=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-133/paper-3
|storemode=property
|title=Towards the Narrative Approach to Collect Group Knowledge and Context
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-133/CSGC_No02_Santoro.pdf
|volume=Vol-133
|authors=F. Santoro,P. Brézillon
}}
==Towards the Narrative Approach to Collect Group Knowledge and Context==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-133/CSGC_No02_Santoro.pdf
Towards the Narrative Approach to Collect Group
Knowledge and Context
Flávia Maria Santoro1, Patrick Brézillon2
1
School of Applied Informatics, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro
Av. Pasteur, 458, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
flavia.santoro@uniriotec.br
2
LIP 6, Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI
8, rue de Capitain Scott, Paris, France
Patrick.Brezillon@lip6.fr
Key Words. Shared Context, Group Storytelling
Abstract. Reusing knowledge within an organization is still a challenge in the Knowledge
Management area. The context of use is as important as the knowledge itself, since
knowledge cannot be separated from its use in practice. We suggest that the group
storytelling technique supported by a groupware tool can help the elicitation of a shared
context. Our goal is to discuss how a group storytelling tool can help the externalization of
the contextual information behind the scenes of a story told by a group, making it easier to
understand, interpret, and mainly to reuse the knowledge and context intrinsic to it.
1. Introduction
Most part of an organization’s knowledge relies in people’s mind, previous experiences and
background, and offers many challenges to be represented and stored in order to be learned,
reused and applied in similar situations, besides helping on the decision process.
Contributing with eliciting and using knowledge is a communication process among
organization’s members. As a communication process, the transfer of knowledge among
actors can only be effective if there is a common interpretive focus and context where they
can understand each other and communicate.
A professional can not use the knowledge that exists in the organization if he is not able to
understand the context, the environment, and the conditions that surrounded that knowledge
when it was produced and under what conditions it might be reused. Conversely, one can
attempt to reuse incorrectly the knowledge if its context is not conveniently explained. Yet,
knowledge intensive working processes are intrinsically produced by collaborative efforts.
Thus, context plays an important role in collaboration, especially on what is concerned to
facilitate communication, interaction and knowledge sharing (Brézillon 1999).
Providing supporting methods and tools for groups to capture, explicit and understand the
real context of past activities will also help them better understand the situation they could
be facing at moment. This impacts the group productivity, satisfaction, knowledge
management and, finally, learning within the organization. However, extracting contextual
knowledge from teams and making it explicit is not an easy task.
Storytelling has been studied in a number of disciplines, including linguistics,
sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, management science, psychology, education and
artificial intelligence. This technique is commonly used to elicit and communicate
knowledge and also to stimulate learning. Group storytelling has been recently proposed
within the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work field (Perret et al. 2004; Schäfer et al.
2004; Fraser at al. 2003). It is a collective activity of sense-building, with many individuals
contributing with their own recollections and interpretations about shared experiences.
1
In this paper, we argue that group storytelling technique allied with a groupware tool can
help the eliciting and building of a shared context. Our goal is to discuss how a groupware,
specifically a group storytelling tool, can provide support to the externalization of the
contextual information behind the scenes of a story told by a group, making it easier to
understand, interpret and also to reuse the knowledge intrinsic to it.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Section 2 tells the importance of contextual
information for sharing knowledge in group work. Section 3 presents the research about
group storytelling and how it has been applied to elicit knowledge. Section 4 reports
TELLSTORY, a groupware aiming at supporting group storytelling and the way it deals
with context. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper and discusses the next steps.
2. A View on Context in Group Work
In the real world, context is a complex description of the knowledge shared on physical,
social, historical and other circumstances where actions or events happen. All this
knowledge is not a part of the actions to execute or the events that occur, but will constrain
the execution of an action or event interpretation (Brézillon 2003). For the total
understanding of several actions and events, it is necessary to have access to important
contextual information.
2.1. Types of knowledge
At a given step of a task performing or decision making, context is the sum of all the
knowledge possessed by an actor on the whole task. Brézillon and Pomerol (1999)
distinguish between the part of the context, which is relevant for the current focus of
attention, and the part, which is not relevant. The latter part is called external knowledge.
The former is called contextual knowledge because it has strong connections with the
current focus although not directly considered in it.
Contextual knowledge is evoked by situations and events, determined by the actor’s focus.
Always at a given focus, part of the contextual knowledge is proceduralized. This
proceduralized context is a part of the contextual knowledge, which is invoked, organized,
structured and situated according to the focus and used in the task step which is in this
focus.
Context is relative to a focus of attention, indeed, the focus and its context are intertwined.
The focus determines what must be in its context, and the context, on its side, constrains the
focus. For example, when telling an event occurred during the developing of a project in an
organization, a professional might say “we used the method X to build the solution for the
problem Y”. The focus was building the solution for the problem Y applying the method X.
Nevertheless, the context related to that event (not explicated in the sentence) was: one of
team members was a specialist on method X; methods W and Z were tried before but did
not succeeded; and, the supporting tool for method X had been recently bought by the
company. The contextual knowledge, proceduralized at the time the focus arose can now
explain it.
2.2. Sharing context associated with the focus
Context is essential to an effective communication and collaborative interaction. It can be
considered as a shared knowledge space that is explored and exploited by a participant in
the interaction. Contextual knowledge acts as a filter that defines, at a given time, what
2
knowledge pieces must be taken into account (explicit knowledge) from those that are not
necessary or already shared (implicit knowledge).
The proceduralized context contains all the pieces of knowledge that have been discussed
and accepted (or at least made compatible) by all the agents. These pieces of proceduralized
context then become part of the shared contextual knowledge of each agent, even if they do
not remain within the focus of the proceduralized context as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Building shared contextual knowledge
We imagine easily that there can be as many contexts as there are situations in the world.
We argue that in a collaborative interaction where participants aim at sharing knowledge,
they must also share their contexts. That is what Brézillon calls explanation in the context
of the interaction among a user and a system in a decision-making process (Brézillon
2003); and the groupware research area calls awareness(Dourish and Belloti 1992).
People share knowledge and build a collective context while working together in a task or
in a project. We observe that many times the shared context among actors remained tacit,
not registered, and consequently difficult to be explained, understood and communicated.
Eliciting and re-building shared context is not an easy task, being one of the challenges of
Knowledge Management area (Raybourn 2003). We claim that the group storytelling
technique could be used for this purpose.
3. Group Storytelling
A story can be defined as "a narrative of an event chain told or written in prose or verse",
while the word narrative comes from the Latin narrere that means "to pass knowledge"
(Valle et al. 2003). A story “lives by itself”, while the narrative of a story is composed of
all facts explicitly told. Therefore, the narrative of a story is a mechanism of knowledge
transmission and sharing.
3.1. Stories and knowledge
Events illustrate parts of a story and many times can be presented alone. However, a story
is not a just collection of isolated events, instead it embodies many elements, named
context that links these facts transmitting to the listener or reader a meaningful body of
knowledge. We can make a parallel with the definition of data, information and knowledge
used in Computer Science.
Data are symbols perceived by a subject whether already structured either by the perception
device or by the machine which conveys them. From data emerges information which is
3
data with a strong semantic content. Facts can be compared with data and information,
since they identify and register the isolated portions of a subject from a story.
Knowledge is information incorporated in an agent's reasoning and made ready either for
active use within a decision process or for action. It is the output of a learning process.
Thus, the roles of knowledge are to transform data into information, derive new
information from existing ones, and acquire new knowledge pieces. Events are framed by
context including politics, economy, sociology, art and literature, and also, personal
interpretation, background and culture. Just as knowledge, stories draw meanings from their
contextual information (Shen et al. 2002).
3.2. Storytelling: goals and typology
Telling stories is as old as the human being history and has been used as an important
technique of knowledge propagation (Scholes and Kellogg 2003). Organizations, families,
institutions evolve a shared culture and history. Groups can use digital recordings to
communicate stories from generation to generation, help new members to integrate into the
organization and enhance the sense of culture and community within the organization (Shen
et al. 2002). While stories can be considered a nice way to report past experiences, it can
also be an essential part of the organization memory.
Since people like to read and hear stories, the storytelling practice works attractively over
the members of the institution in the organizational memory construction. The stories have
the capacity to build the collective memory of communities, to facilitate the
communication, to accelerate organizational changes, to stimulate the innovation and to
transmit knowledge. Mateas and Sengers (1999) argue that narrative is a fundamental
organizing principle of human experience. It is an old human ability applied to a new
context: knowledge management.
The stories help to humanize the environment, and since the narratives involve emotions,
thus they also provoke the personal commitment and stimulate the externalization (Lelic
2001). Besides, telling a story is also a way to explain things informally, because of the
needs for contextual cues to underline, as for example, to explain how to ride a bike. This is
usually called tacit knowledge.
Thomas and Kellogg (2001) claim that storytelling is useful in creating, capturing,
disseminating and internalizing knowledge and that it accomplishes all of these
simultaneously, not sequentially. According to these authors, “storytelling is also a
representative knowledge socialization process that includes both instrumental and
expressive aspects”. Thus, there are many uses of stories and storytelling in business.
Different types of stories can be identified and classified related to time (past, present or
future), genre (real or fictitious) and number of tellers (mono-teller or multi-teller) issues.
For example, one person alone can tell a fictitious story that happens in the future time, or a
family can tell the story about a real trip they made two months ago. There will be certainly
different styles of speech, depending on the type of the story and on who the teller (s) is.
An individual or a group can tell a story. In the first case, one single person is responsible
for the narrative of the story, although he can use collecting methods to discover or invent
the story facts. In the later case, members of a team, distributed or in the same place,
contribute to create a story, synchronously or asynchronously (Valle et al. 2003), jumping
in with additions, questions, corrections, comments, protests, etc. (Lawrence and Thomas
1999). A negotiation process among the members of the group will generally take place.
4
Providing the context of a claim could help other members to accept the claim and a change
in the collective story, or to reject the claim in an augmented way.
In this research, we are interested in providing support to teams to tell real stories
experienced by them, discussing the facts, expressing their perspectives about the
performance of a collective task done, decisions made, solutions developed according to
some reasoning, and thus, capturing, making explicit and registering a shared context.
3.3. Storytelling: methods and tools
The popularity and the importance of the stories for the individuals have turned the
storytelling a technique studied and applied in many fields and for various purposes such as
education and learning, knowledge management in business, linguistics studies, artificial
intelligence and investigative activities. Methods and techniques have been developed to
support the stories capturing, registering and retrieving.
Researchers on Artificial Intelligence, specifically in Narrative Intelligence (Mateas and
Sengers 1999), develop systems in which a large number of stories are stored and indexed
using complex indexing schemes in order to match input stories with other stories which
are similar in a way that is relevant to the domain. Schank (1999) has built a training
system that contained a database of stories describing how people have handled commonly
occurring problem situations; these stories were triggered by the system when the trainee
faces a similar situation. In intelligent systems, the approach is single human users
interacting and being helped by computing agents to build the stories.
In Education, storytelling has been largely used to foster creativity and develop expression
in diverse languages. Collaborative technologies and interfaces allow apprentices, mainly
children, to collectively build stories sustained by constructivist theories (Guerrero et al.
2003; Staton et al. 2001). For example, in the NICE project (Roussou 2001), an educational
Virtual Reality environment, children could collaboratively plant a garden and construct
stories about their activities. Intelligent agents were conceived to act as mentor, by helping
the students to complete tasks, as well as characters to progress a story. Such methods and
tools are mainly designed for young children.
Most storytelling approaches used in business is based on individual interviews made by a
professional storyteller, who synthesizes the events collected and writes his own
interpretation into a single text (Kleiner and Roth 1997). In this case, the story represents
fractions perceived by each individual and joined in accordance to the viewpoint of the
teller.
Nevertheless, real stories in organizations are generally experienced by teams. In this
context, some authors propose the group storytelling technique (Perret et al. 2004; Schäfer
et al. 2004; Fraser at al. 2003). The group storytelling is a more appropriate method than
the individual storytelling when there are several people involved in the scenario that is
being constructed. The group will build collectively a story about a work performed or a
situation experienced by its members. Since each participant performed a role in the
scenario, stories written by a team will probably contain more valuable details and
everybody has the opportunity to present their viewpoint on what had happened.
A few applications have been proposed to support group storytelling. One example is
presented by Shen et al. (2002). The PDH prototype was designed as a single-display multi-
user piece of furniture containing a circular tabletop display. The story is built through the
construction and layout of hierarchical groupings of documents. The documents are
5
positioned using a polar coordinate system, and users can re-orient individual documents or
rotate the entire display.
All the approaches based on storytelling consider and mention the contextual elements as
fundamental pieces, but none of them are specifically concerned about capturing the shared
context from a group. In the next section, we establish the relationship between the concept
of context and group storytelling.
3.4. Stories and their context
In group storytelling activity, the focus is the purpose of the story told by group. If it is a
real past story, participants should express their memories about the events that were
experienced by all of them. Theses events or facts constitute pieces of knowledge that
should be tied together, making explicit the relationships (e.g. causal or temporal) among
them, to build the body of the story.
According to Meech (1999), narrative and contextualization share many attributes. They
are both active processes, and they may be composed of several different elements.
Narrative is seen as a representation (Story) and the presentation of the story (Discourse).
The discourse essentially becomes the rendering of the story onto some form of media. The
Story, in turn, is divided into Events and Entities. Each of these elements can then be
examined in terms of the contextualization it can provide.
Each event told is embedded by contextual information. The meaning of a sentence (event)
is not determinable in isolation; but requires relating the sentence to sentences around it, to
prior experiences, and to some larger context. In a formal way one transmits the focus in a
de-contextualized way, when in a storytelling, one tries to transmit simultaneously the
focus and its context as a whole.
For example, character is viewed as an important element of storytelling, and the
relationship with believable agents is obvious, as is the context that can be provided using
characters as the embodiment of social cues. In a similar way, “setting the scene” is
synonymous with providing context. Events may be compared with the concept of tasks,
the sequencing, structure and composition of which provide vital contextual information
(Meech 1999). In this way, narrative can be viewed as a conceptual framework for
providing its inter-actors with contextual constraints.
Based on these conclusions, we claim that shared context of a task performed by a group
can be elicited and represented through group storytelling because it helps to identify,
represent and explicit the contextual elements related to the events of the task story in order
to establish the right relationships among them. Another type of context can also be
remarked: the conditions under which the narrative of the story is built. While telling the
story, the participants have their current context that will certainly be reflected and
aggregated to it, making new possible discussions to start and negotiation to be made,
influencing the final product generated.
In the next section, we present Tellstory, a collaborative application that supports the group
storytelling dynamic. We exemplify the issues discussed here and how we begin to capture
and represent context.
4. Making Context Explicit with Tellstory Groupware
6
Previously presented by Perret et al. (2004), Tellstory (TELLSTORY) is a web application,
implemented under the Zope platform (ZOPE) which aims at supporting collaborative
stories building and thus explicit and contextualize knowledge shared by members of
group.
Individuals can participate on a story performing the following roles: moderator- creator of
the story and responsible for the work coordination; teller- members able to contribute with
the story; editor- person that will write the final text; and, commentator- responsible for the
identification of tacit knowledge on the story.
A story is a sequence of events that are tied to each other by a full conductive thread of
meaning, built by a causality relationship between a fact and its successor (Holloway
1979). We used this definition to model the construction of the story in group. Each user
can add the events he remembers. Tellstory interface is depicted in Figure 1.
According to Shen et al. (2002), a story-sharing system must support flexible narrative. The
content must have enough structure so that new members of the group can understand and
re-tell the stories, but not so much structure that people are locked into one way of
describing the relevant events. The possible actions along the construction of the story are:
inclusion, edition, exclusion, union and fragmentation of events. The union happens when
two events can be considered as a single one and the fragmentation divides it in two.
Once the tellers have included the events, they can discuss them within the system, through
adding comments in a forum format, and, eventually, decide certain subjects through a
voting process organized by the moderator. For example, in case there is no consent about
the occurrence of a certain fact, the tool allows the story to have two versions. This
flexibility allows people to express themselves freely.
Story’s abstract Story’s title
Story Events
Sequence of
Events Map
Figure 1 The flow of a story in Tellstory (Perret et al. 2004)
When the group understands that the story already provides enough flow of events, the
moderator can conclude it. At this time, the editor gathers the events and writes a final text
based on the sequence. Finally, the commentator tries to identify the tacit elements.
Group sense-building is a valuable function of storytelling and the system stimulates it
allowing comments and re-telling. Nevertheless, discussions and disagreements will
certainly arise. Thus, the group needs support to express their thoughts and to solve the
7
conflicts in order to produce a real, interesting and useful story. One of the most important
issues is to communicate correctly the contextual information that surrounds the events to
make them clear and understandable for all members of the group.
Tellstory helps users to externalize context in two ways. The first one is informally through
the users’ contributions (events) and the notes they present on others’ contributions
(comments and discussions). The comments may complement information presented or
may generate conflicts. Individual contexts are proceduralized, allowing a shared context to
be built.
We reproduced here extracts from a case study made at a government organization in Brazil
to illustrate this situation. A group of five members (M1 to M5) told the story about the
constitution of the central KM team in that institution. They interacted through the Tellstory
application during one month, reconstructing their shared context not registered yet:
1st Event by M2: In the first meeting of the central team of knowledge management, the Executive
Director, the General Controller and the Secretary of Administration of the institution had been
invited to demonstrate the institutional support and to congratulate the group. Moreover, the
coordinator of the group presented general concepts of KM and the proposal, elaborated by the KM
Committee, describing the plans for the work to be performed.
2nd Event by M1: In December 2002 the second meeting of the central team of knowledge
management was carried out. In this occasion, C.S., the Manager of the Corporative University of
one of the institution’s units, presented his project. In this meeting, the number of participants was
reasonably superior to the previous one.
Comments made about this event in the forum:
M1: Do you have any suggestion for the consequences of this event?
M3: One important outcome was that the participants had been distributed in three thematic groups
(organizational learning, organizational culture and information technology), to start the work of
identifying already existing cases in the institution.
From this point of the story, we can observe that two events were told, related to two
meetings of the group where some other people participated and some deals and decisions
were made. In the first one, the goal was to formalize the group and establish its objective.
M1 explained his Contextual Knowledge (CK) about it: (CK1) Some executives were
present; (CK2) The executives gave credibility to the event.
In the second one, the focus was the speech from C.S. Nevertheless, M1, the member who
told this event could not retrieve one piece of knowledge from his memory. Thus, the
comments that M3 shared with the group helped to identify important contextual
information related to this event: (CK3) Thematic groups were started; (CK4) Thematic
groups should identify KM initiatives within the institution.
We can notice that while the participants tell their memories they also explain the situations
by proceduralizing their contextual knowledge, re-building the shared context of the whole
group.
The second way supported by Tellstory is extracting context apart from the event text
through a Context Framework. The answers for these six questions should provide that
information: who? when? where? what? how? why?. The framework works as a guide for
the tellers, stimulating their memories, helping them to structure their thoughts and expand
their contribution by giving more details about each event told. The framework is
composed by the subjects in Table 1.
8
Table 1 Subjects on the Context Framework
Subject Asks the teller to: Addresses:
Character Detail the personages and their roles on the story “Who?”
Period Write date or period where this event occurred. “When?”
Classification Indicate to what part of this story this event belongs “When?”
Place Describe the place and scenario where this event occurred. “Where?”
Causes Discuss what caused this event “Why?”
Effects Type the consequences of event “What?”
Emotions Describe how your feelings were while this event was “How?”
occurring.
Retaking the example, while describing the events, the tellers also used the Context
Framework proposed to detail and organize the information provided:
1st Event by M2
Place: The event occurred at an ample and comfortable auditorium that belongs to the Strategical
Planning Department. The audience was composed of employees’ representatives from all the units of
the institution (public companies). (M2)
Period: 14.11.2002, from 15:30 to 17:30. (M2)
Causes: As in Decree 21,683, 04.07.02, the representatives of the municipal agencies would have to
participate on specific or general meetings. All of them had been invited by an email posted by the
work Coordinator. (M1)
Consequences: People heard the words of the authorities supporting the initiative, learned the KM
subject and the team proposal. (M3)
Emotions: Most of the audience did not demonstrate in their faces credibility on the proposal. Many
people were confused, not sure of what was happening. Some people had questioned the work success
possibilities in face of the complexity and the institution cultural characteristics. However few other
people demonstrated excitement with the perspectives of sharing among institution’s agencies. (M1)
Classification: Exposition (M1)
Adding such information based on the framework, allowed the group to increase even more
their collective knowledge about the event and their relationships. M1, M2 and M3
revealed to the group new contextual knowledge that helped to explain how and why things
took place at that time: (CK5) There is a decree that compels the employees of the
institution to participate in such meetings; (CK6) The Coordinator invited people by e-mail.
As the result or Proceduralized Context (PC), they agreed with the fact that: (PC1) People
were not receptive to the proposal at first moment.
The attempt to extract contextual information apart from the story makes possible
formalizing context. If we interpret the pieces of knowledge provided, it would be possible
to write the following statement:
If (CK3) and (CK5) and (CK6) and (CK1) and (CK2) then the Event 1 took place
(focus) and resulted in (PC1).
We observed that after the interaction, the group has registered much of the knowledge
about the work they performed together. It was very natural for them to formalize the
events and contextual information that surrounded them through storytelling. The next step
is to organize the context elicited to reuse in similar situations.
5. Conclusions and Future Work
We believe that the stories, narratives with beginning, middle and end, are an appropriate
way of telling what happened and, at the same time, can externalize the tacit knowledge of
the group. Therefore, we developed TellStory, a groupware that supports collaborative
9
story building. The tool allows a group to tell a story, starting from the contributions of
each member. Even the contributions they are introduced in a disordered way, the
environment determines roles that guarantee the coordination and the organization of the
events, discussing and, if necessary, voting to decide which direction will be taken.
Due to the characteristics of this process, we claim that this is a useful way to capture and
explicit the context shared by a group while performing a task or a project in an
organization. Some case studies have been done with Tellstory showing the viability of this
proposal (Perret 2004). Nevertheless, there are some issues that still need to be discussed
and implemented as future works.
Narrative is a structure for conveying a series of related events. We observed that the story
may omit details, but important agents, events, causes and results are relayed. A narrative
of a task or project describes its history and evolution over time. It may not be as complete
as, for instance, videotapes of the entire design process, but it does communicate compactly
and effectively how a project came into being. By relating the project changes, problems
faced and decisions made over time, a narrative can help make explicit some of the implicit
knowledge the participants used to understand and implement the interventions, in other
word, the whole context built. Thus, one might infer whether the results were applicable
elsewhere.
The template provided by Tellstory is one initial attempt to solve the context
externalization problem. The information captured needs also to be structured in order to be
used. The need for capturing context is related to direct actions according to constrains and
restrictions. Therefore it is necessary to associate them. Now we begin to study how to
provide a more formal structure for the pieces of knowledge captured.
Another issue that should be deeply discussed and developed is the identification of the
appropriate roles and what their contribution in terms of contextual elements in the
collective context linked to the focus could be. Appropriate interventions made by
individuals with specific assigned roles may result in a story even more rich in details. In
the current version, Tellstory provide some basic roles. We believe that they could be
increased.
Because stories occur under a cultural and historical context, facilities to bring out
background and contextual information could be provided, e.g. relevant news clippings, to
assist the user to interactively reflect on and share past experiences of the group. This could
help participants to remember important facts, including personal ones, which might
probably have affected the story. The current version allows users to upload documents
associated to the story.
Besides working on functionality for the Tellstory application, other case studies should be
made in order to confirm the results obtained and raise new ideas to improve the shared
context eliciting approach.
10
References
Brézillon, P. (1999). “Context in problem solving: A survey”. The Knowledge Engineering
Review, vol. 14, n°1, pp. 1-34.
Brézillon, P. (2003). “Individual and team contexts in a design process”, Proc. 36th Hawaii
Int.Conf. on Systems Sciences. HICSS-36, Track “Emerging Technologies”, R.H.Sprague
(Ed.), Los Alamitos: IEEE.
Brézillon, P., Pomerol, J-Ch. (1999). “Contextual knowledge sharing and cooperation in
intelligent assistant systems”, Le Travail Humain 62 (3), PUF, Paris, pp. 223-246.
Dourish, P.E., Bellotti, V. (1992). “Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces”,
Proceedings of the CSCW’92, ACM Press, Toronto, Canada, pp. 107-114.
Fraser, M., Stanton, D., Ng, M., Benford, S. D., O'Malley, C., Bowers, J., Taxn, G., Ferris,
K., Hindmarsh, J. (2003). “Assembling History: Achieving Coherent Experiences with
Diverse Technologies”. Proceedings of ECSCW 2003 Helsinki, Finland, Kluwer.
Holloway, J. (1979) “Narrative and structure: exploratory essays”. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
Kleiner, A. and Roth, G. (1997) “How to Make Experience Your Company's Best
Teacher”. In: Knowledge Management. Harvard Business Review 75, n5.
Guerrero, L. A., Mejías, B., Collazos, C., Pino, J., Ochoa, S. (2003) “Collaborative
Learning and Creative Writing”. Proceedings of the First Latin American World Wide Web
Conference, IEEE CS Press, Santiago, Chile 180-186.
Lawrence, D., Thomas, J. (1999) “Social Dynamics of Storytelling: Implications for Story-
Based Design”. AAAI workshop on Narrative Intelligence, N. Falmouth, USA.
Lelic, S. (2001) “Fuel Your Imagination - KM and the Art of Storytelling”. Knowledge
Management.
Mateas, M., Sengers, P. (1999) “Report from the 1999 Fall American Association for
Artificial Intelligence Narrative Intelligence Symposium”. USA.
Meech, J.F. (1999) “Narrative Theories as Contextual Constrains for Agent Interaction”. In:
Fall American Association for AI Narrative Intelligence Symposium, USA.
Perret, R., Borges, M.R.S., Santoro, F.M. (2004) “Applying Group Storytelling in
Knowledge Management”. Proceedings of International Workshop on Groupware, Costa
Rica, LNCS, Germany, Springer-Verlag.
Perret, R. (2004); “The Group Storytelling Technique Applied to Knowledge
Management”. Master Dissertation, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (in
Portuguese).
Raybourn, E.M., Kings, N.J. & Davies, J. (2003). "Adding Cultural Signposts in Adaptive
Community-Based Environments". Interacting with Computers: the interdisciplinary
journal of human-computer interaction. Special Issue on Intelligent Community-based
Systems, Elsevier Science Ltd. 15/1 pp. 91-107.
11
Roussou, M. (2001) “The Interplay between Form, Story and History: The Use of Narrative
in Cultural and Educational VR”. In O. Balet, G. Subsol, and P.Torguet (Eds.),
International Conference on Virtual Storytelling 2001, LNCS 2197, Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 181-190.
Schäfer, L., Valle, C., Prinz, W. (2003) “Group Storytelling for Team Awareness and
Entertainment”. Proceeding of ACM NordCHI, Tampere, Finland.
Schank, R. (1997) “Virtual Learning: A Revolutionary Approach to Building a Highly
Skilled Workforce”. McGraw-Hill.
Shen, C., Lesh, N.B., Vernier, F., Forlines, C., Frost, J. (2002) “Sharing and Building
Digital Group Histories”. Proceedings of ACM CSCW’2002, USA.
Scholes, R. e Kellogg, R.: The Nature of Narrative. Oxford University, New York (2003).
Stanton, D., Bayon, V., Neale, H., Ghali, H., Benford, S., Cobb, S., Ingram, R., O’Malley,
C., Wilson J., Pridmore, T. (2001) “Classroom Collaboration in the Design of Tangible
Interfaces for Storytelling”. Proceedings of the Computer Human Interaction Conference.
TELLSTORY: http://chord.nce.ufrj.br:8080/tellstoryen
Thomas, J.C., Kellogg, W.A., Erickson, T. (2001) “The Knowledge Management Puzzle:
Human and Social Factors in Knowledge Management”. IBM Systems Journal, v.40, N4.
Valle, C., Raybourn, E.M., Prinz, W., Borges, M.R.S. (2003) “Group Storytelling to
Support Tacit Knowledge Externalization”. Proc. of the 10th International Conference on
HCI. Greece .
Zope.org: http://www.zope.org.
12