Collaborative Writing Research @ CMU
Young people are facing a mental health crisis. Finding support is more important now than ever before.
My team explored the use of distancing and different collaborative writing mechanisms to help young people work through difficult problems they may be facing.
Context
What is distancing?
Psychological distancing uses fiction to allow users to engage in tough topics indirectly. It is commonly deployed in media like video games and stories to explore difficult subjects in a safe way.
My team researched whether distancing can be used to help people work through problems by writing about them through the lens of a fictional narrative and receiving advice through that same narrative. For example, if I was struggling with feelings of inadequacy, I could write a story where a fictional character doesn't feel good enough. Then, a collaborator can add to the story, helping me work through my own feelings of inadequacy through the lens of fictional characters.
We conducted pilot tests of collaborative writing between an anonymous Author and Collaborator to gather data and validate the process. The Author picked a fictional world, such as Harry Potter, and a problem to work through. They started the story and introduced the problem, while the Collaborator finished the story and incorporated advice into the narrative
Insight 01
The problems Authors were facing weren't explicit enough to the Collaborators
Insight 02
Collaborators often took the story in a direction that wasn't helpful or validating to the Author
Area of Opportunity
Provide stronger framework for stories and allow the Author and Collaborator to communicate
Authors would still begin the story, but before the Collaborator writes their portion, 3 options on how the story should continue would be provided, similar to a "choose your own adventure" formula. The Authors were also instructed to directly tell the Collaborator the problem they wrote about.
Authors would write their part of the story. Then, the Collaborator reads the story and gives three broad choices to the Author, who picks one for the Collaborator to write
The Author writes their part of the story. Then, they give three broad choices to the Collaborator, who picks one for themselves to follow as they write
Insight 03
Participants reported the choice methodology as too rigid of a framework, limiting creativity and the ability to give proper advice
Insight 04
The creator of the choices often felt let down if the other participant didn't pick their "preferred" choice
Insight 05
More communication was strongly desired
Participants wrote brief sections meant for multiple quick hand-offs. We were testing if shorter, frequent interactions and communication would be a more organic alternative to the choice structure
Insight 06
Time constraints and hand-off deadlines negatively impacted participation
Insight 07
Free communication, instead of communicating at hand-off points, is more beneficial
Putting it all together
Recommendation
Our research found that Authors did find the collaborative writing process helpful in reflection interviews. However, providing too rigid of a framework may not bring value to the collaboration. Instead, give them the ability to communicate freely with one another, as most participants had a strong desire to communicate more frequently throughout the writing process. Communication will negate the need for inflexible instructions or timelines.
What I learned
Reflection
A major concern of mine was accidentally causing harm through our research. To negate this, we instructed participants to focus on problems they were comfortable sharing and working through with another writer.
Sometimes research is figuring out what works through the process of elimination. Even though our new methodologies weren't as successful as I'd hoped, they gave us valuable data. Collaboration shouldn't be forced, it should flow naturally with the help of open communication.
