Finding 2a: Learning is enhanced when information transmitted across a

Evidence in interviews 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13

The outcome space for Theme 2 reflects the finding that interviewees struggled to learn the information they required from documents alone. If interactions are reduced to an artefact such as a report, then the observational, performative, context-dependent information, and an understanding of how that information was shaped through

discussion, risks being lost. By applying post-structuralist theory, it is possible to argue that attempting to learn solely through the use of artefacts requires more reconstruction than if the other factors are present, and is likely to generate greater divergence of emergent meaning. This insight is reflected in comments made by several interviewees that they preferred to talk with someone when trying to arrive at an understanding of an issue. In particular, interviewees 2, 4, 6, 10 and 13 emphasised the benefits of engaging in real-time discussion with colleagues:

‘documents can exist and you can go on to Google and search and find documents that are static documents that you can read, and can help you understand a topic more. But actually getting a human that you can converse with is probably the icing on the cake, you can actually ask the specific questions you’ve got as well.’ Interviewee 10

Using the findings from the Theme 2 outcome space, it is also possible to see that certain uses of documented knowledge may be less problematic. For example, if a person participates in a video-conference and later receives an email summary of what was discussed and agreed, it will make more sense to them because they have much of the other information needed to reconstruct the message. If they did not participate in the video-conference, however, the email summary will potentially generate a greater divergence of emergent meaning. This argument is reflected in the findings of Hill et al. (2009) that participating in an initial face-to-face meeting positively influenced the effectiveness of subsequent asynchronous collaboration between team members. Although a video-conference is not the same as a face-to-face meeting, the finding by Hill et al. that a sequential use of synchronous and asynchronous activities positively impacts collaboration is a practical example of how an evidence-informed

communication plan (Serçe et al., 2011) can enhance the intentional authorship of digital interaction.

The findings indicated that several participants preferred to speak with someone across a digital network in order to reduce the amount of reconstruction required and enhance their ability to identify relevant information. Examples from the data

highlighted the value of tools such as video-conferencing in supporting what can be understood as the encoding and transmitting of more of the performative act:

‘conference calls are all well and good, but that face-to-face visibility is really nice. So when you’re on a conference call you’re never really sure who’s on the line, what other people are doing, but a video-conference really just helps with all those social signals that you get with the body language-type stuff.’ Interviewee 12

‘particularly in the example of video-conferencing, you know, it’s not as good as being in a room with somebody, but you still can to a certain extent read facial expressions, read body language, and have that extra layer of understanding of somebody else’s point of view.’ Interviewee 7

From a post-structuralist perspective, communication involves a complex interplay of signs and gestures consisting of both a set of rules (langue) and the performative aspect of language in use (parole). The process of interacting with an artwork in order to produce emergent meaning is a useful analogy for the process of interacting across a digital network, and is why ‘in a wholly digital environment post-structuralist theory is tangible complexity’ (Cham, 2007, p.264). To send information across a digital network, a person must first conceive of the message they want to communicate. Rather than deliver this message (the ‘mark’) complete with the facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice (the ‘performative act’) that would be possible in a face- to-face encounter, they must reduce this information to a form that can be encoded and transmitted across a digital network. The amount of reduction that must occur will be shaped by the medium through which they intend to communicate their message. Once the message has been received, the recipient must decode the information and ‘reconstruct’ it using their knowledge, context and prior experience. Given the richness with which humans express themselves, and the amount of information produced when we communicate, much of the information involved in ‘making the mark’ is lost when communicating in text-based forms. Furthermore, this reduction in information requires the recipient to engage in a significant amount of reconstruction

in order to decipher the intended meaning of the message. If any interactive system invokes the need for reconstruction by the recipient of a message, the data supports the argument that the learning that occurs during digital interaction is enhanced through real-time dialogue.

However, although the findings strongly emphasised the value of synchronous dialogue in effective meaning-creation, effective learning was not necessarily dependent on the need to see other people involved in a digital interaction. One interviewee noted that while he occasionally used video with his geographically dispersed team when they were talking informally, they rarely used video for their day-to-day business interactions:

‘when it’s softer – when the human side of things is more important and you want to see the whites of someone’s eyes – then we tend to switch video on then. But we wouldn’t need to do it for a more business-focused call.’ Interviewee 9

If a core property of a CAS is its ability to explore and exploit information in order to adapt (March, 1991), the ability for the system to learn can be understood as

dependent on this process of exploring and exploiting information. Finding 2a indicated that while a technology-mediated interaction often led to the creation of digital artefacts to represent the interaction, these artefacts only represented a part of the knowledge produced. If some of the knowledge produced during digital

interaction remains tacit within employees (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et al., 2000), the capacity for the organisation as an entity to exploit, learn and adapt may be limited, and approaches to knowledge management that only attempt to manage documented, explicit knowledge risk ignoring the social aspects of effective

knowledge sharing (Prieto & Easterby-Smith, 2006). Finding 2a illustrated the importance of intersubjective learning (Hollan et al., 2002) for CX professionals, and emphasised the Vygotskian view of learning as participation in which knowledge emerges through collaborative interaction and is distributed across a network of participants (Cole & Wertsch, 1996; Lipponen, 2002). The ease with which an employee can identify and interact in real-time with someone who has context and experience relevant to the issue they are working on, the greater the potential for local knowledge to create opportunities in distant areas of the network (Kilduff et al., 2008). As one interviewee noted:

‘you’ve got all this information which technology can enable, but then you’ve got to connect the people. Because it’s people at the end of the day who have either written the article and have a point of view, so you’ve got to get to…the right people at the right time.’ Interviewee 10