WRA 453WRA 453Grant & Grant & Proposal WritingProposal Writing

Fall 2005Fall 2005

Bill Hart-DavidsonBill Hart-Davidson

hartdav2@msu.eduhartdav2@msu.edu

Session 14: Proposing as a social act; PIP, or proposal microstructure

Communication Event Models

Proposing activitycan be seen astransactional, intersubjective exchange of information, thoughts, and speech among participants. Chains of communicative events.

One approach:

Visualize the chains

10/25/01 – 10/26/01

E

P E E E

E

f2f

E

E

f2f

E P

Template for target document

First draft of target document E11/07/01 –

11/08/01

E f2f E

P

E

E f2f E

P

Final draft sent

12/20/01 – 1/29/02

2/01/02

2/20/02

How: Units used to construct visualizations are communication events, taken from diaries

Why: Distributed processes of work can be presented in intelligible ways to foster both formal inquiry (e.g. research) and informal reasoning about practice

…for example…

How & Why do we build them?

E-mailE-mail IMIMf2f/f2f/

phonephone OtherOther TotalTotal

Local Local teamteam 2727 00 1010 11 3838

Distance Distance teamteam 5757 55 22 00 6464

CEMs for Two Student Teams

These teams were writing a proposal for a new technical product. Their task was to show that their design was state-of-the-art.

ph

f2ff2ff2ff2ff2f

f2f

f2ff2ff2f

ph

ph

ph

The distance team was working with people out of the loop early on…what if they had known here?

Sort = CoordinationNew horizontal line for each event that did not include all team members

P E E E

E

f2f

E

E

E

E f2f E

Paradigmatic Dimension

E

f2f

E

E

E

E f2f E

P E E

E

E

E

E

E f2f E

Pf2f

Paradigmatic

How do proposals get started at SpaceCo?

Syntagmatic

How does a project that begins with a “strategy meeting” proceed?

Syn

tag

mat

ic D

imen

sio

n

CAUTION

The diagrams here and on the next slide are mocked up, not models of real data

Going deeper…

E

P E E E

E

f2f

E

E

f2f

E P

E

E f2f E

P

E

E f2f E

P

Each is a site of mediated activity too

Event Description: E-mail to JP, DD, & JG; also used CIWC 2004 APP&R report, CIWC 2004Fall activity report, ICTC draft 2005 APP&R report, LCT spreadsheets, DS’s Writing Centerrecommendations/requests submitted in Fall reporting processGoal of Event: Acknowledge writing task, float a plan for framing the recommendationsDate: 2/9/2005Start Time: 5:35 p.m.End Time: approx 6:30 p.m.Location: Mother-in-law’s house, dining roomReading or Writing?: Both, but writing was focalRelated to Project (Y/N)?: YIf so, how?: I framed a plan – not quite an outline – for the report to make sure that I was on theright track before I drafted a full versionTechnology Used: iBook G4; Netscape mail client for writing; MSWord, MSExcel, AdobeAcrobat for viewing filesParticipants: Me, various authors of the other documents scaffolding my planning processSummary: I was watching Lily, so I worked downstairs on this preliminary plan for the report thatit was now clear I would need to draft on 2/10 so that I could circulate it for comments by thecommittee over the weekend. I downloaded/gathered all the documents I needed to draw on forprecedent, and put them in a new folder on my laptop desktop called CIWC. My time was limitedto about an hour for this, because the dining room table was going to be used for dinner!

E-mail

CIWC ‘04report

CIWC Fall report

WC request

ICTC ‘05report

LCT Spreadsheet

Studying Proposing Activity, sources

Prior, P., & Shipka,J. (2002).“Chronotopic laminations: Prior, P., & Shipka,J. (2002).“Chronotopic laminations: Tracing the contours of literate activity.” In Bazerman, Tracing the contours of literate activity.” In Bazerman, C. & Russel, D. C. & Russel, D. Writing selves/writing societies: Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectivesResearch from activity perspectives..http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/http://wac.colostate.edu/books/selves_societies/index.cfm index.cfm

Faigley, L. (1986). “Nonacademic writing: The social Faigley, L. (1986). “Nonacademic writing: The social perspective.” In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.) perspective.” In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.) Writing Writing in nonacademic settingsin nonacademic settings. .

Gunnarson, B.L. (1997) “The Writing process from a Gunnarson, B.L. (1997) “The Writing process from a sociolinguistic viewpoint.” sociolinguistic viewpoint.” Written CommunicationWritten Communication 14.2.14.2.

Dourish, P. (2001). “Process descriptions as Dourish, P. (2001). “Process descriptions as organizational accounting devices: The dual-use of organizational accounting devices: The dual-use of workflow technologies.” workflow technologies.” SIGGROUP ’01SIGGROUP ’01. ACM.. ACM.

Suchman, Lucy. (1984). Suchman, Lucy. (1984). Plans & situated actions: The Plans & situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge UP.Cambridge UP.

PIP : A fractal PIP : A fractal organization scheme for organization scheme for

proposingproposing

Persuade

Inform

Persuade

Try it: proposing an Try it: proposing an activityactivity

Persuade

Inform

Persuade

To ensure that our visualizations are usable, we will invite two expert reviewers from the field of information visualization to comment and give feedback on the design. Paul Dourish & Barbara Mirel are two leading researchers in the areas of information visualizationa and computer-supported cooperative work. Both have agreed to support this project by serving as reviewers. We believe that with the help of Mirel & Dourish, our visualization tool can be integrated into the work practice of proposal writers who have not previously used self-analytic tools to improve their performance.

Scaled up: PIP for methods slot Scaled up: PIP for methods slot

Persuade

Inform

Persuade

Line of Argument: Here is a methodological approach that has been shown to be sound in these previous studies/projects.

Line of Argument: We are using the methodological approach, adapting for our specific project in these ways.

Line of Argument: Based on our pilot study and previous published work, here are the positive outcomes we expect that match with the goals stated in the RFP. (e.g. replicability, validity, etc.)

Scaled down: PIP elevator speechScaled down: PIP elevator speech

Persuade

Inform

Persuade

Some colleagues of mine and I are working on a way to improve proposal writing success by visualizing the proposing process.

We depict proposing process as chains of communication events rather than tasks.

Task-based visualizations are not detailed enough, we find, because knowledge work tasks are themselves made up of communication events - sometimes many of them!

Your PIP practiceYour PIP practice

Persuade

Inform

Persuade

Draft an elevator speech for your P2 project using the PIP structure. Post it to your project page

Using the PIP structure can be a helpful, ready-to-hand strategy for all parts of the proposing process. Try it for yourself!

Not only will this earn you credit for an in class exercise when you post it to your project page, you might also find yourself using it for real when talking to someone about project 2!

Next Time: Guest Next Time: Guest Speaker!Speaker!

Martine Rife, RA for the WIDE research center, will discuss her recent proposing work. Her presentation will serve as an excellent example of the reflective approach I am encouraging you to take with Project 2.