Advertisement

Stigmergic Collaboration: A Framework for Understanding and Designing Mass Collaboration

  • Mark ElliottEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 16)

Abstract

This chapter presents a framework for understanding collaboration in any context, at any scale, in order to make conclusions regarding approaches for the design and analysis mass collaboration. This provides a foundation for the introduction of other theories and frameworks that explain how collaboration can scale from small, collocated groups, to large distributed communities like Wikipedia. Key ideas presented include a specific, design-focused definition for collaboration as ‘add, edit, delete rights to a shared pool of content’ and stigmergy (a form of indirect communication common in social insects) as they key means by which collaboration scales online, referred to as ‘stigmergic collaboration’. Stigmergic collaboration also explains how teamwork can emerge, potentially without explicit knowledge of other team members, where productivity is organic and is not managed by any central function. It is my hope that these ideas, along with others presented, will improve the design and analysis of mass collaboration in general, as well as provide new pathways for further research in CSCL and educational contexts.

Keywords

Collaboration Mass collaboration Cooperation Coordination Stigmergy Stigmergic collaboration Mediated collaboration Online collaboration 

References

  1. Baars, B. (1997). In the theater of consciousness: The workspace of the mind. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, L. J., Cresswell, A. M., Luna, L. F., Pardo, T. A., Martinez, I. J., Thompson, F., … Cook, M. (2003). A dynamic theory of collaboration: A structural approach to facilitating intergovernmental use of information technology. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 36, Maui, HI.Google Scholar
  3. Bonabeau, E., Theraulaz, G., Fourcassié, V., & Deneubourg, J.-L. (1998). The phase-ordering kinetics of cemetery organization in ants. Physical Review E, 4, 4568–4571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brueckner, S. (2000). Return from the ant: Synthetic ecosystems for manufacturing control. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/brueckner-sven-2000-06-21/PDF/Brueckner.pdf
  5. Cress, U. (2013). Mass collaboration and learning. In R. Luckin, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, S. Puntambekar, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook on design in educational technology (pp. 416–425). London, England: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Cress, U., Barron, B., Halatchliyski, I., Oeberst, A., Forte, A., Resnick, M., & Collins, A. (2013). Mass collaboration—An emerging field for CSCL research. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, N. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To see the world and a grain of sand: Learning across levels of space, time and scale (pp. 557–563). Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with Wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  9. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & O’Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, M. A. (2007). Stigmergic collaboration: A theoretical framework for mass collaboration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/39359
  11. Elliott, M. (May 2006). Stigmergic Collaboration: The Evolution of Group Work. M/C Journal, 9(2). Retrieved 23 Nov. 2015 from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/03-elliott.php.
  12. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity—Theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  13. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (2008). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gifford, B. R., & Enyedy, N. D. (1999). Activity centered design: Towards a theoretical framework for CSCL. Proceedings of the 1999 Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1150262&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=463054783&CFTOKEN=78842260
  15. Grassé, P.-P. (1959). La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations inter-individuelles chez Bellicositermes Natalensis et Cubitermes sp. La théorie de la stigmergie: Essai d’interprétation du comportement des Termites Constructeurs. Insectes Sociaux, 6, 41–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grassé, P.-P. (1984). Termitologia. Paris, France: Masson.Google Scholar
  17. Green, C. (2001). The third hand: Collaboration in art from conceptualism to postmodernism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grosz, B. J., & Sarit, K. (1999). The evolution of SharedPlans. In M. Wooldridge & A. R. Dordrecht (Eds.), Foundations of Rational Agency (Applied Logic Series). The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Helbing, D., Keltsch, J., & Molnár, P. (1997). Modeling the evolution of human and trail systems. Nature, 388, 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helbing, D., Schweitzer, F., Keltsch, J., & Molnár, P. (1997). Active walker model for the formation of human and animal trail systems. Physical Review E, 56, 2527–2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7, 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hutchins, E. (2000). Distributed cognition. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Oxford, England: Elsevier Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Kelly, K. (1994). Out of control: The new biology of machines. London, England: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  24. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R. C., & Shi, Y. (2001). Swarm intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  25. Kramer, R. S. S. (2005). Stigmergic communication: Achieving so much without saying a word. Sussex, England: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 5, 379–393.Google Scholar
  28. Leont’ev, A. (1979). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  29. Leont’ev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of mind (English translation). Moscow, Russia: Progress Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams. Toronto, Canada: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 16, 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Parunak, H. V. D. (2005). Expert assessment of human-human stigmergy. AnnArbor, MI: Altarum Institute. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a440006.pdf
  33. Reed, D. P. (1999). That sneaky exponential—Beyond Metcalfe’s law to the power of community building. In Context Magazine, n.P. Retrieved from http://www.reed.com/dpr/,last:10.5.2012
  34. Ricci, A., Omicini, A., Viroli, M., Gardelli, L., & Oliva, E. (2006). Cognitive stigmergy: A framework based on agents and artifacts. In The Third International Workshop on Environments for Multiagent Systems. Google Scholar
  35. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Star, L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 2, 37–54.Google Scholar
  38. Star, L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Susi, T., & Ziemke, T. (2001). Social cognition, artefacts, and stigmergy: A comparative analysis of theoretical frameworks for the understanding of artefact-mediated collaborative activity. Cognitive Systems Research, 2, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suthers, D. (2005). Technology affordances for intersubjective learning: A thematic agenda for CSCL. Paper presented at the International Conference of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2005), Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  42. Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (1999). A brief history of stigmergy. Artificial Life, 5, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. (1978). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher order psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, 5, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CollabforgeMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations