With close to 35 people attending there was a lot of pressure on everyone, not least our facilitators Yishay, Jim, Mark and myself, to work hard. We started off with a quick paper and pen warm-up activity called the ‘faces of identity’. We asked everyone to draw three facets of their identity on three pre-drawn heads and then turn to their group and describe (i) what these identities represented and (ii) which they promoted and which they kept hidden in online settings. This was a powerful exercise and created some intense discussion that ran over the allotted 10 minutes for the exercise. Comments on this activity (including the rest of the day) can be found over on Margarita’s blog.

There were 19 case-stories in total and we split participants into seven discreet groups each led by a starting case-story. Stories were shared, discussed, questioned and argued over. With some gentle, and not so gentle, pushing and prodding from our facilitators a series of seed patterns were eventually documented. Identifying patterns can be a tricky process and articulating a common problem is more challenging than describing the solution. To scaffold this process and help the participants to move successfully from case-stories to patterns we employed two active approaches:
1) Three Hats Pattern- to share and interrogate stories in a small group setting
2) Table Top Concept Mapping – to draw out the key issues and tensions within case-stories

The full outputs from the day, including the six patterns that were established, are summarised here on the Planet design patterns repository page: http://purl.org/planet/Groups.DigitalIdentities/outputs.

Pattern 1: Others first
Pattern 2: Digital Identity panic
Pattern 3: Whats my name
Pattern 4: Space for lurking
Pattern 5: Facet me
Pattern 6: Permissioned aggregation of identity information

The power of the patterns approach is one of stripping out the specifics to produce transferable solutions that address common problems. But sometimes it can feel that by losing some aspects of the context and moving to a more generic instantiation of the core issues that we lose something of its’ [the case-story] vitality – perhaps this is particularly noticeable when we analyse our [digital] identities and are guilty  of stripping away certain subject positions – such as class, race and gender. Yet I would still argue that producing a solution that can be applied in multiple places is a powerful and revealing process. This issue came up in a case-story that started with motherhood and the uploading of family pictures to a photo-sharing site. This case eventually formed part of a pattern called ‘Others First‘ about parental responsibility towards the digital identity of dependents – particularly children. In this pattern the subject position of motherhood seemed to come under erasure. My thoughts are that this does not necessarily detract from the value of the pattern – it does not erase motherhood, rather in the use of the pattern in solving particular scenarios motherhood will become [re]surfaced as one of a number of [possible] subject positions. The case-stories also remain linked as part of the underlying evidence that supports the patterns. I think in this case there is more than one pattern, particularly surrounding the complications of motherhood and gender in relation to building professional representations of the self. This is not a new issue, where work and motherhood compete, but one that raises new problems when we make choices about how we portray ourselves online. One of the issues with running the workshop over a single day is dealing with the constraints on time that limit the amount of work that can be done to pull out of these related patterns. Many of the groups realised they were dealing with case-stories that held multiple patterns that could have been addressed through developing complimentary patterns.