Making use of things to think with

1. Making use of things to think with: the mobilisation of social and physical resources in enabling distributed cognition The presentation will explore the role of distributed cognition in human activity, and how we as researchers can come to understand more about the role of embodiment and situatedness in human behaviour. As a research or theoretical tool, DCog explores the interplay between mind and body, and the physical, social and cultural contexts within which activity occurs, and which form an intelligent system as an emergent property of this interaction (or, at least, can be usefully considered as forming a meta-cognitive system). Here, the role of internal mental cognitive behaviour is seen in managing the co-ordination of representations and processes. It is in this area that the presentation will focus - how the resources in settings are co-ordinated by human actors and the physical manipulations that are applied to enable the symbolic transformations necessary for distributed problem solving. Yet whilst it is itself seen as a correction to the problems of traditional cognitive science, DCog itself has some practical limitations to its use and a number of academic questions regarding its theoretical foundations, and these will also be addressed

2. Making use of things to think with the mobilisation of social and physical resources in enabling distributed cognition mark perry Brunel University <mark.perry@brunel.ac.uk> <people.brunel.ac.uk/~cssrmjp>

3. talk coverage • my interest in the area (applied research), some history • think about where the thinking is done… • ‘co-ordinated problem solving’ • role of mental (individual) behaviour (co-ordination) • the boundaries of DCog….limitations and problems • consider: is it really novel, interesting or useful?

4. DCog: traction and diffusion • meaningfulness of the use of the term • it’s about cognition (or thinking!) • need to think seriously about what we mean by ‘cognition’ • how distributed action might be cognitive and • what it asks about the nature of cognition • its not just distributed/collaborative work • term has been diluted in the literature • need to consider: information, representations and representational media, and info. processing/transformations • Q: where and how do system state changes occur?

5. some history • several versions, appropriations and uses of the term • Shared/ social/ group cognition, ecological psychology, situated cognition, situated action/ ethnomethodology, etc. • all dealing with ‘embodiment’: mind, body and world interacting and influencing one another • generally used to mean approaches to the study of the division of labour over multiple resources - other people, artefacts and/or situation • focus on Ed Hutchin’s work “DCog” • why the interest from systems analysts (and me)? • making the jump: easy for cognitive scientists to accept - not like ethnomethodology or activity theory (etc., etc.) • information focused: important in designing technology

6. situated cognition • anthropological approach to examining cognition • unit of analysis: environment not just a resource for consulting (e.g. as a memory), but active • allowing cognition to be “stretched over mind, body, activity and setting” • example (from Lave, 1988) in maths: • divide a serving of cottage cheese: “three quarters of two thirds of a cup of cheese” • did not do a mental calculation on the fractions (solution - 1/2 a cup) • …but filled the cup 3/4 quarters full, tipped it out and divided it up into four parts, removing one quarter • a demanding abstract cognitive computation • solved, by making use of the environment and the solution represented in the question wording itself, the task solution was simple

7. dear old Donald Norman • on cognitive artefacts • “…artefacts do not actually change an individual’s capabilities. Rather, they change the nature of the task performed by that person. When the information and processing structure of the artefact is combined with the task, the result is to expand and enhance the cognitive capabilities of the total system of human, task, and artefact” • difference lies in the boundary of analysis • …and consequently, the data collection methods applied

8. (re)structuring: things and organisations • revelation! • (to me at least) • the structure of the world impacts on our action/s, and consequently on our information processing • through physical embodiment (‘cognitive artefacts’) and social contexts (‘culture’) • we are also actors • we can restructure the world • designing new tools and ways of working

9. the boundaries of cognition do not stop with the individual a range of mechanisms may be used in cognitive processes involving symbol manipulation thus, cognitive processes may: involve internal (mental) and external (in the world) structures be socially distributed be temporally distributed be spatially distributed DCog:principles and mechanisms

10. the role of mental (individual) behaviour • managing the co-ordination of representations and processes (internal and external): • resources are co-ordinated by human actors/agents • physical manipulations enable symbolic transformation • not necessarily directly performing mental processing on that information • i.e. applying general-purpose (co-ordination) skills and not case by case planning/ rule execution • hmm…but is this a cop out? • what is a ‘general purpose rule’? • vague and undefined • social and physical co-ordination are hardproblems!

11. ‘doing’ DCog, in an ‘abstract task space’ • unit of analysis: the ‘functional system’ • individuals, cognitive artefacts/media - and their relations • boundaries set by analyst (! - note theoretical implication - !) • many approaches to ‘doing a DCog’ • a framework not a method • generally, data collection is observational - the ‘cognitive ethnography’ • examines ‘information-representation’ transitions • equivalent to examining a system’s mental state

12. the mechanics of co-ordination • perhaps even an (embodied) architecture for distributed cognition? • key research concern: exposing how people manage their actions to bring the representations into co-ordination with one another • aligning with (and adapting) social protocols and organisational processes • making physical movements • combining representations • Example: • ConsCo

13. data collection: focus on co-ordination work • Communication at its core: • in DCog, communication is not differentiated from the computations involved in IP • representations are propagated through communicative pathways: • verbal • non-verbal • inter-modal transformations (e.g. verbal to text) • operations on tools • All can be observed directly

14. time example 1 - media transformations shows key representational transformations and co-ordinations in the computation in resolving the problem and communicating information to the senior engineer

15. example 2 - social co-ordination and cross media transformations Senior engineer (SE): ‘If you look here, there’s a barrel run there’ <points at sketch generated in the meeting of a section view through a design structure> Temporary works design co-ordinator (TWC): ‘Yes I see’. SE: ‘So if we dig here...’ <he holds one hand to the sketch and runs a finger on the other hand along a permanent works drawing (in plan view) beside the sketch, indicating a line of reference> TWC: ‘No you can’t do that because of drainage problems...’ <pauses> ‘...No, no, I see now’. SE: ‘So if we cap these piles here...’ <indicates several points on the sketch> TWC: ‘Yeah. OK. Lets do that’. • common understanding: cross-referencing external representations • bringing together and aligning representations collaboratively • co-ordination of representations is mediated by the senior engineer using hands to demonstrate relationship between drawing and sketch • allows him to indicate where the digging (on the sketch, seen from the side) would have to be performed on the site (on the drawing, from an aerial view) • physically using his body to mediate this, he creates a new, shared viewpoint of the information on the two media

16. time informational transformations

17. physical and spatial embodiment: IN USE • practical mechanisms for co-ordination • somewhat disorganised! • orienting problem solvers to information (awareness) • e.g. making visible the computational structure of the task • structuring the task organisation (cognitive architecture) • e.g. division of cognitive labour achieved by managing access to information artefacts • structuring computations (co-ordinating representational transformations) • e.g. mapping physical/artefactual structures to symbolic structure

18. returning to broader issues application in design limitations odds and endings

19. tool for practical application (design) • makes visible the mechanisms co-ordinating representational transformations • insights offered into how cognition is & can be distributed across people and the (increasingly) smart environments that they work and play in • a description of the informational characteristics of work • shows representational properties and functions of media • important in developing and introducing I.S. • highlights information bottlenecks and communications breakdowns • and where not to introduce digital technologies • cannot be applied directly in design • creative interpretation is necessary • describes work in informational and computational terms • gives system designers a stronger model of work • frames social and organisational p-s in terms of representations and processes: terms well understood by systems designers/programmers

20. limitations and applicability • DCog appropriate for analysing problem solving • but not all situations are best described as p-s • no clearly framed way to do a DCog analysis • reasonably robust theoretical framework, • but not prescriptive in its application • (…nor how to apply it to systems design) • how is this co-ordination achieved by agents/actors? • no (simple!) way of looking inside people’s heads • is DCog an emergent property of activity systems? … or just a useful analytical device? … … but is this any different from criticisms of GOF cog sci

21. out on a limb - some questions • can social and cultural factors really be of secondary interest to cognitive psychology? • if we want to understand human behaviour, is it of value to understand ‘mind’ independent of context and external resources? • perhaps, in understanding ‘general purpose’ cognitive skills in co-ordinating problem-solving resources • if language is a means of co-ordinating distributed resources to bring to bear on problems… • is examining the structure of language important, or its use?

22. DCog in broader use • emerging theoretical framework • but date of primary reference: 1995 - not superseded • widely cited in HCI literature, rarely used in anger (though frequently cited) • less commonly discussed within cog sci community • although not considered too controversial any more • clearly still relevant, but has issues...

23. representation and the IP metaphor • cog sci: human mind is assumed to operate through computational mechanisms • problem solving => changing problem representation changes the problem • successive transformations on a representation can transform initial state into desired state • involves a computational transformation: • of a problem state (i.e. representation of the problem) • through a ‘problem space’, from start state through a ‘problem space’ (with resources and constraints) • into a goal state • through propagation of representations across various representational structures • cognitive architecture • in human minds, representational structures are neural pathways • DCog: no distinction between representational media – internal or external – forming a system ‘boundary’

24. SociallyDistributed Cognition: the social organisation of group problem solving • group activity is a computation realised through the creation, transformation and propagation of representational states • SDCog allows us to examine how such computations are organised, and how representations act as intermediaries in collaboration • many ways to organise the system to distribute the computational load • some better than others (speed, processing resources required, proneness to error) • division of labour • determines the computational architecture of the problem solving unit • establishes the resources and processes brought to bear on problem representations • system can do adaptive structuring • organising and reorganising physical and cognitive artefacts in the environment • modifying the social context