Working Papers

R & D

THE VIRTUAL STAGE: VIDEO-MEDIATED

BEHAVIORS AND PRESENTATION OF SELF IN A VIDEO-MEDIATED ENVIRONMENT

by

A.L. FAYARD*

2002/101/TM/OB

* Assistant Professor of Technology Management, INSEAD, 1 Ayer Rajah Avenue, 138676Singapore.

A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intended as a means whereby a facultyresearcher's thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers. The paper should be considered preliminary in nature and may require revision. Printed at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Kindly do not reproduce or circulate without permission.

THE VIRTUAL STAGE: VIDEO-MEDIATED BEHAVIORS

AND PRESENTATION OF SELF IN A VIDEO-MEDIATED

ENVIRONMENT

Anne-Laure Fayard

Assistant Professor of

Technology Management

INSEAD

1 Ayer Rajah Avenue

Singapore 138676

Fax: 65 6799 5337

anne-laure.fayard@insead.edu

I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the MBA students who took the

course and participated in the study.

Special thanks to Ariella Aschheim for her help in collecting and analyzing the data,

and to Gerardine DeSanctis, Theodoros Evgeniou, Austin Henderson, Jill Klein and

Anca Metiu for their thoughts and suggestions.

2

THE VIRTUAL STAGE: VIDEO-MEDIATED BEHAVIORS

AND PRESENTATION OF SELF IN A VIDEO-MEDIATED

ENVIRONMENT

Abstract: Grounded on a field study of MBA students interacting over

videoconference in the context of a distributed course between a campus in Europe

and a campus in Singapore, this paper describes how video mediation affects

behaviors: what alterations video mediation introduces in the way people interact and

communicate as well as how they adapt to this new context and adjust their

behaviors.

My observations show that people tend to produce new types of behaviors in order to

communicate and interact in a video-mediated environment. I propose the notion of

virtual stage – based on Goffman’s concepts of stage and presentation of self (1959,

1974) – to describe and analyze communication mediated through video. I argue that

the video-mediated behaviors I observed are more than replacement strategies for

face-to-face interactions, and that they should be analyzed in their own specificity.

Keywords: Virtual Stage, Video-mediated behaviors, Video communication,

Interaction analysis.

3

1. Introduction

As organizations become more global, they have to cope with an increasingly

distributed workplace, crossing geographic boundaries as well as language and

cultural boundaries. They rely heavily on distributed teams formed by co-workers and

collaborators who are remotely located. One of the abiding features of a modern

organization is that people collaborate to perform work, and it is hoped that

information technology will support and enhance collaboration in these distributed

contexts. One of these technologies is videoconference which is believed to be able to

replace face-to-face meetings or, at least, to minimize the amount of travel between

distant sites. People usually assume that using videoconference would be very helpful

for supporting collaborative work, because they believe it will replace face-to-face

interactions. Theories such as the media richness theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), which

proposes that communication can be arrayed along a continuum of media richness –

face-to-face being the richest medium, – support this common sense intuition.

However, in most cases, participants are disappointed, and tend to blame the

technology. Many experiences with videoconference have resulted in failures (Egido,

1990). These failures are consistent with some experimental results, which contradict

some of the assumptions of the media richness and social presence theories

4

concerning the richness of video communication and its position on the continuum of

media (e.g., Chapanis, 1975, and Gale, 1989). An important body of research has

focused on examining differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face

communication (Finholst and Sproull, 1994; Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire., 1984, Straus

and McGrath, 1994, Walther, 1995).

A second important line of research has focused on comparing audio, video and face-

to-face communication, and examined the advantages of video over audio-only

connections for remote communication (Boyle, Amderdsom & Newlands., 1994,

Chapanis, 1975, Egido, 1990, Olson, Olson & Meader., 1995, Short, Williams &

Christie., 1976). Most of this research has shown very little advantage of video over

audio-only connections for remote communication. A growing body of research has

experimented with the use of video and audio to either provide a sense of

teleproximity to small distributed groups who need to tightly coordinate their efforts

(Olson and Bly, 1991; Tang and Rua, 1994) and to support informal communication

in the workplace (Abel, 1990; Bly, Harrison & Irwin, 1993; Dourish and Bly, 1992;

Dourish Adler, Bellotti & Henderson., 1996;Fish, Kraut, Root & Rice., 1993; Heath

and Luff, 1991). Heath and Luff (1991) describe the organization of video-mediated

communication in collaborative work in a dispersed multi-media office environment.

They report a naturalistic analysis of use and interaction through audio-video

technologies, and show how technology introduces certain asymmetries in

communication and transform both verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Thus, they find

that people tend to exaggerate their movements and gestures, as they have been

unnoticed – or they think they have been unnoticed – by their colleagues.

Naturalistic studies of face-to-face communication have shown that participants

constantly monitor one another’s behavior and are very sensitive to them. Speakers

5

adapt their speech to the responses of the interlocutor(s) – gestures, facial expressions

(Ekman and Friessen, 1969; Goffman, 1967; Heath & Luff, 1991; Kendon, 1977;

McGrath, 1990). Although video provides some visual cues, it may be inadequate to

support communication and coordinating interactions. Lack of context in video-

mediated settings creates asymmetries that are critical to explain and understand

behaviors in these settings. Thus, in video-mediated context, people do not share the

same physical context, e.g., limited peripheral awareness, eye gaze, body language,

etc. (Heath and Luff, 1991; Henderson & Henderson, 2000), and they do not share the

same social context (Heath and Luff, 1991; Mackay, 1999). They have fewer cues to

interpret others’ behaviors: have the remote participants heard them properly? Have

they noticed their quizzical expressions? Are they bored, tired, or is it just an

impression due to the quality of the video image? They therefore have a different

frame of reference to interact, and tend to be more explicit to build a common frame

of reference. Moreover, video technology constrains behavior and communication

patterns, and induces new or modified verbal and nonverbal behaviors.

The theatrical performance metaphor, developed by Goffman (1959; 1974) in his

study of everyday interaction, provides a useful theoretical framework to analyze

people’s behavior and communication patterns in video-mediated settings. I extend

the theatrical performance metaphor and the notion of stage to propose the notion of a

virtual stage, which provides a relevant framework for exploring video-mediated

interactions. The notion of virtual stage is a powerful construct to describe the

asymmetries we observed in video-mediated communication and can explain some of

the dramaturgical nature of the modified behaviors we observed. I argue that the

behaviors developed in order to bridge the asymmetries created by video-mediated

communication may not be negative or inefficient for communication. These new

6

forms of interaction may be “the foundation for the emergence of new forms of

sociability” (Heath & Luff, 1991).

Most of the research which has focused on comparing audio, video and face-to-face

communication, has typically used artificial groups – with no shared history and

context– performing artificial tasks in a pre-determined period of time. Only by

observing mediated interactions in the context of an on-going activity for a period of

several weeks (in the case of our research, video-mediated interactions), can we begin

to understand the impact of video on communication and interaction patterns. This

paper reports an exploratory field study of MBA students interacting over

videoconference in the context of a two-month distributed elective between two

campuses, one in Europe and one in Asia. It suggests that one reason for the

disappointment might be due to false expectations concerning video (“it is like face-

to-face”) and lack of awareness of the transformations in nonverbal and verbal

conduct induced by the technology.

Behavioral and societal effects of computer-mediated communication were said to be

critical research topics (Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984). Behavioral and societal

effects of video-mediated communication are similarly becoming critical research

topics as increasingly distributed organizations are looking to technology to help

support communication and to reduce travel expenses (in terms of both time and

money). This paper describes some of the issues raised by video communication. The

objective of this research is to explore how video mediation affects behaviors: what

alteration video mediation introduces in the way people interact and communicate and

how people adapt to this new context and adjust their behaviors.The first section

provides a brief review of Goffman’s theoretical framework and the naturalistic

studies of face-to-face interactions, focusing on the role of nonverbal and

7

paralinguistic cues in communication. In the second section, I describe the research

site and the qualitative approach I used for collecting and analyzing the data. The third

section provides a definition of the virtual stage, while the fourth section examines

the roles, practices and behaviors that emerged in video-mediated settings in order to

reduce the asymmetries created by the video. The last section examines how the

notion of virtual stage provides an explanatory construct to describe and understand

video-mediated behaviors and their dramaturgical nature. It suggests that these new

forms of interaction may be more than replacement strategies.

2. Background

2.1. The Theatrical Performance Metaphor

Goffman (1959, 1974) analyzes human behavior in social situations. He uses the

metaphor of theatrical performance as a framework: individuals present themselves

and their activity to others, consciously or unconsciously, using some techniques in

order to sustain their performance as actors and present a character to an audience. He

defines two main regional boundaries in which social interactions take place:

“frontstage” and “backstage”. The front region ( or Frontstage) is “the place where

the performance is given” (1959, p. 93). [ or Backstage] is “a place, relative to a given

performance, where […] the performer can relax; he can drop his front […]) The back

region will be the place where the performer can reliably expect that no member of the

audience will intrude. Very commonly, the back region of a performance is located at

one end of the place where the performance is presented, being cut off from it by a

partition and guarded passageway”(1959, p. 98). In everyday interactions, the notions

8

of frontstage and backstage are often “functional”: you are frontstage when you are

performing, that is, presenting your “personal front” to the audience.

Goffman’s use of the notion of stage, performance and roles to describe social

interactions and presentation of self can be understood at a micro and macro level. At

a macro level, the roles Goffman refers to are the social roles that people play. A

nurse, for example, has to “play the nurse” when she is in a certain context, i.e., at the

hospital, and being backstage then refers to a situation –at home – when she does not

need to present herself as a nurse. The theatrical performance metaphor provides

Goffman with a means of distinguishing between the individual actor (e.g., the

individual woman, X, who is a nurse) who appears on stage and the character she

assumes as a nurse.

Goffman is also interested in the micro level analysis of people’s interactions: how

they present themselves, interact and influence one another, what roles they play and

how they shift from one role to another in face-to-face encounters. Goffman (1959;

1974) treats an interaction as a dialogue between two groups, the actors and the

audience. The roles between these two groups shift depending on the interaction. In

everyday interactions, the stage does not exist physically. It is a matter of roles: who

the actors are and who the audience is, who is frontstage and who is backstage are

functionally defined. Goffman also identifies a director who is someone who has “the

right to direct and control the process of the dramatic action” (1959, p. 84).

In this paper, I use the theatrical metaphor to describe interactions at a micro level,

and focus on the verbal and nonverbal communication occurring in a video-mediated

context. Goffman’s work has been used by other researchers to understand and

evaluate communication behaviors. The focus, however, was on “face work” and

symbolic interactions (e.g., Cool, Fish, Krant and Lowery 1992; Zach, 1993).

9

Goffman (1967) argues that people in communication – both direct and mediated –

aim, by “face work”, to maintain their own and others’ self-images. As bandwidth

narrows, face work is harder to achieve as it is highly grounded on non-verbal and

paralinguistic cues. The notion of stage is extremely relevant for analyzing video

communication. The boundaries of the stage are more defined than in everyday

interactions: the TV monitor and the camera angles cut off the interacting space from

what is out of sight. I develop the notion of virtual stage to describe and analyze

actors’ interactions in video-mediated settings. This construct provides a powerful

framework to describe the context of video-mediated communication and thus helps

the understanding of some of the behaviors we observed. The virtual stage is a frame

of reference that is only partially shared by the participants. This restricted

overlapping, as well as the ambiguity as to what we share and what we don’t share,

create situations where people give extra information to build a common background

and exaggerate certain of their gestures to make sure that the remote site has

understood them.

2.2 The importance of nonverbal and paralinguistic cues in communication

All communication and interactions are always situated in a physical, organizational

and social context. To communicate, we rely on social contextual cues, i.e., those

aspects of the physical environment and nonverbal behaviors that define the nature of

the social situation and the actors’ role and relative status (Goffman, 1959; 1974). In

video-mediated settings, the access to the physical, organizational and social context

is restricted and this limitation creates asymmetries between the two sites. There are

gaps in the common background – e.g., the weather, who’s in the room, the level of

10

attention, the interest of the participants, and on which interactions between

participants are grounded.

Naturalistic studies of face-to-face communication have shown that participants

constantly monitor one another’s behavior and are very sensitive to them. Speakers

and listeners coordinate their interactions relying on the feedback provided by

nonverbal behaviors such as head nods, smiles, eye contact, glances, expressions and

gestures (Kendon, 1977) and objects of reference in their environment (Ekman and

Friessen, 1969). Speakers adapt their speech to the reactions of the interlocutors –

gestures, facial expressions (McGrath, 1990; Heath & Luff, 1991). In a similar line,

Goffman (1967) has stressed the interactive nature of communication and the

importance of continuous feedback provided by the nonverbal and paralinguistic cues.

The “glances, gestures, positionings” (Goffman, 1967), “tone of voice, manner of

uptake, restarts and the variously positioned pauses” (Goffman, 1981) are highly

significant cues that allow speakers to monitor their speech and modify accordingly.

Extensive research has focused on comparing computer-mediated communication

and face-to-face communication, and shown how social context and nonverbal cues

have dramatically changed the nature of communication. A reduction in cues, such as

eye contact, head nods, and voice inflection creates disruption in the flow of

communication (Argyle, Lalljee, and Cook, 1968; Kendon, 1967). The inability to

perceive such cues as quizzical expressions, nodding and frowning, reduces

information on other to understand and agree or disagree with one’s remarks (Strauss

and McGrath, 1994).

Videoconference is usually thought to be closer to face-to-face as participants have

access, at least partially, to nonverbal cues as they use both the audio and video

channels. However, the video medium constrains access to the nonverbal and

11

paralinguistic cues, and creates asymmetries, as participants are never sure that these

nonverbal and paralinguistic cues have been noticed, and/or correctly interpreted by

the other site (Heath and Luff, 1991). As it has been shown that people develop ways

of sending computerized screams, hugs and kisses (Pollack, 1982), I observe how

people, in video-mediated settings, modify their verbal and nonverbal behaviors –

they tend to be more explicit and share context with the other site and develop

exaggerated gestures.

3. Methods

Many studies comparing computer-mediated, video-mediated and face-to-face

communication are experiments where participants have defined tasks to execute in an

experimental context (e.g., Isaacs, Morris, Rodriguez & Tang. 1995; Olson, Olson and

Meader, 1995; Williams, 1977). This study is not a comparative study of different

mediated interactions but it treats video on its own merit. It is grounded on a field

study, which, by its very nature, aims to take into account the situated nature of

cooperation and communication. It focuses on video-mediated interactions and the

evolution of practices for a group of participants during a 2-month period. I carried

out extensive, on-site field observations, videotaping and informal discussions with

the participants in the study (Blomberg, 1987; Suchman, 1987).

3. 1 Research Site

INSEAD – an International Business School in France – founded a campus in

Singapore as an integral part of their European campus. I used this structure to

experiment a distributed classroom experience with an MBA elective, “IT and

12

distributed organizations.”.1 I used off-the-shelf technologies (videoconference, an

electronic white board, Webcams, Audio Conference, e-mail and INTERNET forum).

Like all INSEAD MBA electives, this one lasted two months and was taught via a

video link to students located in both Singapore and France. Two major aims of the

elective were (1) to provide students with the experience of remote collaboration and

(2) to explore how one could create and nurture the experience of being part of the

same class.

3.1.2 Participants

This course involved the instructor (myself), two research assistants (RAs) and the

MBA students. I taught the first half of the course from Singapore, and the second half

in France. The two research assistants “hosted” the class at each site. They were

responsible for setting up the room, checking the technology, being there in case of

technological problems (being able to manage these problems or call in the technical

support) and managing the interactions in the classroom and between the classroom

and the remote site. Six MBAs2 took part in this experimental course, five in France

and one in Singapore. As there was only one MBA student attending the class in

Singapore, the research assistant hosting the class in Singapore acted as a student.3

She took an active part in the class discussion and worked on the project with the

students. We therefore had seven participants involved in class discussions and

working on a project on the concept of One School/Two campuses, and its

implementation from a technological, organizational and cultural perspective.

1 I was very much involved in the course, as I was teaching this elective. I will refer to myself as “the instructor”, or simply “I”. 2 This elective was taught during the year of the opening of the Singapore campus; the first promotion in Singapore was small. 3 The other RA hosting the class in France acted as an external/neutral observer.

13

3.1.2 Schedule

There were eight double sessions (3 and a half hours each, with a 15 minute break)

with a video link, scheduled over a period of two months. Four group4 work sessions

were scheduled during these eight sessions. The instructor taught the first half of the

course from Singapore and then from France The RA based in Singapore only came

after the first two classes. Thus, during the first two classes, there were two RAs in

France and the instructor in Singapore. Then, there were two classes with both the RA

and the instructor in Singapore and an RA in France. There was one RA and the

instructor in France and one RA in Singapore for the last 4 sessions.

3.1.3 Interaction style and room arrangement

As this elective was an experiment, I knew from the beginning that extra efforts

(compared to a co-located class) had to be made to create an interactive environment.

I involved the remote site as much as possible, particularly when I flew back to France

(because of the small number in Singapore). My informal style might have helped

enhance interaction and communication, and support the feeling of being part of the

same class. Humor was essential. The RAs and I tried to build a warm working

relationship with the students.

The video link was started 30 minutes before the beginning of the class, when the

research assistants and I arrived. Hence, when the students came in, the connection

was on, and they could immediately interact with the other site. During the break, the

link was maintained in order to facilitate informal interactions. Further, the video link

was disconnected 10 minutes after the official end of the class for the same reason. A

14

similar arrangement was used for group work sessions. This arrangement was found to

be very important to support informal interactions.

There were two TV monitors in each room. The first TV monitor, with the camera on

it, was located at one end of the room and the tables were organized as for a meeting

facing the camera. Participants sat around the table. The electronic white board was

located close to the first TV monitor. The second TV monitor was located at the other

end of the room. Its function was mainly to provide an image to the speaker (instructor

or student making the presentation) so that he could stand at the electronic white

board and see both the local and the remote audiences, while the local audience could

see the electronic white board, the speaker and the remote audience. After a few

sessions, some modifications were made in the arrangement. Some students suggested

that they did not need to see all the participants at the same time and that therefore one

TV monitor was enough. They pointed out that even in a face-to-face situation, they

did not see all the participants at once. Moreover, the location of the camera on one of

the TV monitors created a strange situation whereby a participant was talking, facing

the TV monitor with no camera, and the remote site saw the back of her head as she

had her back to the TV with a monitor.

They tried out several locations for the TV monitor, and finally decided to have it at

the end of the room, facing the electronic white board located at the other end. They

moved the tables closer to the monitors. Hence, tables at each site were connected by

the video at their ends into one long virtual table (See Henderson & Henderson, 2000,

for the description of a similar arrangement in the context of a distributed design

group at SUN Microsystems). Chairs were placed around this virtual table, an

arrangement that created a feeling of “being part of the same room” and supported

4 Due to the small number of students, there was only one group involving all the students and the RA.

15

interactions. To see people at one’s side, one turned one’s head left or right, and when

people were in the remote room, they also turned their heads and looked on through

the video. The presentations were given using the electronic white boards located at

both ends of the virtual table. Participants would turn in their chairs to see the

presentation, while those in the remote room would see it via the video.

3.2. Data Collection and Analysis

This course was an ideal opportunity to collect data on interaction patterns and

development of behaviors in a video-mediated setting. It was an interesting situation

as it was less formal than a videoconference meeting (it was held on a regular basis

for a two-month period). However, it was not as informal as a mediaspace.5 The two

research assistants and I wrote field notes during and after class and group sessions.

We videotaped all the sessions and collected 59 hours of video in total. We used a

tripod and a digital camcorder with an LCD screen so that the students could see what

was being videotaped. I explained the aim of the study at the beginning of the class

and students signed an informed consent (Mackay, 1995).

To analyze the videotapes, we applied the interaction analysis methodology (Jordan &

Henderson, 1995). We did content logs of 25 hours, and used an iterative approach.

We started with some foci of analysis that evolved over time: team building,

coordination, turns on the floor. New ones emerged: sharing context,

frontstage/backstage, the virtual stage, and “extreme behaviors”. We had regular

discussions to redefine the foci of analysis, and did a detailed analysis and transcripts

of clips that seemed relevant (according to the definition of the foci of analysis).

16

We had several interaction analysis sessions (Jordan & Henderson, 1995), during

which, one of us (one of the two RAs or I) presented several clips. The presenter

started by giving some context to the clip and then rolled the tape. The two other

participants reacted to what they saw, and provided their own analysis of the

interaction. One student6 joined us during one interaction analysis session to test the

analyses developed in the previous sessions for involving participants in interactive

analysis, see Jordan & Henderson, 1995; Karasti, 2001). During this session, we used

a similar methodology as before. We first made a brief summary of the foci of

analysis that had emerged from our analyses to get the student’s feedback. We then

showed him some clips to get his interpretation and to test ours. His analysis mainly

confirmed our interpretations.

4. The Virtual Stage

Goffman’s use of the notion of stage, performance and roles to describe social

interactions and presentation of self provides a powerful framework to analyze

communication in video contexts. One could argue that the activity of teaching is very

theatrical and that this might bias the observations. However, the research does not

look at how the instructor “plays” or “stands on the stage” and the object of analysis is

the interactions during the class discussions as well as during the group sessions.

The notion of virtual stage provides an interesting framework to understand the

experience of a videoconference. Hence, although it can be attractive to analyze a

videoconference meeting between two sites as a pair of connected local meetings, it

5 Mediaspaces are distributed video systems which “attempt to include a variety of forms of communication, ranging from informal encounters and peripheral awareness” (Mackay, 1999). Connections are always there; only people come and go.

17

seems that a videoconference – the class in our case, meetings in other cases – occurs

in a single constructed place – the virtual stage.7 This alternative framework is

described by Henderson & Henderson (2000) in their analysis of distance meetings at

SUN Microsystems, where they discovered that a distance meeting occurs in a single

constructed place, which they called a distance meeting place.

4.1 Being frontstage / being backstage

According to the original metaphor, the stage is easy to define in the theatrical

context, as it is a physical identifiable space. Let us call this first definition the spatial

definition. In the case of everyday interactions, the stage does not exist physically –

rather, it is a matter of roles: it is functionally defined according to who the actors are

and who the audience is, i.e., who are front stage and who are back stage (Goffman,

1959). Let us call this definition the functional definition. In contrast, the virtual stage

seems quite similar to the theatrical stage in that it can be defined as the connection

between two physical spaces connected by a video link. In video-mediated settings,

the stage is primarily defined by the scope of the camera and the image that appears

on the TV monitor. Thus, being in scope or out of scope defines whether you are on

stage or off stage.

In our elective, the spatial definition of the virtual stage was obvious during the

first class. Three students had enrolled in Singapore, but only one was present.

The setting for that first session was such that people in France could see either

6 The student at that time had already received his grade for the elective, and in fact, had graduated, so there was no risk of bias due to a professor/student relationship. 7 The virtual stage is the location where the interactions occur; the virtual class would involve the virtual stage and the back stage, and the interactions – class discussion, information sharing, group work.

18

the instructor or the student, and at the beginning, the camera was focused on

the instructor. Therefore, participants (F) assumed that there were three

students. As the instructor said “and here is the third one”, she “pointed” to the

student (S) by turning the camera on her. The student (S) then “appeared” on

the screen/stage in France.

Goffman (1959) describes an interesting example of backstage difficulties in radio and

television broadcasting. In these situations, the backstage region tends to be defined as

all places where the camera is not focused at the moment or all places out of range of

“live” microphones.

In other situations, the virtual stage seems closer to the functional definition

proposed by Goffman. Being “on stage” – which means you are in scope does not

imply that you are performing. You can be “on stage” according to the spatial

definition and backstage according to the functional definition. Hence, “by

invoking a backstage style, individuals can transform any region into a backstage”

(Goffman, 1959). Being backstage when you are “on stage” (in scope) means that

you are not an actor, but part of the audience, involved in side discussions, or

managing the interaction. Hence, during one class, the instructor (S) was talking

and did not notice that she went out of scope. Anna, the RA (S), made a sign to

inform her that she was out of scope. Anna was in scope and therefore spatially

frontstage, but functionally backstage. The instructor was functionally frontstage,

but spatially backstage for a while, as she was out of scope.

In certain situations, no one is functionally frontstage – i.e., involved in the class

discussion or in the group discussion – and there are side discussions at each site. In

19

fact, it is as if there were functionally two backstages and an empty virtual stage, even

if all the participants were in scope.

During the final session, there was an interesting case mixing both the spatial and the

functional definition:

While the students were presenting their projects to an external, invited

audience, a problem developed with the electronic white board, which the

instructor (F) and the research assistant (S) tried to fix. The student making the

presentation (S) was frontstage, both functionally and spatially. The instructor

changed some setting on the computer and then made a sign “via the video” for

the research assistant (S) to go and check the result of the modification. The

research assistant nodded to signal that she was aware of the request and went

out of scope to check if the modifications were “registered”.

In this case, they were both in scope, but used the “back” of the virtual stage (defined

as a space) to interact. Moreover, they were playing a manager role, and were

therefore functionally backstage. Thus, to define the virtual stage, we need to use

both spatial and functional criteria. This mix of the two types of criteria leads to

situations where people may think that they are on stage, because they are

functionally frontstage, but they are spatially backstage as they are out of scope. This

intertwining of the two criteria creates mixed situations that are hard to manage.

Insert table 1.

20

4.2 Roles: Actors, audience and stage managers

In the distributed classroom, all the participants are potential actors and audience, as

in everyday interactions. Goffman (1959; 1974) treats an interaction as a dialogue

between two groups, the performers and the audience. The roles between these two

groups shift depending on the interaction. At the beginning of the first class, students

were merely a passive audience, and the instructor put them in an acting position by

asking them to present themselves using the remote control to focus the camera on

themselves. As they took the remote control and had to present themselves, the

students got on stage and became involved in the performance. They also became

aware of the “physical” limits of the virtual stage. By the end of this first session, all

the students had become actors. Then, during the rest of the course, they were

alternately audience – when they were passive and just attending the performance

given by others on the virtual stage – and actors – when they were actively interacting,

as in everyday situations.

Goffman also identifies a director who has “the right to direct and control the process

of the dramatic action.” (1959, p. 84). I similarly identified a third role, that of stage

manager. The stage manager’s role is similar to Goffman’s definition of that of the

director, except that he might be involved more with details than the director is. The

stage manager is responsible for either changing the setting (using the remote control

to get a more focused image of the other site, or to present a more focused image of

her site; moving microphones), or for giving feedback or instructions to someone

performing on the stage (e.g., asking someone to move into the scope of the camera;

or telling someone to speak up).

21

5. Bridging the asymmetries: evolving roles, practices and behaviors

in video-mediated environments

Extensive research has shown the importance of nonverbal and paralinguistic cues for

communication (e.g., Ekman and Friessen, 1969; Goffman, 1967; Kendon, 1977), and

another line of research has shown how technology- mediated communication

constrains our ability to notice and interpret these cues (e.g., McGrath, 1990; Heath &

Luff, 1991; Williams, 1977).

In fact, even when co-located, we do not have equal access to all the information, but

we are not aware of this reality and/or tend to forget it as we use sophisticated skills to

overcome these difficulties: we frown when the communication is unclear, move our

chairs so that we can see better, cup an ear to show that we have trouble hearing

(Henderson & Henderson, 2000). Although video-mediated communication gives

access to some nonverbal behaviors, this access is very limited, and one cannot rely

(or only very partially) on peripheral awareness. The behaviors we developed to

compensate asymmetries in face-to-face situations are not very efficient in video-

mediated settings. These behaviors are difficult to recognize and interpret, and are

often misinterpreted.

In this study, I have focused on the behaviors (verbal and nonverbal) people develop

to bridge these asymmetries and establish and preserve mutual involvement. First, I

found that certain roles, such as that of stage manager, become crucial to manage the

technology as well as the social interactions. Moreover, people have to make an extra

effort to share context. Participants tried to build a common context by making

comments and giving extra information to the other site. Building a common context

22

contributes to the building of a virtual stage. It embodies the virtual stage in a context

that helps the actors, the audience and the managers to coordinate their interactions.

However, the virtual stage (and its dual nature, spatial and functional) creates a very

specific type of frame of reference where people can be both spatially frontstage and

functionally backstage, or vice versa. This duality and the fact that people are either

not aware or sure, on “which stage” (spatial, functional, both or neither) they are

interacting, lead to the emergence of two types of nonverbal behaviors – waving and

exaggerated behavior. Heath and Luff (1991), in their observations of co-workers,

whose offices were connected via a mediaspace, describe similar exaggerations of

behavior.

5. 1 Stage managers

The theatrical metaphor led us to define three main roles: actors, audience and stage

managers. Stage managers are key participants in video-mediated settings, as they

have to manage the interactions in the context of a technology-mediated setting. One

particular student, Mark, developed a keen interest in managing the setting and the

interactions. He often came earlier, or stayed during the break to arrange things, (e.g.,

relocate the TV monitor, check the lighting, move the microphones, etc.). He also

made these adjustments during class discussions and group work. He regularly

checked that the other students were in scope, speaking closely enough into the

microphone, and asked them to modify their behaviors when necessary. He was

therefore very often functionally backstage (and either spatially frontstage or

backstage).

Various studies (Mackay, 1990; Jordan, 1993, Nardi & O’Day, 1999) have shown

that, in the workplace, one always finds people – “translators” or “facilitators” – who

23

possess or develop technical skills and interests, and are particularly willing to help.

Mark was this kind of participant: he understood the technology better than the others,

was more aware of the constraints and limits introduced by it, and endeavored to

enhance interaction by modifying the setting and supporting others’ behaviors.

Apart from this self-emerging stage manager, there were two official stage managers:

the two research assistants, who were hosting the class. However, one of the RAs,

Anna, was more of the facilitator type than the other RA. Like Mark, she was very

much aware of the constraints of the technology – she kept rearranging the room to

enhance interactions. Hence, she suggested moving the table closer to the video

equipment in order to create the “virtual table” setting. The decision to keep only one

TV monitor was made after a first discussion between Anna, Mark and I, and on the

approval of the other participants after a “trial” class with only one monitor at each

site. She regularly checked that the technology was working. She was also aware of

the consequence of the mediation of technology on the behaviors of people, and

constantly reminded students to lean forward to be in scope and to speak into the

microphone.

Goffman (1959) shows that teammates, engaged in a performance, use staging cues.

He also observed that, “during radio and television productions, a vocabulary of signs

was employed by those in the control room to guide performers”. Similarly, stage

managers in the class often used signs and gestures to communicate with the other

performers. They pointed to the microphone to indicate to the performers that they

needed to move closer to it, made a sign to indicate that they were out of scope, waved

in a negative manner to indicate that there was a problem with the video connection or

that the slides were not being projected on the electronic white board.

24

In any videoconference meeting, it is very important to have a host who has the role of

an ambassador for the other site – involving them in the discussion, guaranteeing that

nobody talked “off camera”, monitoring the picture, etc. (see Henderson &

Henderson, 2000). In the context of this distributed class, hosts had a crucial role: they

locally took care of the group, indicated problems to the instructor who was at a

distance, pointed out time zone differences and context, etc. The host was a key actor

at the site where the instructor was not physically present, but was also important

when she was physically present, because she was not able to manage all the technical

details while leading the class discussion. For example, it was difficult, while

presenting, to regularly check that the video and the Internet connections (NetMeeting

used for connecting the electronic white boards) were working. When there were

technical problems, the hosts were in charge to try to solve them (reboot the computer,

reconnect NetMeeting) or contact the technical support team while the instructor kept

leading the discussion. Moreover, the host at the remote site also signaled when there

were questions at her site (a hand up, a puzzled look, say that had not been noticed by

the instructor).

The technology-mediated nature of the course led to an overlap of the tasks and

confusion as to the definition of the managers’ roles. While some of the tasks had

been allocated beforehand (the two research assistants were officially supposed to host

the class), some people emerged as facilitators. However, as in everyday interactions

(Goffman, 1959), different people were playing different roles at different moments:

any participants could be audience, actors or managers.

25

5. 2 Sharing context

In several situations, participants made comments in order to share context, which

would not have been necessary in a co-located situation. People make explicit what is

usually implicit and let the “other site” knows what is going on “on their site”.

Throughout the elective, we saw, for example, one of the participants acknowledging

the presence of new participants. This would not happen in a co-located situation, as

everybody would be aware of the presence of this newcomer. In a video-mediated

context, the participants at the other site might not have noticed the newcomer’s

arrival, who, in fact, might have been out of scope. This public acknowledgement

creates a common frame of reference for participants at both sites. In a similar vein,

we heard many similar comments of participants providing the remote participants

with information that they could not have access to because of the limited “shared

space”. It could be either information about what was going on outside or inside the

room, or even something pertaining to an element beyond the camera scope, such as

the weather. The weather difference between France and Singapore was constantly

referred to, with Singaporean participants teasing the French participants on the bad

weather they have in France. During one break, one student (F) turned the camera to

the window in response to a comment on the weather: it was a sunny day in France.

We observed another set of comments and questions that contributed to the building

of a shared representation. Clearly related to the presentation of self, they concerned

the image that the other site got from the site asking the question.

For example, during the first session, one student, Bob, asked Singapore: “Are

we dark? Can you see us? Can you see our features? The view the people on

the France site got of themselves seemed to be very dark, and Bob was worried

26

that Singapore might not see them. His question is also a way of sharing

context: he is telling Singapore what their representation of their mediated

image is, and he is reflecting on “what the remote site sees of us.”8

Along the same lines, participants frequently commented that they could not hear the

other site, and asked if they, too, could be heard and seen. They sought reassurances

that the link, both audio and visual, was intact. As Henderson and Henderson (2000)

claim, the “here” or the “there” is a clear reference to a common constructed place,

which is none of the “local” locations.

When participants had technical problems to solve, such as reconnecting NetMeeting

for the electronic white board, they were extremely articulate about both their actions

and the information they saw on the computer screen. The remote participants were

also very articulate about what was happening on their site. They pointed out that no

presentation was coming through, and received only a blank screen, displaying an

error message.

5. 3 Video-mediated behaviors

5.3.1 Waving

One of the most common nonverbal behaviors that I observed is waving. People kept

waving at one another across sites, often to accompany what they were saying.

Participants waved at the beginning and at the end of the sessions to enhance their

verbal greetings. When they wanted to interrupt, they first made small gestures and

8 By asking this question, Bob abandoned his audience role and became an actor as well as a manager.

27

then waved (if the remote participant did not break off). When the image looked too

still, people waved while asking the other site if the video link was still on.

Participants tended to behave as if they were greeting one another from far away:

adding the gesture to the words, as if they felt they could not be heard (people seemed

to speak more loudly in video-mediated settings). They always waved when they said

“hello” or “good-bye”. They were also waving when they were trying to get the

attention from the other site. When someone in France wanted to respond to a point

made by someone in Singapore, they would generally first use subtle body movements

as if co-located (e.g., bending forward, moving their mouth as if to start speaking,

raising their eyebrows). Then, as they realized that these signals were too subtle to be

interpreted through the video link, they usually made a sign with the hand. If this sign

was not seen, or at least ignored, they would wave in an increasingly animated way,

and finally interrupt.

Waving was also a key behavior in order to check that the link was still on. While

Clara (S) was discussing some data that she had collected for the project, she noticed

that the image seemed “frozen” and wanted to check that the connection was still on.

She asked if she could be seen, and waved. Students in France waved back and replied

that there was no connection problem.

This waving behavior is one type of behavior that was developed by the participants in

order to bridge the asymmetry between the two locations. When the usual body

language could not be seen and interpreted by participants at the other site, waving

was “visible” enough to be perceived, while still being some sort of body language,

and taking advantage of peripheral awareness (i.e., people did not have to interrupt the

speakers in order to make them aware of the fact that they wanted to intervene).

Moreover, although video allows people to be in a situation close to face-to-face in

28

the sense that they have access to both sound and image, they experience distance as if

the other site were extremely far away. Waving is an expression of this feeling of

distance – you don’t wave to someone who is sitting next to you. It is also a way of

getting the other site closer: by waving, you initiate a contact, which reduces the

distance and the formality created by the technology. In a sense, you re-humanize the

communication.

Certain gestures appear to lose their communicative impact when performed through

video (Heath and Luff, 1991). Video allows individuals to witness their colleagues’

nonverbal behaviors and therefore to coordinate their own behavior in response to

changes of facial expressions or body language. Heath and Luff observed individuals

attempting to establish contact – through a look or a wave, prior to engaging in

conversation – and upgrade their movements and gestures in an attempt to attract the

other’s attention: “The gesture becomes increasingly exaggerated and meets with no

response.” (1991, p. 101).

I observed similar exaggeration in waving: people first waved very subtly, and as they

thought that their sign had not been noticed by the remote site (in some cases, this was

because they had not seen the “body reply” of the other site), they made a bigger sign,

and this can continue to the point where they engage in exaggerated waving as if they

were kilometers apart.

5.3.2 Extreme Behaviors

We observed a second type of video-mediated behavior: shouting, jumping, waving

excessively, literally performing in the original sense of the word. We have called

these extrovert behaviors extreme behaviors. They are often the next step after the

waving behavior: people first use gaze, or other subtle body signals, then they wave.

29

They first make a little sign; then wave excessively, and finally jump or speak very

loudly to attract the attention of the other site.

During the second session, we observed an interesting case of extreme

behavior. The instructor (S) was preparing to leave after the first half of the

session, as the second half was intended to be a group work session. She gave

some indications to the students about the project, and waved as she said

“Good-bye.” As she was speaking, Harsh (F) waved. As he did not get any

response, two other students also waved, and one of them, jumping up and

down, waving, and shouting “No, no”. As the instructor did not respond to any

of these signals – in fact, she had moved toward the door – another student,

Bob (F), pleaded with her not to go yet – “No, don’t go – Don’t go yet”. Other

students (F) were waving. The instructor could only hear voices. As she was

far from the TV monitor, she did not see the students and could not hear

properly what they were saying. Anna (S) and the students were on the virtual

stage, while the instructor was off stage. Therefore, she did not have any idea

of what was happening on stage, although the students considered that she was

still frontstage (at least functionally, because she was no longer in the camera

scope). The instructor did not understand that the students wanted to ask a

question, and as she was about to leave the room, she added: “See you

Thursday”. Bob (F) shouted to Anna to call her back, which she did.

This is a good example of the exaggeration process. It is also interesting as it can be

interpreted as a form of catharsis: students would never have behaved in this way in a

face-to-face situation, but the mediation introduced by the video might have allowed

30

this behavior and its high level of informality. One could argue that, in fact, more than

informality, this behavior reflects just a different norm developed through necessity.

Our analysis of the data showed some cases where participants tended to perform for

the other site – dancing, showing off or making faces. The notion of virtual stage can

provide one possible explanation for this kind of “performing” behavior. The setting,

from a certain perspective, is very similar to a stage, and creates a situation where

people feel free to express themselves more informally and in a more extroverted

manner than in a face-to-face setting.

6. Discussion and conclusion

6.1 The notion of a virtual stage

The notion of virtual stage, derived from Goffrman’s theoretical metaphor (1959,

1974), provides a powerful framework and relevant distinctions (e.g.,

backstage/frontstage, various roles) for understanding video-mediated interactions.

The virtual stage is, by definition, a dual one: being on stage involves both spatial and

functional components. In some cases, they are correlated, in others, not: one can be

spatially frontstage and functionally backstage. This creates many unexpected

interactions compared to our usual everyday interactions. Individuals in video-

mediated settings often lose track of where the interaction space is. In a co-located

setting, I know whether you can see me or not, and if I leave the room, I stop talking

to you, because I know that you will not be able to hear me, whereas in a video-

mediated setting, I can speak and make some gestures assuming that you can see me,

while I am, in fact, out of scope.

31

The virtual stage is composed of two local stages (which are parts of two local

environments) and of a virtual space. Each site has only a limited and constrained

access to the other site, through the virtual space. Therefore, there is not a true

common frame of reference. However, it seems that individuals assume the existence

of this common frame of reference (Heath and Luff, 1991) which is argued to be

essential to communication and interaction. Our observations show that participants

put a lot of effort into sharing context and rebuilding a common frame of reference,

albeit a still quite distorted one.

In fact, the virtual stage is less than the shared frame of reference when we are co-

located, but more than a pair of connected places. Videoconference interactions take

place in a single distance place, which is a conceptually constructed place “there”,

holding all the participants together.

Participants develop specific communication mechanisms (sharing context) and

behaviors (waving and extreme behaviors) to achieve an equality in access between

the two rooms (never achieved) and to recover from the strange situation created by

the duality of the virtual stage (spatial and functional). The feedback that we have in a

face-to-face interaction is much more efficient and reliable than in a video-mediated

setting where one can always doubt that the others have seen one’s gesture. In fact, in

video-mediated settings, one’s behavior is produced not for the others, but for the

image of the others on the screen (Heath and Luff, 1991). Therefore, people tend to

emphasize and exaggerate their behavior to make sure that it has been noticed and

correctly interpreted by the remote participants

Insert table 2

32

Goffman’s analysis of the presentation of self (1959, 1974) focuses on the social roles

played in everyday life and impression management. His analysis also implies at a

micro-level, roles – audience, actors, and directors – similar to those described in this

paper. Technology mediation increases the complexity of interactions at the micro

level, as technology introduces many uncertainties and increases the work to be done

for managing face work.

Moreover, Goffman believes that communication is a constant interaction between

different performers. Nonverbal and paralinguistic cues are essential, as they provide

continuous feedback to the speakers, who, while they speak, can monitor their

discourse and adjust it accordingly (Goffman, 1959). Typically, staging cues used by

stage managers and performers are nonverbal signs (ibid.) The use of video distorts

and restricts the access to these nonverbal and paralinguistic cues and therefore highly

constrains the interactive nature of communication.

One could also argue that from the perspective of social roles, technology mediation

increases the complexity as the definition of roles such as those of students or

instructors are more ambiguous. In fact, this exploratory study shows that new roles,

such as facilitators and hosts – some of which have to be officially acknowledged –

have emerged.

6.2 “Beyond being there”

I believe that some of the frustrations experienced in video-mediated settings can be

explained by the fact that people assume that video-mediated settings reproduce

exactly face-to-face settings. They assume that there is “a natural and perfect state –

being there” (Hollan & Stornetta, 1992) and that when we are not co-located, we are

in an imperfect state, which technology should allow us to reproduce. Clearly, the

33

technology, as it is currently designed, fails to provide an environment where we can

interact as in face-to-face situations.

I observed that people develop specific behaviors to bridge the asymmetries

introduced by the use of video as a medium of communication. These video-mediated

behaviors are more than stopgaps or replacement strategies. These new forms of

interaction may be “the foundation for the emergence of new forms of sociability”

(Heath & Luff, 1991). As a matter of fact, some of the extreme behaviors we observed

are specific video-mediated behaviors that one could, in a way, overlook in a face-to-

face situation. In a similar way, answer machines have created contexts where people

call someone in the hope that this person will not be there, so that they can leave a

message. Nowadays, email is also used in situations where people could interact face-

to-face because sending email is less disruptive for both the sender and the recipient.

Kiesler, Siegel, and McGuire (1984) claim that computer-mediated communication

was dramaturgically weak compared to face-to-face in the sense that it weakens social

influence by the absence of such nonverbal behavior such as taking the head seat,

speaking loudly, staring, touching and gesturing. Video-mediated communication

seems to be dramaturgically stronger, as participants can use some nonverbal

behaviors. However, video greatly constrains the use of these behaviors and induces

many asymmetries that create some sort of dramaturgical weakness. Participants, in

order to reduce the asymmetries created by the virtual stage, use the distance

introduced by the virtual stage to over-perform and produce extreme/ dramaturgical

behaviors.

I agree with Hollan and Stornetta (1992) who argue that the analysis of video-

mediated communication should not take face-to-face communication as the

comparison point, nor try to recreate it, as this is impossible. The strategy that takes

34

face-to-face as a perfect state, and attempts to recreate it, will always fail, as we would

never be able to reach a level of technology where there would be no difference

between people co-located and people at remote sites (Hollan & Stornetta, 1992; see

also, Dourish, Adler, Bellotti & Henderson, 1996). Even if we develop very powerful

communication systems, a question remains: will we “ever be close enough” (ibid.)?

One should try to understand the potential new behaviors that can emerge in video-

mediated environments. Being aware of the differences might help researchers shape

their demands and take advantage of the various types of media that they can use.

Technology cannot be considered as a stand-alone system. People have to develop

specific practices, depending on the specific context in which they are. Thus, we

should understand the affordances of each technology in terms of behavior and

interactions patterns, and keep that in mind while developing new practices, and while

designing new systems.

6.3 Future Work

This study is preliminary and exploratory. I am planning to collect more data –

complementary data from MBA courses and other contexts – in order to develop and

extend the framework of the virtual stage and our understanding of the new ways of

communicating that seem to be developing in video-mediated settings.

Moreover, I believe that the impact of culture of video-mediated behavior is an

interesting and important topic to explore. An important body of research has studied

cross-cultural differences in face-to-face encounters (e.g., Hall, 1959; 1966). Some

research has focused on examining cross-cultural differences in face-to-face and

computer-mediated communication (Tan, Wei, Watson, Clapper & McLean, 1998).

However, no research seems to have examined cross-cultural differences in video-

35

mediated settings. Since research on video-mediated communication is substantially

based on North American and European organizations and subjects, theories arising

from such work may not apply in other cultures. This research takes the Western

model of face-to-face communication as a standard. However, the literature on cross-

cultural (face-to-face) communication shows that the importance and the role of

nonverbal, paralinguistic and social cues vary a great deal from one culture to another

(Hall, 1959, 1966). Hence, eye contact and body language are said to be less important

for communication in Asian cultures (ibid.). How then will the constraints introduced

by video communication – distortion and limitation of verbal, paralinguistic and social

cues – be perceived in these cultures? How will Asians behave in video-mediated

settings? Will they modify their interaction and communication behaviors and how?

References

Abel, M.J., 1990, Experiences in an Exploratory Distributed Organization, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.) Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.

Argylle, M., Lallgee, M., and Cook, M., 1968, The effects of visibility of interactions

in a dyad, Human Relations, 21, 3-17 Blomberg, J., 1987, “Social Interaction and Office Communication: Effects on User’s

Evaluation of New Technologies”. In Technology and the Transformation of White Collar Work. R. Kraut (ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 195-210

Bly, S., Harrison, S., and Irwin, S., 1993, Media spaces: Bringing people together in a video audio and computing environment. Communications of the ACM special issue, 36 (1): 29-47.

Boyle, E., Amdersom, A, & Newlands, A., 1994, The effects of visibility on dialogue performance in a cooperative problem solving task, Language and Speech. 37, 1, 1-20.

Cool, C., Fish, R.S., Kraut R.E., and Lowery, C.M., 1992, Iterative Design of Video Communication Systems, Proceedings of CSCW’92

36

Chapanis, A., 1975, Interactive Human Communication, Scientific American, 232, 3,

36-42 Daft, R.L., and R.H. Lengel (1986), Organizational Information Requirements, Media

Richness and Structural Design, Management Science, 32, 5 May, 554-571 Dourish, P. & Bly, S., 1992, Portholes: Supporting awareness in a distributed work

group. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’92 (Monterey, CA), p 541-547. ACM Press, New York.

Dourish, P., Adler, A., Bellotti, V. and Henderson, A., 1996,Your Place or Mine? Learning from Long-term Use of Audio-Video Communication, Computer Supported Collaborative Work 5, 1, pp. 32-62

Egido, C., 1990, Teleconferencing as a Technology to Support Cooperative Work: Its

Possibilities and Limitations, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.). Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.

Ekman, P. and Friessen, W.V., 1969, The repertoires of Nonverbal Behaviour;

Categories, Origins, Usage and Coding. Semiotica 1, 49-98 Finholt, T., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S., 1990, Communication and Performance in Ad

Hoc Task Groups, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.), Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.

Fish, R., Kraut, R., Root, R. and Rice, R.E.,1993, Video as a technology for informal

communication. Communications of the ACM special issue, 36 (1), 48-61. Gale, S., 1989, Adding audio and video to an office environment. In Proceedings of

the First European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (London, Sept. 13-15), pp. 121-133

Goffman, E., 1959, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor Books Goffman, E., 1967, Interaction ritual, New York, Pantheon Goffman, E., 1974, Frame Analysis, Northeastern University Press Edition 1986. Goffman, E., 1981, Forms of Talk, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,

PA. Hall, E. T., 1959, The Silent Language, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Hall, E.T., 1966, The Hidden Dimension, garden City, NY: Doubleday Heath, C. and Luff, P., 1991, Disembodied Conduct: Communication Through Video

in a Multi-media Office Environment, in Proceedings of CSCW’91 `

37

Hernderson, A. and Henderson, L. “Supporting Distance Collaboration,” Performance Magazine, Fall, 2000

Hollan, J. & Stornetta, S., 1992, Beyond Being There, in Proceedings of CHI’92 Isaacs, E.A., Morris, T., Rodriguez, T.K., and Tang, J.C., 1995, A Comparison of

Face-to-Face and Distributed Presentations, Proceedings of CHI’95 Jordan, B., 1993, “Ethnographic Workplace Studies and Computer Supported

Cooperative Work”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Informatics and Psychology, Dan Shapiro, M. Tauber & R. Traunmüller, eds., Amsterdam: North Holland.

Jordan, B., and Henderson, A., 1995, “Interaction Analysis: Foundations and

Practice.” The Journal of Learning Sciences, 4 (1): 39-103. Karasti, H., 1997b, Bridging the analysis of work practice and system redesign in

cooperative workshops. In van der Veer, G.A., A. Henderson and S. Coles (eds.): Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems Conference: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques (DIS’97), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 18-20, 1997, New York: ACM Press, pp. 185-195

Kendon, A. Studies in the Behaviour of Social Interaction, Peter de Rider Press, Holland, 1977 Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T.W., 1984, Social Psychological Aspects of

Computer-Mediated Communication, 1984, American Psychologist, 39, 10, 1123-1134

Mackay, W.E., 1990, Users and Customizable Software: A Co-Adaptive Phenomenon,

Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Mackay, W. E., 1995, Ethics, lies and videotapes. In Proceedings of Human Factors

in Computing Systems, CHI’95 (Denver, CO), pp. 421-422. ACM Press, New York. Mackay, W.E., 1999, Media Spaces, in Computer-Supported Co-Operative Work,

Michel Beaudoin-Lafon, (ed.), John Wiley & Sons McGrath, J.E., 1990, Time Matters in Groups, in Intellectual Teamwork: Social and

Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, (ed.), Jolene Galagher, Robert. E. Kraut and Carmen Egido, Lawerence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London.

Nardi, B. and O’Day, 1999, Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart,

MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Olson, M.H., and Bly, S., 1991, The Portland experience: A report on a distributed

research group. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34.

38

Olson, J.S., Olson, G.M., and Meader, D.K., 1995, What Mix of Video and Audio is Useful for Small Groups Doing Remote Real-time Design Work?, in Proceedings of CHI’95

Short J., Williams, E., & Christie, B., 1976, The Social psychology of

telecommunications. London; John Wiley & Sons. Strauss, S.G., and McGrath, J.E, 1994, Does the Medium Matter? The Interaction of

Task Type and Technology on Group Performance and Member Reactions? , Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 1, 87-97

Suchman, L., 1987, Plans and Situated Action: The Problem of Human-machine

Communication. New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. Tang,, J. and Rua, M., 1994, Montage: Providing teleproximity for distributed

groups. In Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’94 (Boston, MA), pp. 37-43. ACM Press, New York.

Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K-K, Watson, R.T., Clapper, D.L., McLean, E.R., 1998, Computer-

Mediated Communication and Majority Influence: Assessing the Impact in an Individualistic and a Collectivistic Culture, Management Science, vol. 44, N.9.

Williams, E., 1977, Experimental Comparisons of face-to-face and mediated

communication: A Review, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963-976 Zack, M.H, 1993, Interactivity and Communication Mode Choice in Ongoing

Management Groups, Information Systems Research 4:3

39

Table 1. Definition of the virtual stage The Virtual stage

Physical definition

Functional definition

Frontstage

In Scope: �� In the camera frame �� In the TV monitor frame

“Being frontstage”: �� “Performing”: being

involved in the “public”, “central” discussion

Backstage

Out of scope: �� Out of the camera frame �� Out of the TV monitor

frame

“Being Backstage”: �� Being part of the audience �� Being a stage manager �� Being involved in side

discussions

Table 2. Comparison between theater performance, everyday interactions and video-mediated interactions

Theatrical performance

Everyday interactions

Video-mediated behaviors

Stage:

Spatially defined region: “The special boundaries of the stage sharply and arbitrarily cut off the depicted world from what lies beyond the stage line” (Goffman, 1974)

Mainly a functional definition: being frontstage and being backstage – Acting vs. being part of the audience

Virtual stage: dual definition �� Physical: in scope / out of

scope �� Functional; being

fronstage/being backstage

Roles:

Actors, audience and directors Roles are pre-defined before the performance and don’t change. Usually, directors don’t play a part in the performance they direct. “A theatrical performance …requires a thorough scripting of the spoken content… the performer knows in advance just what he is going to do…”

Actors, audience, and directors Roles are not predefined and they shift from one group to another: performers become actors at one point, and vice versa. Director: “When one examines a team-performance, one often finds that someone is given the right to direct and control the progress of the dramatic action…” (Goffman, 1959). Sometimes, he plays an actual part in the performance he

Actors, audience and stage managers. Actors and audience are not pre-defined roles, and they shift. Stage managers are designated. They are in charge of: �� Checking the technology

and the arrangement of the room

�� Redesigning the arrangement of the room before and during the interaction if necessary.

40

(Goffman, 1959)

directs. There is no script

�� Monitoring the actors’ and audience’s behaviors and asked them to modify it if necessary, e.g., they might ask an actor to get back into the scope of the camera or to speak closer to the microphone; or ask someone in the audience involved in an aside discussion to not speak close to the microphone.

Non-official stage managers – facilitators – should be supported. There is no script

Behaviors

The performance involves both verbal and nonverbal parts. Nonverbal cues are key; they constitute the actors’ “play”. They tend to be exaggerated in order to be perceived by the audience. As the audience has only access to what is happening on the stage, actors tend to give them some extra information on what is happening outside of the stage.

Nonverbal cues and paralinguistic cues are key factors in the communication process. Peripheral awareness: People share the same physical and social context so a lot of the interactions are implicit (e.g., they don’t explicitly acknowledge the arrival of a newcomer). Participants rely on this common background.

Access to nonverbal and paralinguistic cues is limited. Participants are never sure that their behaviors have been noticed or properly interpreted. They tend to use more visible body language such as waving and to exaggerate their behaviors. These video-mediated behaviors can be seen as new ways of interacting. Explicit reference to context to build a shared context.