Conference backchannels: distributed intelligence or divided attention
Posted: November 30th, 2005 | 2 Comments »Jacobs N, Mcfarlane A. (2005) Conferences as learning communities: some early lessons in using `back-channel’ technologies at an academic conference – distributed intelligence or divided attention? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 21, No. 5., pp. 317-329
researchers attend conferences as a part of their practice, and yet it is an under-researched activity. Little attention has been paid either to developing a theoretically informed understanding of conference practice as knowledge building, or to assessing the extent to which conferences are successful. This paper addresses these issues in the context of a small empirical study of the introduction of mobile, interactive (‘back-channel’) technologies into a conference setting. Science studies and learning theories literatures are used to develop an eight-point statement describing the aims of an idealised conference. This is then used as a framework through which to make sense of what happened when ‘back-channel’ technologies such as internet relay chat (IRC) and blogging were introduced into the 2004 Colston Symposium ‘The Evolution of Learning and Web Technologies: Survival of the Fittest?’. Focusing on sequential issues and the conference as a forum for knowledge building, the analysis shows that conference order is disrupted by the introduction of the back-channel technologies. Nevertheless, other pressures on academic and professional practice (the governance agenda, calls for greater collaboration and a more consensual approach, and so on) suggest that the potential of the new technologies to help open up the black box of scientific and professional practice will be seen as increasingly important. If these tools are to be used effectively in the future, conferences will need to be supported by new skills and practices.
Why do I blog this? my interest in this is twofold. First because we’re organizing a conference (LIFT) and we’re wondering about setting a backchannel system. Second because I think it’s an interesting CSCW topic.
I remain quite skeptical of the value of backchannels at large events. At SXSW for example, some panels have run a backchannel on IRC that’s projected on a screen during the talk. In my experience, this is phenomenally awful, distracting, and honestly just stupid. And watching panelists type on their laptops while they wait their turn is fucking obnoxious. It’s an insult to the audience–I wanted to walk up to the stage and demand that they pay attention to each other, to hold an actual conversation. I swear I’m going to scream if I see another panel where none of the people on stage bother listening to each other’s talks, and instead are just tapping their keyboards killing time until their turn.
I’m also skeptical of the “audience-participation” aspects of backchannel in large audiences. I’ve never yet seen an audience member ask a really good question via backchannel that couldn’t have been asked in person.
It’s a good point McFarlane makes about the need for “new skills and practices”: most speakers don’t seem to have a natural “feel” for how to deal with audience members in the backchannel. When someone raises their hand in an audience, or even shouts out a question, most people know how to respond. When some question appears in IRC, most people sort of pause, and give it their full attention. Even if that lasts just a second, it’s remarkably distracting. I think it would be best to lay down some rules for speakers who want to maintain a backchannel during their talks–only accept questions at the end, or ask people to write “Andrew has a question” and then let the speaker call on them, or whatever. Maybe even have a dedicated “backchannel moderator” who watches the chat for the speakers so they don’t have to.
In *smaller* conferences, (like Design Engaged, which I organize), I’ve been pleasantly surprised to find that I didn’t have a visceral hatred for backchannel chat, and that it actually added something of value. It’s useful in small groups to be able to “whisper” to people across the room without distrupting a speaker. It’s useful to be able to say boring things like “hey, do you guys need more coffee over there? How much time do we have until lunch?” However, if the backchannel turns to snippy gossip, it can be painfully obvious to others and even embarrassing for the gossipers.
But here’s ways I think it can work well:
- people in the audience can ask questions of the speaker during a talk. This is one way: the speaker can ignore or respond to them when she feels like it. This is an appropriate “consensual” experience like the MacFarlane paper talks about. Of course, in a small group, it’s less of an issue: if you have a question you just yell it out.
- don’t just think of backchannel as just “chat.” I’d like to experiment with shared note-taking, or a live wiki. Or no-tech approaches: why not a big sheet of paper on the wall people can write on between speakers? How about a Hype Park-style “speaker’s corner” where anyone can stand on a box and rant for one minute during coffee breaks?
The problem with tech-based backchannels is that they are *always* distrations from the real people around you (After all, can’t you email your friends any other time?) I very firmly believe that when someone is speaking, that the audience has a responsibility to listen politely. If the speaker totally sucks, by all means go check your email quietly. If the speaker is *good*, close your laptop.
- At both Design Engageds, the best “backchannel” has been Flickr. Near-real-time photo blogging seems to be much less distracting than chat. Maybe because it’s a little “slower” than chat. You don’t need to check Flickr every five minutes, instead you might look at it once every few hours.
- my very favorite “backchannel” ever was my friend David’s pen sketches of speakers during DE2004. For example this one. This is probably the “slowest” backchannel of all!
Thanks Andrew for your insights!
As for me, I would say that I am more interested in collaboratively edited notes, like using Subethaedit on the mac instead of chat.
At LIFT, I don’t think we’re going to show the backchannel, we’re still talking about this issue.