Participation

= = =Thinking about Participation=

JA Note 6.26.07 as context on page creation:
This article grew out of a 2006 conversation with Nancy White about PARTICIPATION. It became an article thanks to Nancy introducing Jenny to Jo Murray and Knowledge Tree. I've been thinking about 'PARTICIPATION" since reading John Seely Brown and Estee Solomon Gray's "People are the Company" article in the inaugural //Fast Company// magazine October 1995: http://www.fastcompany.com/online/01/people.html In that article inspired by Julian Orr's work studying collaboration and conversation betwen Xerox technicians JSB and ESG write:

//"Organizations are webs of participation. Change the patterns of participation, and you change the organization. At the core of the 21st century company is the question of participation. At the heart of participation is the mind and spirit of the knowledge worker. Put simply, you cannot compel enthusiasm and commitment from knowledge workers. Only workers who choose to opt in -- who voluntarily make a commitment to their colleagues -- can create a winning company. When a company acknowledges the power of community, and adopts elegantly minimal processes that allow communities to emerge, it is taking a giant step toward the 21st century."//

My interest in the dynamics of participation grew when Ross Mayfield published his "Power Law of Participation". http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/power_law_of_pa.html I need to understand the background. I believe the graphic is a construct and not grounded in theory, does anyone know? Regardless my experience in online groups supports the value of the concepts for thinking about the dimensions of participation. What the model ignores I think is that another phase of activity focused on getting "attention" http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/attention_economy_overview.php precedes participation.

Through Ross's blog I found Charlene Li's study on user engagement published under the heading Social Technographics: http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2007/04/social_technogr.html

The importance of "participation" came to mind speaking with Tish Grier about the citizen journalism project writing articles for Wired that just finished and will start publishing in July. We discussed what it takes to manage a collaborative writing project and the social dynamics. I'm hoping Tish will dive in here and share what she learned about effective facilitation techniques.

TISH GRIER ON ASSIGNMENT ZERO LESSONS FOR MANAGING PARTICIPATION IN COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS FROM
//**Tish Grier writes(and this is only a draft):**// One of the best measures for understanding online participation is to first understand what it takes to run a **face to face (f2f)** volunteer effort. I was brought in to work on Assignment Zero ([|http://zero.newassignment.net)] the first open-source journalism project to emerge from NewAssignment.Net ([|http://newassignment.net)] (NUY journalism prof. Jay Rosen's research project) is because I have the unique skill set of having been the volunteer co-ordinator the Northampton Independent Film Festival coupled with my many years participating in online communities of various kinds. (note: I also implemented some online recruitment strategies for the '06 festival--proved to be very successful)

There were several challenges to maintaining participation in AZ. The first challenge came after the initial **press releases** announcing the project launch. **Five hundred people signed up in the first week--800 in the second--and by the end there were 1100 total**. The Director of Participation, Amanda Michel (who had worked on the Dean and Kerry campaigns) knew, as I did, that **successful volunteer retention relies on personal contact from someone within the organization**. This goes esp. for an online project, where there's a high probability that there will be no f2f contact

How were we to convey to 500-plus people that they were needed if we could not contact each and every one personally?

The initial plan was to use the site--the blog and the reporting pages--for this purpose. But it quickly became clear that this would not work when one of the editors began receiving an avalance of email regarding various "moving parts" of the project. The avalance occurred, in part, because **people were looking for specific assignments and things to do from an editor connected with a designated topic**--and there weren't any particular designated editors. AZ was waiting for topics to be whittled down first...

However, AZ was not a closed newsroom with a finite number of participants who could, by voicing their opinions, limit the number of stories the project would cover. There were an **unlimited number of participants** (since we didn't know when it would cap) and thus the potential for an incredible number of nuanced topics/stories. This could, potentially, cause the project to go beyond the deadline.

What worked well in the average newsroom was not going to work in an **open-source, long-tail environment**.

The more savvy online communicators from our volunteers slowly started to use the Exchange to post questions. Yet there was much going on behind the scenes with site tweaks and editorial tasks that made it difficult to respond quickly to the Exchange.

And there was no guarantee that everyone would read it.


 * We would have to resort to email--both personal and group--for keeping in touch with participants.** We desired to keep the pool of participants as diverse as possible, and thought that to try to adopt techologies favored by one group or another might cause the population to skew towards a young demographic. **Email was the default**. **We then worked as quickly as possible to position editors on topics who would be the ones to first-respond to any inquiries from volunteers within various topics**. The core team would then have an easier time responding to questions from a small group of editors than from a large group of volunteers.

The editor questions could also be used as fodder for the blog, thus opening up another means of mass communication. (the blog would later prove a valuable tool for driving traffic back to the site and **creating "link love"--**as the experienced blogger to the site, I encouraged this strategy)

Once the correct mass-email client was found, we decided that we needed to send out **weekly "blasts" to eveyone who signed up to the site with an "unsubscribe" option to discontinue email**. Amanda and I knew that there would be an attrition rate among volunteers in part because of the lack of quick response--attrition also could be attributed to lack of interest in the particularly niche geek topic of "crowdsourcing". I **also had the added insight that, in online environments, some people simply like to join sites. Sometimes the intention is to return, sometimes it is simply to feel a part of something, still another is to have lurking priviledges (Jakob Nielsen found that 9 out of 10 visitors to a site will lurk, leaving only 10% participation rate.) Once the email blasts started going out, we were able to track various statistics on how many email were opened, as well as how many "unsubscribed." From these blasts, we were able to re-ignite interest that had dwindled from the initial volunteer sign-up burst.**

Weekly email commuincation on project status, with follow-up blog posts, and quicker response time to the Exchange and personal email helped renew interest and foster a sense of community. **We found we would always have a percentage of "unsubscribe" requests, but also some would forward the posts and we had better retention of volunteers who came later into the project after the email blasts were regular.**

Weekly email and follow-up blog posts announced changes to the project, what parts of the project needed participation (very important--people liked knowing where they were needed, not kept in a holding pattern), and incentives**. **Our biggest and best incentive was the Wired byline.** We were able to demonstrate how the byline would work in our Citizendium story, which we spun off and completed on May 15 (if you need the link, I'll find it) **Occasional email from Jay Rosen (head of the project), not just the "Assignment Zero Editors"**--something Amanda and I also knew was effective from our f2f volunteer work--also sitmulated interest and loyalty in the project. **Email from the "head honcho" makes people feel there is a leader--and if this leader is one they respect and admire, retention and participation increases.**
 * Once volunteers were grouped and working with editors, activity on the Exchanged dropped off, while activity on individual assignment reporting pages picked up (these were still problematic for open editing--wikis would have been better.)

Core team unity came about through email, IM, and the occasional conference call. Yet even this evolved once we became used to the particular "quirks" of email communication styles that everyone seems to have (as well as filtering--or knowing when to respond and when to ignore, as well as not escalating misinterpretations of cross-communication.) Volume of email, however, remained high--but email also became the way in which the core team was able to get a great deal of work done during "crunch time"--within the group, we were notified quickly of problems and whomever was available to jump in and assist did so. There was no bickering over who's job it was to do "x" assignment, as this would have been unproductive. **(It's important to note that our team was spread out across different time zones and two countries. our newsroom operated on an almost 24-hour basis. see this post describing how the team worked:** http://zero.newassignment.net/blog/assignment_zero_editors/jun2007/01/assignment_zero_moves_production_phase

Now, **some have criticized that email was not a "transparent" way of working**--**however, our reporting was transparent, as it was always logged on the site**. All mid-stream changes that were made to the project were announced via email and on the blog--thus bringing important communication about the project into the open. All announced changes, specific needs and incentives such as the Wired byline, became ways of retaining interest in the project. **How we worked out the team's social dynamics was best carried out in email and through calls when necessary. when f2f can't be accomplished, the next best is v2v (voice to voice.)

JA NOTE: Tish .. THANK YOU.. I can imagine anyone who has worked, or will engage. in collaborative writing projects will find find your Assignment Zero experience and reflections on the process invaluable. Grateful for your sharing. Clearly you learned about project management and effective process for collaboration through your project. Can I ask you to please consider any other aspects of "learning" for individuals and the group that emerged through Assignment Zero?**