A mutual failure of discovery: DIB and DiCoT

Today, I have been doing literature searching for a paper on Distributed Cognition (DCog). By following a chain of references, I happened upon a paper on Determining Information Flow Breakdown (DIB). DIB is a method for applying the theory of DCog in a semi-structured way in complex settings. The example the authors use in the paper comes from healthcare.

The authors state that "distributed cognition is a theoretical approach without an accepted analytical method; there is no single 'correct way' of using it. [...] the DIB method is a practical application of the theory." At the time that work was published (2007), there were at least two other published methods for applying DCog: the Resources Model (2000) and DiCoT (Distributed Cognition for Teamwork; 2006). The developers of DIB were clearly unaware of this previous work. Conversely, it has taken me seven years from when the DIB paper was published to become aware of it and my team have been working on DCog in healthcare for most of that time. How could that happen?

I can think of several answers involving parallel universes, different literatures, too many different journals to keep track of, the fragility of search terms, needles in haystacks. You take your pick.

Whatever the answer actually is (and it's probably something to do with a needle in another universe), it's close to being anti-serendipity: a connection that is obvious and should have been expected. We clearly have some way to go in developing information discovery tools that work well.

Second-hand serendipity?

Doing research on serendipity enables me to reflect more than I would have done otherwise on experiences that I'd class as serendipity. Preparing for a recent workshop, I realised that it was a serendipitous encounter that led to all our work on serendipity, and transformed the careers of at least two members of my research team...

DSVIS 2004 was held at Tremsbuttel Castle in Germany. People from Lexis Nexis UK participated (i.e. the company paid for them to get out of the office and attend an academic conference that was frankly quite tangential to their core business). Over a beer, I mentioned that one of my post-docs had done his PhD on journalists' information seeking, and that Nexis had been an important product for them. The findings about how journalists used information (and particularly Nexis) was interesting to them, so they commissioned us to run a workshop for their staff on journalists' information seeking. This was followed by further consultancy projects on lawyers' information seeking, and collaboration on a research project on "making sense of information" (MaSI). These projects led to new Lexis Nexis products that are still going from strength to strength. All because Lexis Nexis supported their staff to go to a workshop in Germany in 2004 and we met there.

That same meeting enabled me to develop information interaction and sensemaking work that was foundational to the SerenA project studying serendipity. It also provided lots of opportunities for at least two members of my research team to study legal information seeking. So that one meeting, all starting with a beer (!), has been of immense value, to both us and Lexis Nexis. I suspect that my team have never realised quite how much all of our careers owe to that one serendipitous connection that they weren't even a direct part of!

Encountering information: serendipity or overload?

After my keynote at ISIC, one of the participants challenged me on my claim that information overload is a "bad thing" (not that I put it quite like that, but I certainly suggested it was something to be avoided). I framed it as a challenge when trying to design to support serendipity. We had an extended discussion about this later that day.

What Eva made me realise (thanks, Eva!) is that encountering exactly the same information can be regarded positively or negatively depending on the circumstances and the attitude of mind. If the attitude is one of exploring and of opportunity then the experience is typically positive. Eva consumes information enthusiastically on a wide variety of topics, and rarely if ever feels overloaded by the sheer volume of information available.

Whether or not information encountering is regarded as serendipitous is another question. A while ago, I gave a PechaKucha talk on the SerenA project; in the talk, I gave an example that I argue was serendipity: I encountered information that was unexpected, where I made a connection between my ambitions and an opportunity that was presenting itself, and from which the outcome was valuable. I also described the "sandpit" process that initiated SerenA – i.e., putting a bunch of academics together in a space that was conducive to ideas generation. Arguably, this experience was positive and creative, but not serendipitous, because it was designed to lead to positive outcomes. So although we could not have predicted the form of the outcome, we expected there to be an unanticipated outcome. So it wasn't serendipitous. Based on our empirical studies of serendipitous experiences, we have developed a process model of serendipity, namely that "a new connection is made that involves a mix of unexpectedness and insight and has the potential to lead to a valuable outcome. Projections are made on the potential value of the outcome and actions are taken to exploit the connection, leading to an (unanticipated) valuable outcome." From this, we also developed a classification framework
based on different mixes of unexpectedness, insight and value that define a “serendipity space” encompassing different “strengths” of serendipity.

So where does information overload fit? Well, as a busy academic, typical of many busy people, new information (however valuable) often represents new obligations:

•  to assimilate the information,
•  to assess its value, and
•  to act on it. 

I recognise the potential value of opportunities, and feel frustrated by my lack of capacity to exploit them all. And because of limited capacity, every opportunity taken means other opportunities that have to be passed over. In addition, limited memory means that even assimilating all the information I "should" know represents a substantial obligation that I can't hope to fulfill. So I feel under constant threat of information overload. And that seriously inhibits my openness to serendipitous encounters.

As recounted in the PechaKucha talk: twenty-something years ago, when my children were 2 years and 3 months old respectively, I came across an advert for a PhD studentship. It was my "dream" studentship, on an exciting topic and in the perfect location for me. Doing a PhD was not in my plans at the time, but was too good an opportunity to miss. And the outcome has been fantastic. It was unquestionably a serendipitous encounter. Apart from the unintended consequence that I now feel constantly under threat of total information overload!

Making time for serendipity

Serendipity is about time and an attitude of mind. But it's not just about the individual: it also depends on the social context. Laura Dantonio proposed a Masters project that looked at the role of social media in facilitating serendipity. Her initial focus was on how people came across unexpected, but valuable, social media content, but it quickly embraced the idea that other people are intentionally creating this content and links to it. People are investing time in making opportunities for serendipity. This comes from both sides: both creating the opportunities and exploiting them. This is a gamble: there may be little pay-off for the time invested, because there's such a chance element in serendipity. The more we look at serendipity, the clearer it becomes that design is an important contributor to this experience, but that it is more about attitude: about openness to the opportunities that life presents (and recognizing unexpected connections between ideas), and the imagination to create opportunities for others. Laura's is the first work that we're aware of that really emphasises the social angle to serendipity: that people make opportunities for others to encounter interesting information.

Serendipity: time, space and connections

Someone recently brought http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2012/01/26/15216 to my attention. Quite apart from it being entertaining, it resonates well with our work on understanding serendipity (www.serena.ac.uk). Historically, work on serendipity has emphasised the encountering of information (often while looking for other information) and the importance of the "prepared mind" in recognising the value of the encountered information. This video (by Steven Johnson) emphasises the importance of "slow hunches" and connections. It highlights the dilemma that, with so many sources of information available to people, it can be difficult not to feel overwhelmed by information, and by demands to deliver results quickly -- and yet there are many more opportunities for identifying and exploiting new connections in our highly connected world. Our work on serendipity has highlighted the need to go beyond recognising the value of the connection to having the time and opportunity to exploit it. This requires "mental space" for reflecting on the nature and value of the connection, as well as the sense of freedom to follow up on it. Johnson claims that "chance favours the connected mind", but it also favours the mind that experiences the freedom to build on opportunities, that is not overwhelmed by demands.