Joyce Yukawa (University of Hawaii at Manoa)
Dan Suthers (University of Hawaii at Manoa)

In their article, Fiore and McDaniel rightly note the challenges of working at a distance due to the lack of the visual, auditory, and verbal cues humans routinely and expertly use in face-to-face situations to convey and interpret messages (Clark & Brennan, 1991; Olson & Olson, 2000). They raise many salient issues and questions about the potential of narrative to improve distributed work. Because narrative is a thinking tool (Herman, 2003) and can broadly encompass cognitive, affective, social, and cultural dimensions, we agree that narrative has potential to support intersubjective understanding among distributed work teams. Our commentary focuses on how this potential may be realized.

Fiore and McDaniel define "story" as an expression of a team member’s experiences in achieving some goal or overcoming some obstacle. As in everyday life, this implies that stories are used to recount past events. Although the authors suggest the use of metaphors or avatars during interaction, based on readings of their previous work we assume that they are proposing the use of narrative primarily after the fact to increase understanding, support the development of group competence, and provide a record of successful collaboration. We agree that this can be a valuable contribution to collective efficacy when groups remain stable over multiple tasks. Here, the use of narrative can be compared to a richly structured debriefing session. Narrative functions formalistically through "mapping out narrative elements such as plot, character, and environment" and "devis[ing] sets of stories of varying lengths and complexities" for diverse demands.

Beyond its utility as a formalistic device for understanding how goals have already been achieved, can narrative also function as a learning tool during interaction? How can narrative be used to achieve better intersubjective understanding and collective efficacy during the process of achieving a goal? This would be particularly important for distributed groups who gather to complete a single task and then disband. In answering these questions it will be necessary to develop an account of how narrative might aid group processes as they happen. Narrative may function primarily as a precondition or receptacle for the effective sharing of knowledge, offering a "structure to support an understanding of team members’ collective experience," an "aid in the development of shared mental models." Clearly, narrative is also proposed as an effective means of communicating knowledge to be shared between individuals (e.g., "capturing this significant event and conveying it using the narrative form"). Might its utility also go beyond the transfer and organization of information, by offering participants methods for constructing shared knowledge that is itself constituted by participating in an interactive process of narrative?

We suggest that narrative can be used as a tool for inquiry for the purpose of taking a meta-stance on collaborative work as it is being experienced. This stance is similar to Donald Schon’s concept of reflection-in-action. To paraphrase Schon (1983, p. 167), narrative would support "a reflective conversation with the situation." By using narrative elements as sensitizing devices, distributed team members could achieve a heightened awareness of a plot unfolding and could share insights from their distinct social and cultural contexts. Rather than using narrative elements to structure debriefing sessions, the focus here is on a particular type of consciousness that could be called "narrative awareness." This is what Clandinin and Connelly (2000) call "being in the midst of stories." Recalling and recounting stories of past experience as well as sharing insights into one’s current work, participation, and collaborative interactions emanating from such a narrative awareness could contribute substantially to achieving intersubjective understanding to improve work as it progresses. In this way, the expertise and creativity of each member could be leveraged for the work at hand, rather than for future work that builds on narrative debriefings.

In investigating the application of narrative to reflection-in-action, the utility of traditional categories for analyzing narrative (such as plot, character, environment, and theme) should be critically examined. Are these etic abstractions, developed for the analysis of narrative, also useful from the emic perspective of team members living in the narrative being constructed? Reflective practice can be viewed as the confluence of emic and etic perspectives, but what narrative elements will best raise awareness of an unfolding narrative and enable participants to direct its development?

Whether narrative is used for reflection-in-action or in debriefing after a task is completed, there are a number of challenges to be faced in its use. While they may be expressed in the form of cognitive maps (Ryan, 2003), stories in distributed space are primarily written. As such, they depend on the expressive skills of the writers. They also depend on unspoken social roles, rules, and rituals that may need to be decoded (e.g., Goffman, 1967). Written stories can as readily create cognitive, affective, and social barriers as bonds. The value of narrative may well be that it provides an effective structure and process for apprehending and working through barriers to communication toward the achievement of intersubjective understanding. Intersubjectivity can also be understood in a participatory sense that allows for conflict and is not equated with agreement (Matusov, 1996). Narratives often involve protagonist/antagonist conflicts, so can potentially help participants understand what is accomplished intersubjectively in antagonistic interactions.

References

Clandinin, D.J. & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative Inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in Communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 127-149): American Psychological Association.

Goffman, E. (1967.) Interaction Ritual. New York: Pantheon.

Herman, D. (Ed.) (2003). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity Without Agreement. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(1), 25-45.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2/3).

Ryan, M.L. (2003). Cognitive maps and the construction of narrative space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.