I just posted this comment on Danah's blog post, reposting here in case the conversation continues....

I heard a joke once: Multitasking is like sex -- people are not as good at it as they think they are.

I think a backchannel is great for a conference presentation type of situation. It enables a conversation where the physical layout discourages or prevents one. But count me as old school when it comes to business meetings or conference calls. I consider meetings and calls to be situations where I have to pay attention closely, and I expect others to do the same. (And if it doesn't require that, then maybe that meeting is unnecessary.) If you're replying to someone's backchannel comment, you're missing the point I or someone else is making in the actual meeting.

I see people backchanneling every day ... on the road, where they are weaving all over, almost colliding with other cars, you know the deal. We had a train conductor engineer backchanneling in LA -- that worked out well, yeah.

It's about context. Sometimes, sometimes, really paying attention to the physical world pays off.

Laura Scott, BlogHer Contributing Editor, Tech/Web
design, snap, blog, tweet

Just tweeted my three problems with backchannel at conferences:

1. My earliest experiences with this was at tech conferences where the predominantly male audience would regularly use backchannel to provide running commentary on appearance of female speakers or attendees. Things haven't changed much, since p0rn in tech presentations is now apparently "cool", and we're humorless if we don't like it.

2. The other common use would be for people to anonymously make snarky comments about content, saying stuff they would never have the guts to just get up and share, or even blog publicly about.

3. Finally, I personally cannot stand a twitter or IRC stream being displayed behind speakers while a panel is going on. I find it incredibly visually distracting. I lose the thread of what is being said ((the auditory thread) while I'm reading. And half the stream isn't actually that interesting or contributory, but we feel compelled to read it anyway...because it must be there for a reason, right?

Individual, opt-in backchanneling? Googling concepts being discussed? Live tweeting interesting points etc. etc. All good in my book. Have never seen a really productive Crowd backchannel, and I don't want to be force to watch one.

#AndGetOffMyLawnYouRascallyKids!

Elisa Camahort Page
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.com

My BlogHer profile truly shows you everything I do online...Check it out!!

I had never heard the term backchanneling until I read this post.  Call me tech illiterate I guess.  But I understand the concept and I think context is very important.

When attending a lecture, taking notes is not considered bad form.  Backchannelling as you describe where you are taking down quotes, checking relevant blogs while they are on your mind, etc. seems completely appropriate.

However, the point missed is how distracting to others this can be as mentioned above.

In a venue such as a conference call where you are expected to interact and follow the conversation, backchanneling seems rude to me honestly.  Especially when people cannot tell the difference between your text about the speaker vs. your text of a snarky comment.  Perception is everything and it can be highly distracting to others.  

I too would find a stream of tweets projected behind panelists very distracting.  While those tweets may allow for additional connections and conversation, something is being lost and that should be acknowledged.  For those who merely want to listen (there are some of us), this can really detract from what they get from the panel.

My perception is that many people believe they no longer can or should have to simply sit and listen.  They must be part of the experience.  I also believe that many people over-value what they have to say and feel it must be shared and now it can so that really releveant content can get watered-down.  Call me arrogant if you must but sometimes not everyone needs to be part of the conversation every time.

The idea itself is not a bad one.  But the implication that it's anti-computer to NOT allow it or want is bothersome to me.

But that may be because where I am, there is still very little twitter and other social media being used.  Its pretty much face book and that's it.

I once attended a presentation where a marketing expert told us about the new generation of 14 - 20 year olds who could multi task in a way we could not - proof being that they preferred being on mixit, texting and surfing the net while simultaneously watching TV.  And possibly paging through a magazine or three.

Sure they might prefer it, but how much of any of these channels are they absorbing?

Maybe the brains of kids who grow up multitasking in this way are wired differently? I'm not convinced. 

This could be a generation thing and I am simply out of touch...but when I am teaching, or doing a presentation, I expect people to pay total attention to me alone.   If its not important enough for you to remember afterwards, or to speak up and tell me, it was probably not important enough to tell anyone else, anyway.  And remembering is skill you can acquire - one of the most crucial skills, in fact.  

Its not entirely rational of me - because why should I accept note taking with pen and paper, and not another medium?  Even if it is a medium that implies interaction with other people than the speaker?

Sorry I'm being really grumpy.

Context really is the key to making the backchannel efficient and not a distraction.  After 3 years of working virtually on teams I can tell you that constant back channeling became a real problem that cost time and money.   During online meetings and conference calls, the leaders of our firm were constantly sending IMs and email using smart phones.  Quantifying the loss is hard but I know it cost us so very, very much in lost time and understanding which translates to lost money and soured relationships. Once you realized they were not listening, it becomes insulting and demoralizing.  While they felt they were actively listening and efficiently multi-tasking, in truth they missed a lot of signifiant discussion and as a result decisions were delayed, issues magnified due to delayed preventive actions and more meetings were required to discuss the previous meetings.  

There are web-based tools we can use to host panel discussions where people can submit questions to presentors and panelists.  This enables easy give and take provided you have a facilitator or panelists to assist.   It also enables those in remote locations to easily participate. Even with these benefits, I am concerned about the "anti-social" nature of these tools and would hope they are used in a professional fashion for "registered attendees" with real identities. The possible anonymity and the unwillingness of people to take responsibility for their attitudes and comments is disconcerting.  It's so easy to be anonymous, cruel and down right inappropriate that we need to develop some "netiquette" surrounding the backchannel just like other social networking tools. 

Lynn PO

Blogging about helping elderly parents and assisted living at http://help-4-mom.blogspot.com

"It's so easy to be anonymous, cruel and down right inappropriate that we need to develop some "netiquette" surrounding the backchannel just like other social networking tools."

That makes a lot of sense!

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer CE
Web Teacher
First 50 Words

Awesome post.  I think all of the thingss posted, and don't yet know how I feel about backchanneling.  That's what I love about emerging technologies!

At SXSW the backchannel was HUGE is helping develop a GLBTQ community within that big scene.  I think subcultures have always used a form of backchannel to find a channel where their needs/POV are finally the majority.  Yet Elisa's point about how backchannels can hurt a minority are interesting counterpoints to that idea.

I personally love having several going at the same time--it's engagement squared or cubed.  I also love shutting it off and giving full focus.  It is hard to get used to as a speaker, that's for certain. 

 Deb
www.debontherocks.com blog
www.3smartgirlz.com consulting

Perhaps conference leaders should start giving listening grades. I wonder if the backchannel people would pass. I attended a social media for nonprofits class. Even though the people doing the conference loved computers and social media, they asked people not to use their computers and Blackberries during the talks, and that was before Twitter became the rage, which was only a year ago.  

I also learned of a study a few months back that showed multi-tasking is a myth. In reality people who appear to multi-task are just switching from one thing to the next quickly. Our brains do tune out what we're not focused on for seconds at a time. So people think they're getting in everything, but they're not. 

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE & you can find her other stuff through Her 411.

We always wanted a balance between:

- the interaction that we all, as bloggers, expect in our conversations.

- serving the "education" and "exposure" prongs of our Mission by giving lots of opportunities for women who blog to officially and publicly share their expertise.

Elisa Camahort Page
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.com

My BlogHer profile truly shows you everything I do online...Check it out!!

of the SXSW session announcing the InterAct Curriculum, so that during the actual session I could tweet them at appropriate times. I made sure I covered all the important points, checked my spelling and character counts before hand, and used the right hashtag to get the tweets in front of the right eyes. Even though I wasn't on the panel talking about the curriculum, I still was able to do something I thought was valuable to spread the word about it during the session.

Of course, I couldn't write tweets in advance if I hadn't known what the panel would talk about. But if you hear a speaker say something important or impressive at a conference, why not share it?

Virginia DeBolt
BlogHer CE
Web Teacher
First 50 Words

My initial response was born out a intense irritation after reading the post linked to - and I am unsure what caused such a  level of grumpiness - that usually indicates I'm feeling defensive about something.  Initially I thought it was that I might be perceived as out of touch old lady - I'm 37 :) - but actually, I dont think that was it.

I think this was it.  The phrase "the sage on the stage".

Now I ask myself - why do people attend a talk by a live speaker.  This might be

• the speaker is really famous and simply seeing them is enough, doesn't really matter what they say
• you want to hear what they say
• you want to  ask questions.

The last two could presumably be covered by reading a blog post or similar.  And the first doesnt quite cover it either.  There must be more that people get out of a live talk, particularly, as Elisa pointed out, most speakers (or convention organisers) dont leave time for questions.

Most of the people we go to see, we pretty much already know what they are about or we could easily find out.  And reading an article would probably be a much better way to just "get the information" - and you could google and chat to your hearts content.

So I am left with this:

There is something unique about a live speaker - a rapport between speaker and audience that goes beyond the ability to have an actual two way conversation.  Put it another way.  What is the absolute worst speaker you have ever experienced?  I would bet that this person basically just read their talk, or rattled it off without any consideration for the audience.

Now to speak about myself:

When I put a talk together, I structure it very carefully, introducing concepts in a particular order, touching on ideas, building one concept on another.  I am super aware of my audience, often throwing it open for people to give me input.  And even when I dont do that, I keep "bending" the talk to suit what I perceive to be the audiences response.  They are getting bored with this bit...better move on to the next bit...etc.

There is no sage on stage.  And while I think a certain amount of activity with technology would be acceptable, it detracts from this relationship.  It sucks the power out of the very special nature of a live speaker and a live audience. 

To contradict my earlier point - I no longer think its so important whether the audience necessarily remembers stuff.   But I think its crucial that they are "present" and participating - there is nothing passive about listening!

The point about learning styles is very apt.  But - learning styles are a beginning point, a tendency.  Not a limit set in stone.

I feel very passionate about this  because it touches on some aspects of the impact of technology on life that interests me very much:

• Wanting to record everything instead of experiencing it at the moment it happens.  The act of recording gets in the way.  Recording for its own sake.
• Wanting to capture an experience for everyone to share.  While this is obviously laudable - it is problematic if it impacts on the experience itself for those who are there.
• Forcing humans to bend around the inadequacies of technology.  The devices often  interfere with our ability to connect with one another instead of  enhancing it.

I love the way technology sets us free and connects us, helps us share, all those good things.  But if it becomes a god in its own right (" So I am bothering you with my phone? You are so behind the times, get with it") there is a problem. 

I think better when typing. Or fidgeting. Or moving in general. I do not process well just listening.

~TW
Retro-Food