Tracing Interdisciplinary Design Conversations

An inherent quality of professional and academic work is its interdisciplinary nature. In various work practices such as the ones in architecture, design, or technology design, this quality is related to the involvement of various professions that participate. In these practices, one may see people from different knowledge backgrounds communicating and collaborating to tackle the complexities of large technical projects. In academic research, this quality is associated with various disciplines that engage for knowledge production. Examples are academic collaborations in which we see people from different fields communicating and collaborating to produce a combined body of knowledge.

With the increasing convergence of digital and architectural practices, a common interdisciplinary encounter of today is between architects and tech designers. Tech companies, startups, designers, and entrepreneurs are increasingly interested in homes, offices, infrastructures, and cities; and architecture offices and architects in return are interested in software, sensors, robots, and devices. The mutual interest in each other's work and artifacts start to bring these two figures more often around a table. We see them in conversations, debates, or in collaboration in labs and in projects in the industry.

But, how effective do architects and tech designers communicate? How do they engage through their discourses in a conversation? And what could textual data, and visualization tell us about this engagement that we will not otherwise read from listening to or reading their conversations?

An Interdisciplinary conversation can at times be complicated with different knowledge backgrounds and discourses around a table. It can involve low levels of engagement, and gaps between discourses. It can also be interactive or abridging between different backgrounds and discourses. Understanding the level of engagement, exchanges, and gaps between the disciplinary discourses of architects and tech designers is a crucial first step towards constructing a more meaningful and productive communication between the two domains. Such communication is important in producing distinct perspectives, artifacts, and knowledge that could not stem from a singular disciplinary view.

One of these conversations happened in Venice Biennale in June 2014 between German architect and journalist Niklas Maak, renowned Dutch architect and founder of the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) Rem Koolhaas, and American computer engineer, tech designer and entrepreneur Tony Fadell, who was one of the designers of Apple iPod and iPhone, and founder of Nest Labs, that developed smart thermostats at that time. Triggered by the Nest's programmable and self-learning thermostat, the conversation was an interesting exchange of perspectives on the digitalization of architectural elements.

Role, weight, and contribution in the conversation

Part 1

The conversation has its distinct parts in terms of actor engagement as the actor-time heatmap shows. It starts with a 4.5-min (9:04 to 13:45) and a 3-min (15:17 to 18:22) dialogue between Maak and Fadell.

4.5-min dialogue

3-min dialogue

In these two early engagements, Maak asks questions to make Fadell describe the Nest thermostat and how it works. Fadell explains the distinct features of the device compared to a conventional thermostat which are sensing the inhabitants' heating and cooling patterns, learning from it, adapting to automatically set the temperature for different rooms in different times. With that, the thermostat helps energy saving.

In these parts, Maak also provokes Fadell with questions focusing on the issue of privacy when a home device is able to track the inhabitant's habits in order to learn and adapt. He also questions the idea of a private company —Nest, later acquired by Google— keeping the data and setting the standards of heating and cooling energy consumption to reduce the carbon footprint. Fadell assures the private companies interest in reducing carbon footprint by saving energy in residential heating and cooling. He also assures that the data is only used for the improving the product, and giving users feedback on their energy consumption.

Within the first dialogue, Fadell has more weight in the discourse as the number of words-time bar graph show. But Maak has more contentful contribution with two fifth of his discourse made of content words. Within the second dialogue, Maak has slightly more weight, but the contentful contribution is even with almost two fifth of each actor's discourse being contentful.

Part 2

These two dialogues are followed by a 4-min (18:24 to 22:35), a 4.5-min (23:53 to 28:25), and a 2.5-min (34:12 to 36:25) dialogue between Koolhaas and Fadell.

4-min dialogue

In the first 4-min dialogue, Koolhaas pauses the topic of "privacy" that Maak opened, and continues to question the designer of the thermostat on the persuasive aspect of the technology. He points out that the thermostat implicitly imposes a sense of responsibility on the users, and questions the applicability of the device in other cultures other than the United States. Fadell emphasizes that the device is not necessarily imposing any sense of behavior, but rather informing the users on their energy consumption. He mentions that this aspect is already embraced by people by mentioning that the Nest thermostats are active even in the countries that they are not officially sold. He also describes the adjustments in the product to fit it into the UK market.

4.5-min dialogue

Maak intervenes here to continue on the "persuasive technologies" by giving examples from cars, and insists on questioning Fadell on how he makes sure that the thermostat is not imposing on the self-determination of the users. This starts off the second 4.5-min dialogue between Koolhaas and Fadell. In this dialogue, Koolhaas balances Maak's interrogation by mentioning that it is hard to control how the vision that creates these products are taken and used. Fadell picks on that, and brings the notion of "transparency" as an essential way to ensure ethics in digital technologies. Koolhaas responses to that with the cynicism that exists against "transparency" as a promise. He also differentiates between a smart phone as a standalone mobile device that could be thrown away, and a learning thermostat that is embedded in architecture and not easy to escape from.

2.5-min dialogue

At this point, an exchange between Maak and Koolhaas redirects the conversation into the ways these embedded technologies re-shape social priorities towards comfort, security, and sustainability as well as architecture and cities. This exchange produced another question for Fadell on how technologies will work in forms of inhabitation other than the single-family home, such as the mass housing in large cities in Asia. Fadell re-emphasizes about the importance of data for improving individual decision-making and collective behavior towards a more environmental way. Koolhaas's challenging of Fadell's constant emphasis on improvement and asking for "transgression" —as an inherent human tendency— in his story starts the third 2.5-min dialogue between the two. Fadell responds by stating the necessity of inspecting the designers of feedback algorithms, and transgression as a freedom of choice. He once again clarifies that his motivation is about providing information towards a more conscious resource consumption.

The weights of actors' discourses within these dialogues is changing as one can track in the number of words-time bar graph. Fadell has more weight within the first 4-min dialogue and has slightly more contentful contribution with almost two fifth of his discourse being contentful. Whereas Koolhaas has a slightly more weight within the second 4.5-min and has slightly more contentful contribution with two fifth of his discourse being contentful. Within the third 2.5-min dialogue, it is again Fadell who has slightly more weight and a contentful contribution, with almost two fifth of his discourse as contentful.

Part 3

These three dialogues are followed by a 2.5-min (37:05 to 39:39) dialogue between Maak and Fadell and a 9.5-min (39:39 to 49:00) ending conversation between the three actors.

2.5-min dialogue

In the first 2.5-min dialogue, Maak opens up a conversation around the notion of "discomfort" and points out the hidden merits of discomfort that have also been reflected in literature. He then provokes Fadell to discuss the notion by asking if the Nest Thermostat could be programmed to create discomfort. Fadell responds by stating the possibility and ties the notion to the conflicts on the comfortable temperature between spouses, which he half-jokingly mentions that the Nest thermostat can address.

9.5-min dialogue

The final dialogue opens by Maak directs the question of "discomfort" in architecture to Koolhaas. Koolhaas responds by telling a historical story on two architects: a utopian creating discomfort as a heroic yet failed design experiment, and another resolving discomfort by making handicapped access accepted in the United States. He asks Fadell about his utopia. Tony mentions that he is not technoutopian and asserts once again the role of the technology designer in providing information for a more responsible living. Rem brings about the potential of collaboration between architects and tech designers, not necessarily on the single elements, but increasing "the intelligence of the whole". Tony agrees and appreciates.

The conversation ends by Rem's closing statement on the dilemma between the necessity to be constantly rational within the technological discourse and the merits of the irrational, based on the example of Venice as the beautiful outcome of an irrational decision of building a city on water. He finishes with a subtle critique on technology design not being able to produce "a profoundly creative dimension that could really transform beyond improvement", the dimension that he hopes that the collaboration between architects and tech designers can produce.

The weights of actors' discourses within these dialogues is also changing. Fadell has more weight within the first 2.5-min dialogue and but Maak has a slightly more contentful contribution than Fadell with more than two fifth of his discourse being contentful. Within the closing conversation, Koolhaas has the most weight, but Fadell and Maak has slightly more contentful contributions with almost two fifth of their discourses made of content words.

Actor-time heatmap: (1) Mouseover on white space, (2) scroll to zoom in / out, (3) drag white space to move in the timeline, (4) mouseover on bars to see the information
Number of words-time bar graph: (1) Mouseover on white space, (2) scroll to zoom in / out, (3) drag to move in the timeline, (4) mouseover on bars to see the information

Overall

As the summary of the conversation shows, each part is a dialogue between the tech designer and one of the architects. Because of that, the tech designer Fadell has a continuous participation in the conversation while the architects Maak and Koolhaas almost take turns in engaging with the tech designer. Because he has to continuously participate, Fadell's discourse has the most weight in the overall conversation in terms of the number of words. This is followed by Koolhaas and Maak. Maak has the least weight, but he has the highest percentage of content (content words) in his discourse (41%), followed by Koolhaas (38%) and Fadell (37%).

Overall, 38% of the conversation discourse is contentful. Even though Fadell has the lowest percentage of content in his discourse, the highest contribution to the overall contentful discourse comes from him (40%). This is followed by Koolhaas (33%), and Maak (27%).

Engagement by language style matching

Language style matching is a linguistics concept used in social interaction analysis (Gonzales et.al., 2010; Chung and Pennebaker, 2014). It uses the degree of match between the number of function words in actors' discourses as a factor of engagement in a conversation.

The first three actor-word network graphs reveal the set of function words shared between each pair of actors. The size of the point cloud indicates that Koolhaas and Fadell, aside from having more and longer dialogues through the conversation previously mentioned, also shared more function words across their discourses. These graphs also show each function word as nodes and its frequency of use by each actor links with different thicknesses. The actor-actor network graph displays, even though Koolhaas and Fadell shared more function words, when the frequency of function words considered, they have a slightly lower degree of engagement through their discourses than the other pairs. Whereas, despite having less and shorter dialogues through the conversation, Maak and Fadell had a slightly higher degree of engagement through their discourses.

Actor-word network graphs: (1) Mouseover on links or a node, (2) scroll to zoom in / out, (3) drag from links to move the network
(1) Mouseover on nodes to see the information, (2) drag apart a node to see link details
Actor-actor network graph: Mouseover on nodes to see the information
Level of engagement bar graphs: Click on the bars to see the details

Disciplinary words in the conversation

An analysis of the content words reveal the disciplinary words in the conversation discourse. Certain disciplinary words are specific to technological design domain whereas certain words are to architectural. Certain disciplinary words are inter-disciplinary that are present in both domains, or dual-disciplinary, that may or may not be disciplinary, but have different meanings or connotations in these two domains. These words represent the disciplinary vocabularies used by the two architects and the tech designer in this conversation.

The word tree map displays these vocabularies under three categories as colored clusters —technological as blue, architectural as yellow, and inter / dual-disciplinary as green. The sizes of the colored clusters indicate there are more inter / dual-disciplinary words used than the disciplinary words. To put it differently, an inter / dual-disciplinary discourse has more weight in the conversation compared to a technological or an architectural discourse. Between the disciplinary vocabularies, the technological has more weight than the architectural.

The tree map also shows the frequency of these words under categories, and the more frequently used ones, which may be called the words of importance. Some of these words hint at the primary subjects that the architects and the tech designer discuss around in the conversation. For instance, there are nine words of importance that are the inter / dual-disciplinary and used more than seven times and more. Some of these words are "energy" (19), "control" (11), "discomfort" (9), and "adapt" (7). Within technological design vocabulary, there are thirteen words used more than seven times and more, including "thermostat" (18), "products" (16), "car" (11), "devices" (10), "data" (10), "privacy" (8), and more. This tells us that the technological design vocabulary is even more frequently used than the inter / dual-disciplinary vocabulary. Lastly, architectural vocabulary has seven words that are used seven times and more, some of which are "elements" (19), "home" (14), and "architectural" (7).

Word tree map: Mouseover on cells to see the information

Difference in vocabularies and disciplinary words

Smaller nodes of the three actor-word network graphs represent the words in each actor's vocabulary in this conversation. Even though Fadell's discourse has the most weight in the conversation in terms of the number of words, Koolhaas used the highest number of unique words as the sizes of the "All Words" bars indicate. In other words, he used the richest vocabulary. Maak used the lowest.

When content words are highlighted, the word nodes also show whether they are a non-disciplinary word (in dark-gray), a technological design word (in blue), an architectural word (in yellow), an inter / dual-disciplinary word (in green), or a function word (in light gray). Across the actors, the percentage of content words within all words is almost even as the stack bars display. Koolhaas's vocabulary has a slightly higher percentage (72% + 4% + 3% + 6%) of content words compared to Fadell's (62% + 2% + 9% + 10%) and Maak's (59% + 10% + 7% + 8%). When frequency of words highlighted, the different thicknesses of links, show the frequency of each word in the actor's discourse. Overall, it is the function words that are essentially more frequently used than the content words.

Disciplinary words by the architects and tech designer

Stack bars also show that actors use disciplinary words to different degrees. For Maak, it is one-fourth of his vocabulary that is made of disciplinary words. The highest share within these disciplinary words belongs to architectural words (yellow), as it would be expected from the architect and journalist. Maak also used inter / dual-disciplinary words (green) as the second high, and technological design words (blue) as the third. The disciplinary vocabulary Maak used is pretty evenly distributed. He has a balance between the amount of unique architectural words, technological design words, and inter / dual-disciplinary words he used.

For Fadell, it is more than one-fifth of his vocabulary that is made of disciplinary words. The highest amount of this vocabulary is made of inter / dual-disciplinary words (green). Fadell also used technological design words (blue) as the second high, and architectural words (yellow) as the third. The amount of inter / dual-disciplinary and technological design vocabulary Fadell used are pretty even. On the other hand, he did not use many architectural words.

Koolhaas has the richest vocabulary and a slightly higher percentage of content words in it compared to Maak's and Fadell's. However, only more than 10% of his vocabulary is disciplinary words, which is quite low compared to the other two actors. The highest amount of this vocabulary is made of inter / dual-disciplinary words (green). This is followed by architectural words (yellow) as the second high, and technological design words (blue) as the third. The amount of architectural and technological design vocabulary Koolhaas used are pretty even.

So, the case shows that the architects (by individual) used more technological design vocabulary than the technological designer used architectural. It also shows that there is a good amount of inter / dual-disciplinary words across each actor's vocabulary.

Actor-word network graphs: (1) Mouseover on links or a node, (2) scroll to zoom in / out, (3) drag from links to move the network
(1) Mouseover on nodes to see the information, (2) drag apart a node to see link details

Frequently used disciplinary words by the architects and tech designer

Looking at the frequently used of these words foregrounds subjects that are featured in each actor's discourse and that helped to engage the actors' discourses. Maak, for instance, frequently referred to words such as "technology", "devices", "thermostats", "privacy", "Google" or "cars" from the technological design vocabulary (blue). Whereas Koolhaas referred to "car", "digital", and "transparency". "Technology", "thermostat", and "transparency" are the words that Fadell also used often. However, in addition, Fadell also frequently used words such as "products", "connected", "Nest", or "feedback". In that sense, the frequently used technological design vocabulary that architects used to engage with the tech designer is quite small and mostly made of the fundamental words that are part of the daily discourse. The frequently used words common in all three actors' discourses —"technology", "thermostat", and "transparency"— also point out certain primary subjects that all three actors touched upon in the conversation.

From the architectural vocabulary (yellow), Fadell used "home", "homes", and "elements" (architectural elements). "Home" or "homes" are also often referred by Maak with a different word "houses", and "elements" are often used by both Maak and Koolhaas in the conversation. Essentially, Maak and Koolhaas frequently used more architectural words such as "architecture", "architectural", "architect", "building", "space", or "room". So, similar to architects in using less of the frequently used technological design vocabulary, the tech designer was also quite limited in engaging the frequently used architectural vocabulary, while conversing with the architects. The interesting point is the frequently used word "elements" common in all three actors' discourses also reveals another primary subject that all three actors touched upon in the conversation.

There are inter / dual-disciplinary words not frequently used but still shared by actors. However, except "energy", which is often referred by Fadell and Maak, the inter / dual-disciplinary words that are frequently used (green) are not shared. Koolhaas also used "energy" but not as frequently as the other two. From inter / dual-disciplinary vocabulary (green), Maak also used "history" and "discomfort". Fadell in many instances used "change", "control", "able", "adapt", "learn", "designing", "program", "heating", and "cooling". And Koolhaas frequently used "intelligence", "state", and "generation". So, interdisciplinary words, that has a place in both disciplinary discourses, or dual-disciplinary words, that are not disciplinary but has a different meaning in architectural versus technological design domain, are not frequently shared by the architects and the tech designer. Further, architects compared to the tech designer used less of this vocabulary frequently.

If shared more, these more frequently used disciplinary words could have potentially helped to abridge more the different discourses of the architects and the tech designer. Alternatively, they could have facilitated more instances where the actors could potentially realize these dual meanings and create ways to resolve these meaning conflicts.

Sharing and exchange between different disciplinary discourses

As described, the discourse of each actor is different in terms of the weight of disciplinary words. But each actor uses disciplinary words from the others' vocabularies. So, what is shared or exchanged?

Shared or exchanged

The actor-word network graph reveal the shared or exchanged words. In the network, the size of the word point cloud linked to Fadell and Koolhaas nodes (F∩K) combined with the size of the word point cloud linked to Fadell, Koolhaas, and Maak nodes (F∩K∩M) suggest that Fadell and Koolhaas shared and exchanged more content words (F∩K + F∩K∩M = 174). This is compared to Maak and Koolhaas (M∩K + F∩K∩M = 158), and Maak and Fadell (M∩F + F∩K∩M = 156), which are almost equal. Accordingly, the number of links between Koolhaas and Fadell nodes to (F∩K) point cloud and from the same nodes to (F∩K∩M) point cloud also point out to a stronger discourse engagement based on the number of shared and exchanged words between the architect and the tech designer. This is in comparison to the same groups of links from the nodes of other architect Maak and the tech designer, and to the same groups of links from the nodes of the two architects. These two groups of links in comparison suggest an even engagement.

When the weight of exchanged words highlighted and considered, the network also reveal a stronger engagement between Koolhaas and Fadell (see the links from Koolhaas and Fadell nodes to (F∩K) point cloud and from the same nodes to (F∩K∩M) point cloud), compared to the other architect Maak and the tech designer, and between the two architects (see the same groups of links of these two pairs). The weight of exchanged words highlighted also reveal that the architect Maak and the tech designer Fadell has a stronger connection than the two architects Maak and Koolhaas, even though both pairs shared and exchanged nearly the same amount of content words. If we consider by actor, the tech designer used "the shared and exchanged" words more frequently than the architects, as the links from Fadell node to (M∩F), (F∩K), and (F∩K∩M) point clouds indicate. Between the architects, it is Koolhaas who used them more frequently.

Actor-word network graph: (1) Mouseover on links or a node, (2) scroll to zoom in / out, (3) drag from links to move the network
(1) Mouseover on nodes to see the information, (2) drag apart a node to see link details

Architect 1 — Tech designer

Highlighting the disciplinary and inter / dual-disciplinary words reveal that Fadell and Koolhaas shared and exchanged the least amount of these words (see (F∩K) point cloud and (F∩K∩M) point cloud), even though they shared and exchanged the most content words. In other words, the architect and the tech designer has less of an engagement through disciplinary words. For instance, there is only one technological design word "(data) transparency" and one architectural word "(architectural) element" that actors exclusively exchanged (see (F∩K) point cloud). The architect picked on "transparency" as Fadell brought it into the conversation, and similarly, the tech designer adopted "element".

Instead the architect and the tech designer shared and exchanged more inter / dual-disciplinary words such as "market", "intelligence", or "interface". The interesting point with a dual-disciplinary word such as "interface" is the two different ways the tech designer and the architect uses it. Fadell uses the word to refer to a device to communicate, whereas Koolhaas uses it as a point of meeting.

Architect 2 — Tech designer

Highlighting the disciplinary and inter / dual-disciplinary words also reveal that Fadell and Maak (see (M∩F) point cloud and (F∩K∩M) point cloud) and Maak and Koolhaas (see (M∩K) point cloud and (F∩K∩M) point cloud) shared and exchanged almost the same amount of disciplinary and inter / dual-disciplinary words. Between the architect and the tech designer, and between the two architects, there is more engagement through disciplinary words.

Between Maak and Fadell, this is achieved via more technological words such as "information", "(machine) learning", or "data" as well as inter / dual-disciplinary words such as "footprint", "(energy) save", or "protect" (see (M∩F) point cloud). For instance, the architect has captured "(machine) learning" and uses the computing term accurately in his discourse. The architect and the tech designer were also able to gather around the popular scientific term "footprint". However, as the example of "protect" shows, there is also issues in meeting around the proper use of certain terms. Maak uses the word as in "protect(ing) the use of products" when he is referring to data protection, and Fadell uses it more accurately as "protect(ing) the data".

Similar to the exchange between Koolhaas and Fadell, Maak and Fadell exchange also shows that not many architectural words enter into the tech designer's discourse from this conversation. The only three architectural words that actors exclusively exchanged are "house", "home", and "spaces" (see (M∩F) point cloud).

Architect 1 — Architect 2

Between Maak and Koolhaas, the engagement through disciplinary words is achieved via more architectural words such as "room", "ramp", "floor", or "space" as well as inter / dual-disciplinary words such as "environments" or "state" (see (M∩K) point cloud). Similar to the fact that not many architectural words enter into the tech designer's discourse from his conversations with Maak and with Koolhaas, not many technological words are used within the exchange between the two architects. As previously mentioned, this is not the case when, for instance, Maak was conversing with Fadell, but it is also the case when Koolhaas was conversing with the tech designer.

Architect 1 — Architect 2 — Tech designer

Highlighting the disciplinary and inter / dual-disciplinary words also reveal the shared and exchanged disciplinary words among the three actors. In this conversation, it is inter / dual-disciplinary words such as "energy", "comfort", "utopia", "program", or "control", and technological words such as "device", "privacy", "products" or "car", than architectural words that abridge the architects' and tech designer's discourses (see (F∩K∩M) point cloud). However, as much as these words abridge, they also reveal gaps such as the differences in coding of these words by the two disciplinary figures. For instance, the notion of "privacy" enabled a conversation. But, the way architects code the word is more holistic, and related to the "privacy of space and life" or "individual privacy", whereas the way tech designer codes is more specific, and related to "data privacy", which is a subset within architects' holistic reference. With that kind of difference, the conversation remains as high-level rather than getting streamlined or specific.

Not shared or exchanged as potential

Aside from the shared or exchanged word point clouds, what do the isolated word point clouds (not shared or exchanged words) tell? They show that more disciplinary words that came into the conversation could have been exchanged to abridge the architectural and technological discourses. For instance, Fadell's contribution to the content involves more technological design (blue nodes) and inter / dual-disciplinary words (green nodes), but majority of those words are not exchanged or picked by the other actors as Fadell's isolated point cloud reveals. Similarly, Maak's contribution to the content involves more architectural words (yellow nodes), but majority of those words are not exchanged or picked by the other actors as Maak's isolated point cloud displays.

Connection by discourse?

Finally, the actor-actor network graph set displays the connection between the three actors discourses through the timeline of the conversation. Throughout, there is only a subtle difference between the weight of sharing and exchange between the actors.

When the number of exchanged content words, and frequency of these words considered, Koolhaas and Fadell has a slightly stronger connection by discourse. But that starts to be the case only within the 40th to 48th minute of the conversation. From the 16th to the 40th minute, it is Maak and Fadell whose discourses are more strongly engaged. When number of exchanged disciplinary and inter / dual-disciplinary words, and frequency of these words considered, Maak and Fadell has a stronger connection by discourse. This has been the case from the middle to the end of the conversation.

Actor-actor network graph: (1) Mouseover on nodes to see the information (2) Use the slider to move in the timeline

This tells us that there has been a stronger sharing and exchange between the architects and the tech designer compared to the two architects. However, as discussed based on the actor-word network graph, there are issues in the qualities of that sharing and exchange.

These are asymmetry between architectural and technological vocabulary shared or exchanged, the architects not adopting enough technological vocabulary (e.g. Koolhaas), and the tech designer not adopting enough architectural vocabulary (e.g. Fadell), ratio of shared to not shared or exchanged disciplinary words, and gaps between the architects and the tech designer because of the differences in coding words.

References

Cao, N. and Cui, W. (2016). Introduction to Text Visualization. Springer.

Chung, C. K. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2014). Using Computerized Text Analysis to Track Social Processes. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Oxford University Press, pp.219-230.

Gonzales, A. L., Hancock, J. T. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language Style Matching as a Predictor of Social Dynamics in Small Groups. Communication Research, 37(1), pp.3-19.

Ireland, M. E. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). Language Style Matching in Reading and Writing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, pp.549-571.

Yasuoka, M. (2015). Collaboration Across Professional Boundaries-The Emergence of Interpretation Drift and the Collective Creation of Project Jargon. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 24(4), pp.253-276.

Emek Erdolu, Katherine Giesa, and Meijie Hu
Carnegie Mellon University, 2020