List of Participants
Andrew Warr, Eamonn O'Neill - University of Bath
Tools to Support Collaborative Creativity

Lee Anderson, Victoria Interrante, Ross Treddinick, Brian Ries and Jason Lindquist - University of Minnesota
Advancing architectural design and education through the
use of virtual environments technology

Olav W. Bertelsen, Morten Breinbjerg, Søren Pold - University of Aarhus
Instrumentness in Clusters of Artefacts -- a First Take on Collaborative Creativity

N. Bryan-Kinns, J.G. Sheridan - University of London and BigDog Interactive
Supporting Mutual Engagement in Creative Collaboration

Clif Kussmaul - Muhlenberg College
Position Paper

Stacy M. Branham, Shahtab Wahid, D. Scott McCrickard - Virginia Tech
Channeling Creativity: Using Storyboards and Claims
to Encourage Collaborative Design

Wassim Jabi, Cristian Borcea, Quentin Jones, Katia Passerini - New Jersey Institute of Technology
Ubiquitous Social Computing Technologies to Foster
Design Thinking and Creativity

Daniel Saakes - Delft University of Technology
A media toolbox for ideation workshops

Mark Gross, Ellen Do - Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech
Tools and Principles for Collaborative Design

Brady Robinson, Scott Hall - University of Central Florida
Mobicapping: Mobile Image Capture in the New Century
Movie (Simone Paterson), Movie (Hasan Elahi)

Cathy Treadaway - University of Wales Institute Cardiff
Position Paper

Lynn Cazabon - University of Maryland, Baltimore County 
Marseille/Baltimore: technology, tools and self-definition

Call for Participation ( pdf ) 
Collaboration that involves a diverse set of perspectives is
more likely to generate novel ideas. Creative groups rely on
effective communication across disciplinary boundaries
while maintaining an atmosphere that preserves distinctive
contributions. Given the persistent interest in creating teams of artists, designers, engineers, and scientists, tools that effectively represent practice and support creative engagement can make a significant contribution.

This workshop will focus on design and evaluation of such tools, dealing most closely with three common issues in creative collaborative practice: 
Social Aspects of Tools and Tool Use 
Should collaborative support tools include a degree of awareness of the social roles present in teams? Is social engagement a requirement for effective tools? How should creativity support tools deal with issues of contested collaboration?

Artifacts in Creative Collaboration 
How might annotation and versioning be handled with an ever-expanding set of artifacts? Are the models for representing boundary objects in creativity support tools robust enough to accurately reflect practice? How can creativity support tools better embed disciplinary concepts in artifacts or in parts of the communication process?

Expanding Contexts of Use 
What can multidisciplinary teams rooted in science or engineering practice learn from models in the Social Sciences or the Arts?

Our intended audience includes researchers in HCI and CSCW, industry experts and designers practiced in art/science collaboration, and artists whose work engages with disciplinary boundaries.

Individuals interested in participating should submit a position paper, 2-4 pages in length. Participant position papers should either (i) situate the participants’ interests and background among the themes of the workshop, or (ii) report on preliminary research findings or case studies in the design and deployment of creativity support tools aimed at collaborative practice.

Papers should conform to the HCI Archive format (http://www.chi2007.org/submit/archiveformat.php).

Workshop Extended Abstract

Creativity support tools are set an especially difficult task when they are applied to art/science collaboration. Not because of any fundamental incompatibility between the disciplines, but because creativity support tools are rarely supple enough to manage dramatically shifting requirements at various stages of design or handle the diversity of artifacts that might be generated. Traditional methods of evaluation of collaborative support tools may not address these aspects. This workshop aims to examine three specific areas open to expanded modes of evaluation; the social aspects of tools and tool use, how artifacts are created and manipulated in support tools, and how the expanding contexts of art/science collaborations may be rapidly changing support tool requirements.

Introduction

Collaboration that involves a diverse set of perspectives is more likely to generate novel ideas. Creative groups rely on effective communication across disciplinary boundaries while maintaining an atmosphere that preserves distinctive contributions. Given the persistent and newly reiterated interest [5] in including artists in engineering and science teams, tools that function well in these domains can make a significant contribution to creative practice.

Though expanding technologically focused multidisciplinary teams to include creative practitioners from the arts is an important step, equally important is how tools meant to support creative collaboration are able to accurately reflect relevant aspects of both artistic and technical practice. This workshop is meant to serve as a forum for exploration of novel and familiar collaborative tools, experience with these tools in practice, and an opportunity for discussion of how a broader understanding of multidisciplinary collaboration can extend existing techniques, as well as open new possibilities in research and design.

Workshop Themes

These themes are meant to immediately inform the practice of researchers and practitioners, explore extensions in methodology and evaluation, and suggest how to convey the value of their collaborations to a variety of audiences.

Social Aspects of Tools and Tool Use

Communication styles and ways of working are in some ways disciplinarily determined [8, 9]. Are tools that expose these aspects of creative collaboration helpful in these settings? Should collaborative support tools include a degree of awareness of the social roles present in teams? Or perhaps adjust dynamically to the kinds of communication roles represented? How do creativity support tools deal with issues of contested collaboration [10], situations where the value of a discipline’s contribution is not clearly communicated?

Existing tools provide creative groups with lightweight, broadcast methods to distribute information to large audiences. For example, social bookmarking sites provide a way to quickly explore material and reflect on the meaning that a given resource has for distinct communities based on tags. Is social engagement a requirement for effective tools?

Artifacts in Creative Collaboration

Sketching [7] and collaborative writing are the most widely studied aspects of creative collaboration. However, in many multidisciplinary settings, the artifacts generated throughout the process are not only drawings or text. Photographs,
videos, physical models and prototypes, and more ephemeral or abstract artifacts, e.g. scenarios, experience designs, models of interaction aesthetics, are common.

How might annotation and versioning be handled with this expanded set of artifacts? When each contributor may have different competencies, how can they meaningfully engage with artifacts from a different discipline? We know boundary objects are particularly important when trying to create common ground in multidisciplinary groups. [1, 3] Are the models for representing boundary objects in
creativity support tools robust enough to accurately reflect practice? Threshold concepts, described as ideas that define critical moments of irreversible conceptual transformation in educational experiences [2, 6], like those that occur in multidisciplinary collaboration, can be central when communicating concepts across disciplines. How can creativity support tools better embed threshold concepts in artifacts or in parts of the communication process? Can support for threshold concepts be generalized, or is it deeply contextualized?

Expanding Contexts

Due to the breadth and complexity of scenarios moving computing research away from the desktop to more ubiquitous and social applications, there is a strong need to be open to modes of inquiry from other disciplines that already address these spaces. What can multidisciplinary teams rooted in science or engineering practice learn from models in the Social Sciences [11] or the Arts [4]?

Immediate and Long Term Workshop Goals

The goal of this workshop is to fulfill common needs of HCI and CSCW researchers, tool builders, and other creative practitioners; to understand the roles that tools can play in creative collaboration, discuss new modes of evaluation for these tools, examine successful methodologies, and expose points for mutually constructive
future collaboration.

Before the workshop, a web forum and listserv will prompt a debate dealing with the issues present in the workshop themes. Organizers will incorporate the proposals into the workshop website and examine potential commonalities for
discussion leading up to the workshop.

Workshop participants will leave with knowledge of how to incorporate techniques from other disciplines into their own work, and an understanding of the immediate contribution this can make to their practice.

Within this context, the workshop will produce a working draft focused on the core themes, informed by participant presentations and discussion, to suggest areas for future research and expanded practice. Workshop participants will be solicited to provide longer versions of their position papers for future publication.

Criteria for Participant Selection

Workshop participants will be selected on the basis of a submitted 2 to 4 page position paper. The position paper must outline the submitters view on the workshop themes and the reasons for interest in the topic. Participant position
papers could either (i) situate the participants’ interests and background among the themes of the workshop, or (ii) report on preliminary research findings or case studies of tools in support of creative collaboration. Particular attention will be paid to gathering diverse examples of creative practice.

References

1. Boujut, J.-F. and Blanco, E. Intermediary Objects as a
   Means to Foster Co-operation in Engineering Design.
   Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12. 205-219.
   
2. Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Mostrom, J.E., Ratcliffe,
   M., Sanders, K. and Zander, C., Putting Threshold
   Concepts into Context in Computer Science Education.
   in ITiCSE, (2006), 103-107.
   
3. Hendry, D.G., Communication Functions and the
   Adaptation of Design Representations in
   Interdisciplinary Teams. in Designing Interactive
   Systems (DIS), (2004), 123-132.
   
4. Lacy, S. Mapping the Terrain: New Genre Public Art.
   Bay Press, Seattle, WA, 1995.
5. Maher, M.L. Workshop on Synergies Between
   Creativity and Information Technology, Science,
   Engineering, and Design: Defining a Research
   Emphasis. NSF, Nov. 2-3, 2006, Arlington, VA.
   http://l3dswiki.cs.colorado.edu:3232/creativit
   
6. Meyer, J.H.F. and Land, R. Threshold concepts and
   troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking
   and practising within the disciplines. in Rust, C. ed.
   Improving Student Learning: Improving Student
   Learning Theory and Practice – Ten Years On., Oxford
   Centre for Staff and Learning Development, Oxford,
   2003.
   
7. Purcell, T. and Gero, J.S. Drawings and the design
   process. Design Studies, 19 (4). 389-430.
   
8. Schleifer, R. Disciplinarity and Collaboration in the
   Sciences and Humanities. College English, 59 (4). 438-
   452.
   
9. Sonnenwald, D.H. Communication roles that support
   collaboration during the design process. Design
   Studies, 17. 277-301.
   
10. Sonnenwald, D.H. Contested Collaboration: A
    descriptive model of intergroup communication in
    information system design. Information Processing
    and Management, 31 (6). 859-877.
11. Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Harper, G.W. and Lewis, R. An
    Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-
    University Collaborations for Research and Action.
    Health Education & Behavior, 32 (1). 84-101.