Mapping participatory methods @ FoAM. Workshop on 10/12/2008

Introduction
The mapping methodology is used to observe artistic collectives visualizes a process in space and time. The resulting maps capture the real-world situations of collaborative processes used in design and art practice. In this way, mapping amounts to observing and analyzing how individuals and organizations perform in a participatory design process. Because no ontological set of elements has been found describing the artistic production process, we had to develop a set of our own for the mapping process. Through the maps we analyzed how collaborative art and design projects develop, using different collaborative media. The observed cases differed in scale and in how they engaged with different work partners.

We created a low-tech mapping system, an open and extendible set of icons allowing participants to make their thoughts explicit in a visual way in the form of a map situated in space and time. Whereas the semantic space created during a participatory design event is not just visual, but also linguistic, tactile and emotional, the visual aspect of the mapping was combined with a verbal notation of the conversations triggered by the icons.


Map created at Constant vzw. Workshop on 15/12/2008

As shown in Figure 1, a map comprises icons of people, tasks and different collaboration methods. Empty icons are also available to create new icons during discussions, allowing participants to draw on existing icons in order to specify them. In this way, icons can be added and adjusted, implying that the system is never complete and is open to iterative refinement.

Mapping session
A mapping workshop is roughly split in two parts. During the first part introductory questions are asked focusing on the significance of participation and collaboration for the media art organisation and artists (i.e. what does collaboration and participation mean to you? Which participatory methods do you use?). The second part consists of the actual map-making analysing a concrete project in which the organisation was engaged with other institutions or persons from different disciplines.

Usually a project is divided in four phases which are seperately analysed: (a) concept development, (b) preparation of the project, (c) the day itself and (d) the output of the project. Sometimes a phase is split because of complexity in mapping the collaborative processes of that specific phase. For each phase the following topics will be discussed and mapped: (1) All the people that were involved in the organisation of the project, (2) the quantity and frequency of their collaboration, (3) the physical distance during the collaboration, and (4) the materials/methods/tools and technology used to facilitate conversations and exchange.

During a mapping session, the research team discusses the phases of the project under scrutiny and simultaneously maps the findings of the conversations. To make the activity of mapping participatory, the research team built a simulation of a possible future multi-touch table. The simulation is a self-made construction that consists of a perspex plate, with light shining through both the perspex and sheets of transparent tracing paper on top. To visualise the information summoned during the conversation, the research team has developed a paper prototype of a mapping system, with labels and icons to illustrate the different elements. The icon set comprises icons of people and tasks. The labels specify different collaboration methods. Empty icons are also available to create new icons during discussions. In some cases, the participants of a workshop meeting drew on existing icons to specify them. In this way icons can be added and adjusted, implying that the system is never complete and open for iterative refinement. Arrows and lines are also part of the mapping system and arrows generate flow and lines indicate packages of information exchange. For instance thick lines point out intense non-stop collaboration while dotted lines illustrate collaboration on a regular base. After each phase, a new sheet of tracing paper is added on top of the previous one, which allows for the analysis of the project's evolution in time. The icons are situated on tracing paper and jointly repositioned, re-arranged and related to each other with lines and arrows. The icons are attached to the tracing paper with removable/repositionable glue, indicating that a mapping is never fixed and can be modified afterward if necessary.The gluing of the elements to the tracing paper generates discussion between the participants. This idea of “fixing” the participants' expressions on the map is what creates new meaning for the ontological elements. The participants of each observed mapping case gave their own new meaning to the set of elements.

Icons legend

For example, if during a conversation about the first phase of concept development it is mentioned that person X emailed five times a week with person Y, two icons of persons are placed on the tracing paper (tagged with 'phase: concept development') with their names written on the icon, a dotted line is situated between the two persons and an email-icon and two arrows are position next to the dotted line to indicate two-way emailing. Another example: if during the preparation phase person A sets up a financial plan about the project with person B and C, which was a very intense period of communicating over email, Skype conferences, and collaborating on a shared document like Google Doc, the following icons are placed on the tracing paper (tagged with 'phase: preparation'): a task icon with financial plan written on it, three person icons with their names, thick lines placed in a triangle between the three persons, next to the lines a Skype icon, email icon, cc-email icon and a shared document icon.

Remarks
Since the mapping system is recently developed, we will describe some essential remarks based on four mapping cases. First of all, the mappings allow for in depth analysis, in this way details surface. The participatory manner of the mapping and the physical act of gathering around a table and jointly placing and positioning icons while discussing how a project evolved, has several advantages. By naming tasks, phases and participants and identifying them with icons, the collaborative and participatory processes become visible and tangible. This visibility makes the discussion and mapping more accessible and makes participants sharing their thoughts and opinions easier. Furthermore, the analysed projects are all collaborative in nature. A lot of collaborative work still involves individual working periods whereas many details are not shown.

In a first evaluation, we noticed that there was a lack of 'strange objects' in the collaborative mapping sessions. The added value of collaborative processes in new media innovation is that different disciplines present different views on a subject. In a lot of the mapping sessions, people were too eager to please each other and to search as quickly as possible for common ground. By making the 'strange' or the conflict part of the conversation, people are allowed to disagree, enabling them to risk a step on uncommon ground, which is more conductive to creativity. In the adapted set of icons, some icons will disturb the process when people feel they do not agree with how things are modeled. In relation to the conversation space, a number of tactics will be developed, such as explosions to move the icons in different constellations and 'détournement’, which turns the situation upside down.

The table set-up goes along with body language and tone and exposes more information about the relationships and emotions between participants in the project organisation. By mapping all details an overview is created which shows intensity and efficiency of collaboration. However, this method of mapping only works when it is properly facilitated, with someone leading and provoking questions to get more information from the workshop participants. The facilitator should also allow the participants to take over after a while. Through the mapping process the participants become comfortable with the mapping system and realise the value of the mapping and their active participation. The participants start to take an active role in the leading of the mapping in contrast to the beginning where the participants needed to be provoked by the facilitator. Not only their involvement in the changes, the interaction between the mapping participants changes too. The mapping workshops showed that in the second half, participants showed more comfort and were eager to have an opportunity to share their experiences of a project they were heavily involved in.

In this way, the mapping workshops can be seen as a debriefing of the organisation of a project. The debriefing, which is crucial, is mostly skipped because organisations want to work on new projects. Debriefing is often lacking structure and a critical view. This mapping method gives the chance to add structure to allocate time and put participants in a structure where critical reflection is possible. In this debriefing of their work they were not only sharing positive experiences, also grievances and disagreements during the project. These negative comments could have potentially positive implications for future projects, with the same individuals, by redefining roles, opening up communication and learning from past mistakes.