This was the final workshop in the design patterns for digital identity series and in some ways the most focused and intense. Having spent two workshops in a melee of group-based activities on our case-stories, patterns and scenarios we slowed things down somewhat to concentrate on developing four of the digital identity patterns. This workshop was all about writing – finessing and interrogating the form, structure and content of the patterns – until they are ready for public release.
Patterns are not easy to write, especially if we consider that we might aim to achieve what Alexander (1979) termed ‘quality without a name’ (see below for the full-quote*). The day was not only a chance for a small group to sit down and discuss the complexity of pattern writing but it was also purposeful with defined outcomes. As such it followed a particular format based on the pattern writing workshop used at the annual Europlop conference that draws on the work of Gabriel (2002) and others. What is particular about a pattern writing workshop is that the author, though present, sits outside the group (or ‘shepherds’), not within it, while their work is reviewed. S/he becomes a fly on the wall – listening to the group discuss, comment and suggest changes, yet s/he is forbidden from intervening or responding.
Step 1 – Papers are prepared in advance of the workshop
The patterns are worked on and top and tailed with an introduction and conclusions to give the pattern the feel of an academic paper (though the core remains the problem, solution and context).
Each section is completed as far as is possible and where unfinished marked as TBC (to be completed).
Our papers were circulated to the workshop participants who were directed to read through each of the patterns looking for strengths and weaknesses. The four patterns that were submitted to this workshop were:
• Space for Lurking – Steven Warburton
• Identity Placemaking – Megan Smith
• Others First – Margarita Perez Garcia
• Permissioned Aggregation – Andy Powell
Step2 – Running the workshop
After the welcome and introductions amongst the group members a specific set of stages were used during the review process and respected for each of the authors:
1. The first paper is introduced by the chair;
2. The author is then invited to read a paragraph from their paper (to hear the author’s voice);
3. The author is asked to move outside the circle and only listen to the group discussion;
4. The chair asks for comments on the strengths of the paper, moving around each group member in turn;
5. This is repeated for the weaknesses in the paper – but importantly there should be constructive suggestions to solving any highlighted problems;
6. There is then a final round of commentary and encouragement;
7. The author is now invited back into the circle and may ask for clarifications, if needed, on what has been said by a group member;
8. To close the session, the group thanks the author with a round of applause;
9. The group then moves to the next paper and repeats the process until all the papers have benefited from this group shepherding process.
Note: If you do happen to have a lot of papers then timing needs to be strict and due to the level of discussion I cannot imagine reviewing more that eight to ten papers in a single day.
Step 3 – Updating patterns after the workshop
Authors are asked to update their patterns, taking as much or as little of the advice and suggestions as they feel is needed to improve their work. For our workshop we asked the four authors to resubmit their work back to the group.
So how well did this ritual-like format work? This was the first time any of the workshop participants (myself included) had been involved in a writers workshop and I can say it was enlightening for all. As both an author and a commentator/shepherd I experienced both sides of the process. The format works on the principle of a trusted circle and introductions were important even though we already knew each other to some degree – and although the term shepherd feels slightly strange at first it does convey the way that one approaches reviewing others work. The idea is to help the author produce a better piece of work – in this case a design pattern. This is not about ego or competition, or about rubbishing other people’s efforts. It is about guiding and in that guidance being positive and encouraging even when highlighting weaknesses. If you spot a problem then what can you offer as a shepherd to help improve or solve it. It might sound disconcerting to have the author present while the group review takes place and here space is an important consideration – it needs to be comfortable and provide a natural area for the pattern author to sit outside the circle. In this way the discussion between the group can flow freely without interruption or distraction.
Listening to my own work being reviewed was strangely relaxing – being there but not there. Sitting away from the group, with no eye contact or direct presence forces one to simply listen – a rare opportunity. There is no point in feeling defensive – how can you when you have no voice? So I was left to concentrate on writing down and capturing as much of the help, insight and advice as possible … and there was plenty of it, reflected in the copious notes I gathered on the day. What you receive is a sense of what readers will understand in the work you have written. If you have not explained something well enough then you can hear it the comments – and have a chance to correct it.
Since the workshop all of the patterns have been amended and resubmitted to the group. These four patterns will now go towards publication, most likely in a new edited collection on Digital Identity and Social Media.
Finally, just to add thanks to all of those who put the effort to write the patterns up in advance and thanks to all those present on the day for their valuable comments and input, including Yishay Mor our excellent chair.
References:
Alexander, C. (1979). The Timeless Way of Building. Oxford University Press, UK.
Gabriel, R. P. (2002), Writer’s Workshops and the Work of Making Things, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Boston, MA, USA.
*This oneness, or the lack of it, is the fundamental quality for anything. Whether it is in a poem, or a man, or a building full of people, or in a forest, or a city, everything that matters stems from it. It embodies everything. Yet still this quality cannot be named. (Alexander 1979, p28)
Recent Comments