the second discourse fragment is more complex. We saw no evidence of any lack of interest or commitment to engage in the conversation on Mark’s part. Rather we saw him floundering without clear cues that would help him engage in joint inquiry of the document during this unanticipated telephone call. He was not always certain where in the document Frank was turning his attention, and so had to be guided by Frank’s oral recital of section numbers. The more serious issue is that it appears that Mark was not always aware of where Frank’s oral “annotations”

belonged, since the legal and business implications of a change in a given clause were played out in different places throughout the contract. The logistical problem of flipping between pages during a conversation in order to get one’s bearings are well known, and coordinating flipping between pages in hardcopy with a scrolling computer text is even more difficult. In practice, they ended up relying on Frank’s oral directions, in contrast to the more reliable and robust pointing and linking gestures that Cathy and Hal were able to rely on in the previous face-to-face example. In sum, we have tried to make several points in this section: First is that co-authors need to be able to establish joint attention. Second, co-authors need to discuss the annotations and other editorial issues. Third, co-authors need to be able to make changes and propagate them to their collaborators seamlessly. In the next section we attempt to outline the design implications derived from these insights. DESIGN IMPLICATIONS

Both meta-representation and monitoring of the writing process and breakdowns in non-co-located editing have design implications for CSCW tools. In the following sections we present design guidelines for software to support the co-authoring of documents. Space does not permit us to fully elaborate the design, which we will leave for subsequent papers. The PeopleFlow: The Management of Co-Authors’ Meta-Representations

The extension of our thinking about distributed cognition to account for more ad hoc collaborations led us to focus on two related phenomena: • The monitoring of the multiple documents and people involved in the writing process. • The lawyers’ ad hoc planning process and metarepresentations of who needs to see the document. Past work on awareness has implications for the present work. For example, Dourish and Bellotti [5] provide a case study of users who are able to see others’ actions in a synchronous editing environment. Users felt that having this information improved their ability to coordinate their activities. Palfreyman and Rodden [20] developed an open protocol to support awareness of who is in the same place, for example, who is reading the same web page. Others have proposed asynchronous systems which provide awareness of users’ roles [17,19] and activities [7]. In addition, Hill and Hollan [10] argue that more precise information about the past and current activities of one’s co-authors and co-readers can enhance the rich social context which the activity is situated. In contrast, our work suggests that co-authors are good at understanding the social context and organizing the interactions among group members. One indication of

legal expertise is the lawyer’s ability to know what information should be included in a particular agreement, which people ought to be informed when a settlement is proposed, and which people ought to see the agreement before it is signed. What they have trouble with is tracking the plethora of documents, the changing membership of the group and in monitoring the history of their activities We propose that the group should control its membership while maintaining flexibility. It should allow members of a particular group to know whether their colleagues are on-line anywhere on the Internet, determine those colleagues’ status (for example, whether their connection is currently active or inactive), alert them to a personal message, and initiate chats. Building on our observations, we propose a “PeopleFlow” toolbar. The toolbar will support tracking of the people involved in the production of the document, archiving the history of the document, and awareness and communication within documents. Our PeopleFlow toolbar - much like the toolbar in a word processor - could provide the author(s) with knowledge about who had seen the document, what version they saw, and could set different levels of access control over who could view/edit/comment on the document. People could be added to the toolbar at any time. The PeopleFlow toolbar would allow users to review the history of activity associated with the document and status reports on the work completed to date. In sum, the PeopleFlow toolbar should provide awareness at several levels: • The current status of the members of the group of co-authors • The current status of the documents the groups is working on • Histories of activities of both the group members and documents. • Planning tools that are under user control and are flexible, so as to allow the user to develop ad hoc representations of the next few steps or the high-level goals for the document(s). In the following section we turn to collaborative editing, where design implications for joint attention and coordination between attention and discourse are discussed. Collaborative Editing: Joint Attention and Coordination Between Attention and Discourse

Our research has illuminated the overlay of three communication channels - annotation, discourse, and gaze and joint attention - in co-located settings. But where are the problems when authors are not co-located? The first and most obvious problem associated with

non-co-located editing is getting the document from one person to the other in the same format. In our example of the two non-co-located attorneys, the transaction takes many steps. 1) After Mark has completed his version of the document, he gives it to his assistant.

2) His assistant faxes/express-mails the document (or disk) to Frank’s assistant.

3) Frank’s assistant gives a paper or electronic copy to Frank. 4) Frank annotates the document and returns the document (paper or electronic) to his assistant.

5) Frank’s assistant faxes/express-mails the document 6) 7)

(or disk) back to Mark’s assistant. Mark’s assistant gives the document to Mark. Mark places call to Frank to work on the document together

Certainly there are document management tools available for co-authors to use, but when authors belong to different organizations, and new collaborators participate on an ad hoc basis, it is rare for them to have identical, or even compatible, system infrastructures and tools. Managing this problem is as much an organizational as a CSCW issue. Nonetheless, managing these transactions is only half the story. The other half is in the coordination between co-authors once they both have the document either in a paper or digital form. Our research illuminated breakdowns in the propagation of the multiple representations embedded in an annotated document. In the non-co-located example, all the coordination that otherwise would have been conveyed through gaze and gesture had to be translated into oral instructions. While this was possible, it was frustrating for the co-authors and took a great deal of time. There have been attempts to develop systems that support gesture and gaze. Clearboard, developed by Ishii, Kobayashi and Grudin [13], supported gesture and gaze in a fully synchronous environment as a bridge between video conferencing and a painting environment. Also, current T120-compliant tools, the most popular being Microsoft’s NetMeeting, support application and pointer sharing. However, it would be a mistake to interpret our research as an argument for fully synchronous environments. We have come to appreciate that discourse and the coordination of where to pay attention (conveyed by gaze awareness and gesture during co-located work) do need to be synchronous. However, co-authors of written documents almost never need to synchronously act on the document and coordinate what they are looking at simultaneously. Our conclusion is that the PeopleFlow tools should provide support for the following processes: • Insuring that co-authors are looking at the same representation or aspect of a representation, by synchronizing the document so that co-authors can talk about items and proposed changes, and jointly

accept or reject them. • Passing editing control of the document back and forth between co-authors, so that co-authors can propose changes and instantiate them in representations The collaborative editing process and support for awareness, as described above, should be provided in a unified, simple system, which integrates support for the diverse activities observed as writers co-author documents.

REFERENCES

1.

Baecker, R.M., Glass, G., Mitchell, A., and Posner, I.R. "SASSE: The Collaborative Editor", refereed videotape presented at the 1994 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 1994. Also published in the SIGGRAPH Video Review, 1994.

2.

Beck, E. E. “A survey of experiences of collaborative writing” In M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (pp. 87-112). Springer-Verlag, London, 1993.

3.

Blomberg, J., Suchman, L., Trigg, R. “Reflections on a Work-Oriented Design Project” Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference (Chapel Hill, NC, October 1994) ACM press 99-109.

4.

Clifford, J., and Marcus, G., E. Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. University of California Press. 1986.

5.

Dourish, P., and Bellotti, V. “Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces” Proceedings of CSCW ‘92, (Toronto, November 1992), ACM press. 107-114

6.

Dunbar, K. “How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories.” In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanism of insight. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.

7.

Ellis, C., Gibbs, S., and Rein, G. “Design and Use of a Group Editor”. In Cockton (ed.), Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction”, North-Holland, 1990.

8.

Flavell, J. H. “Cognitive monitoring.” In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children's oral communication skills (pp. 35-60). Academic Press, New York, 1981.

9.

Flower, L. and Hayes, J. R. “The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints.’ In L. W. Gregg and E. R. Steinburg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1980.

SUMMARY

In this paper, we have described a theory-based investigation into collaborative writing, and sketched requirements and a design to support this task. The theory of distributed cognition provided a context for understanding a number of phenomena associated with collaborative writing. We proposed extending the theory to account for meta-representations, the higher-level monitoring and planning processes integral to the collaborative writing process. We focused on the problems that can occur with the propagation of a representation among collaborators. Field work revealed that during the document construction process, authors make sense of and track the component materials of their work; make use of multiple communication modalities (text, talk and spatial proximity/gesture) to coordinate their work and attention; monitor the project and one another to insure that the emerging document is “on track” with the project’s emerging priorities and goals; and share multiple and sometimes competing versions of representations in progress. We have found the extended distributed cognition framework to be far more powerful than merely comparing individual and collaborative writing processes or juxtaposing the practices associated with traditional paper-based and digital media. We believe that it helps us anticipate problems in the document construction process that we are addressing in the design of our software tools. Legal practice is a rich resource for the study of document creation. Although it is a highly constrained domain, we believe that it is a proxy for a broader set of environments where similar phenomena are likely to occur around document creation. We are developing prototype applications to test the robustness of the design implications described in this paper, and are designing further studies to test and expand on our initial findings. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Legal Group at Lotus Development Corporation for their cooperation and patience during this study. Lee Sproull contributed some early ideas. Irene Greif, Dan Gruen and Mark Sheldon all provided comments and insight on early versions of this document.

10. Hill, W., C., and Hollan, J., D. “Edit wear and Read Wear” Proceedings of CHI’92 (Monterey, CA, May 1992), ACM press. 3-9. 11. Hutchins, E. “The technology of team navigation.” In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, and C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technical bases for collaborative work. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990. 12. Hutchins, E. “How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speed.” Cognitive Science 19, 3 (July-September 1995) (pp. 265-288). Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ. 13. Ishii, H., Kobayashi, M., and Grudin, J., "Integration of Inter-Personal Space and Shared Workspace: ClearBoard Design and Experiments," Proceedings of

CSCW ‘94, (Toronto, November 1992), ACM press. 33-42.

Proceedings of CSCW’90, (Los Angeles, Ca, October 1992)

14. Jordan, B. "New Research Methods for Looking at Productivity in Knowledge-Intensive Organizations," in Parunak, H. Van Dyke, (Ed.), Industrial Technology Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1992.

20. Palfreyman, K., and Rodden, T. “ A Protocol for User Awareness on the World Wide Web” Proceedings of CSCW 96, (Boston, November 1996), ACM press. 130-139.

15. Jones, S. ‘MILO: A computer-Based Tool for (Co-) Authoring Structured Documents’, in M. Sharples (Ed.), Computer Supported Collaborative Writing (pp. 87-112). Springer-Verlag, London, 1993

21. Plowman, L. Talking and writing in a group writing task: A sociocognitive perspective. Brighton: University of Sussex School of Cognitive and Computing Science, 1992

16. Karmiloff-Smith, A. Beyond Modularity. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

22. Posner, I.R. and Baecker, R.M., “How People Write Together,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992, (pp. 127-138).

17. Leland, M., Fish, R., and Kraut., R “Collaborative Document Production Using Quilt” Proceedings of CSCW ‘88, (Portland, September 1988) 18. Medway, P. “Writing, Speaking, Drawing: the Distribution of Meaning in Architects' Communication,” in Sharples and van der Geest (eds.), The New Writing Environment: Writers at Work in a World of Technology. Springer-Verlag, London, 1997. 19. Neuiwirth, C. M., Kaufer, D. S., Ravinder, C., and Morris, J., H “Issues in the Design of Computer support for Co-authoring and Commenting”.

23. Sharples and van der Geest. The New Writing Environment: Writers at Work in a World of Technology. Springer-Verlag, London, 1997. 24. Scardamalia, M., and Bereiter, C. “Research on written composition”, in M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Third handbook of research in teaching (pp. 778-803) Macmillan, New York, 1986.