Competition versus cooperation
How can visualization help us grasp the nature of our complex relationships?
Visualization, what makes it work and does it relate to how we tick
“Graphics have an advantage over language in expressiveness (Stenning & Oberlander, 1995); graphics use elements and relations in graphic space to convey elements and relations in real or metaphoric space. ” [the cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2004, Chapter 10, Visuospacial reasoning, by Barbara Tversky ]
Compared to text, static -non interactive- visualizations of a complicated (and not complex) business strategy prove that when ‘information is communicated through conceptual visualization, the user has a more positive emotional response, which in turn makes the cognitive response more positive’.
Complex systems – Whether drawing a map in the sand or designing an pipeline system of an airplane, visualization helps us explain and understand. Interactive visualization has a positive effect on knowledge sharing activities, regarding to productivity, quality of outcome and knowledge gains [The benefits of synchonous collaborative information visualization: evidence from an experimental evaluation, 2009, S. Bresciani, M.J. Eppler] It is unclear if the same goes for visualizing the understanding of complex systems, like understanding a juridical system, deciding about distribution of aid, developing water management, or marketing converging Universities of Technology.
Constructive (/ productive / functional) conflict – There are examples of successful implementation of visual tools in decision making. Dimicco states …. {oude stuk kopieren}.
Mengis and Eppler [Seeing versus arguing, the moderating role of collaborative visualization in team knowledge integration, 2006, J. Mengis, M.J. Eppler] state that ‘conversers who interact without an interactive visual support … do not manage to deal constructively with conflict’. They quote Bregman and Haythornthwaite [A. Breman C. Haythornthwaite, Radicals of presentation in persistent conversation, 2001] that concersations are ephemeral, concluding that ‘the major reasons and motivations behind the decisions taken stay often poorly documented’. Mengis and Eppler conclude that thier visualization tool improves decision making, with (a) an increased weight of the constructs ‘Big picture’ and ‘Common ground’ and (b) a decreased weight of the constructs ‘Balanced participation’, ‘Task conflict’ and ‘Relationship conflict’:
… we can say that without an interactive visual support {they} struggle more to integrate their knowledge: they lack common ground and the big picture in the conversation and therefore give more importance to equal participation and conflict.
They also state that interactive, realtime visualization makes conversers taking content criticism less personally.
This research focusses on expert-decision making interaction. One of the stated reasons for success is that visualization helps to depersonalize conflict and emphasizes common ground and the big picture. According to Mengler et al. visualization supports knowledge integration through a set of three conflict characteristics: (1) a moderate level of content {/ cognitive} conflict, (2) a low level of relationship {/ affective} conflict and (3) a low correlation between (1) and (2).
Kurtz and Snowden [Bramble bushes in a thicket, narrative and the intangibles of learning networks, ????, C.F. Kurtz, D.J. Snowden] mention a third type of conflict described in literature besides cognitive and affective conflict, and that is process conflict. According to Kurtz et al. several authors found only cognitive conflict to be helpful for group performance. They also state that real life emphasis on only one of these types is dangerous.
Shared behavioral cooperative norms can help balance out (emphasis on) cognitive conflict, expressed in terms of openness and mutuality. Openness and mutuality emerge when groups maximize cognitive conflict and minimize affective conflict [The effects of conflict on strategic decision making effectiveness and organizational performance, 1997, A.C. Amason and D.M. Shweiger].
Further Alper et al.’s ‘conflict efficacy’ is found to be useful – quoted by Kurtz and Snowden: ‘it says that conflict should not be measured by its nature or origin, but by its contribution to the perception among group members that conflicts can and are dealt with productively’. In other words: being confident helps a group overcoming conflict.
Finally interorganizational networks are explained as being a source of both new knowledge and of productive conflict ‘that improves the organisation’s ability to reinvent itself from within’.
Hidden motivations – Conversations are mostly ephemeral [{lezen!} Radicals of presentation in persistent conversation, 2001, A. Bregman, C. Haythornthwaite], leading to poorly documented reasons and motivations behind the decisions.
It would be interesting to determine the role of visualization in overcoming this ephemeral character, without giving in to time or capacity restrictions, when dealing with an ‘Organizational Backbone’, for instance during a situation of civil service resistance.
Risks of visualizations –
{piece eppler}
{blogpost pvp analysis/communication} Exploring data sets and communicating your findings are two different activities. Typically, the same visualization approach does not suit both, because (a) exploratory visualizations are too complex to communicate and (b) communicative visualizations cannot be created until data is explored. There seems to be a gap between ‘analysis before communication’ and ‘communication before analysis’.
{slide pvp dataporn}
Supporting the narrative –
{bramble bushes, kurtz & snowden}
Intention and interest and influence
{still reading about: undermine unhelpful believes and attitudes: mental imagery and implicit memory}
