So does polychronicity scale? Or is it a nested phenomenon whereby someone might be monochronic within hour- long intervals but polychronic when the frame enlarges to a month? And if so, what might be the consequences of different nesting combinations?
3rd wave: Does polychronicity scale over time periods larger than a daily work setting? Does it change depending upon the temporal trajectory, rhythm, or horizon?
In alignmentwith Reddy and Dourish’s concept of temporal trajectory [45], spectral time suggests that temporal experience is more than a grid of accountable blocks; multiple temporalities create flowsthat often defy both logical renderingand seamless manipulation
Spectral time is linked to Reddy's idea of temporal trajectory.
The amount of time we are willing to devote to the various relations in which we are involved and organizations to which we belong clearly reflects the level of our commit- ment to each of them
Could this account for how/why SBTF volunteers use personally situated time references to signal how long they can be available/devote to an activation?
Is this a semiotic version of Reddy's temporal trajectory?
Motive expressed through "duration" seems to be fairly well determined for Wikipedia editors, per Kittur/Kraut/Resnick chapters. I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to SBTF.
Timing as a
Could the multiple temporalities that symbolize importance account for a source of tension between always online volunteers and those who show up for random periods of time?
Deployments have fixed time periods for data collection but no scheduling mechanisms for volunteers. Does this create a source of friction when there is no mechanism to signal social intent or meaning?
How does this problem get reflected in Reddy's TRH model or Mazmanian's porous time idea?
How can you manage social coordination of rhythms/horizons when there is no signal to convey intent/commitment?
What part of the SBTF social coordination is spectral, mosaic, rhythmic and/or obligated? And when is it not?
4.3.3 TimeBotsWhile the Printer Clock focused on emphasising the embodied and situated nature of time, pointing to the mesh of activities and characters that come together to create time, the TimeBots drew attention to personal rhythms and how they played out within the context of the classroom. The aim was to challenge the idea that the world is in a state of constant acceleration by inviting children to reflect on the multiple speeds of their day. In contrast to the slow movement, which assumes acceleration as a universalised condition and attempts to counteract this condition by promoting opportunities to slow down, the intention here was to invite the students to explore the variant speeds at which they l
Does this idea map with Reddy's premise about temporal trajectories, rhythms, and horizons?
tries (Prado 2013). Here again, instead of looking at the present as a heterogeneous context, the present isconsidered as uniform and following a linear trajectory toward
This is an important caveat for the study of sociotemporality in humanitarian crises. Need to stay grounded in the present and how even some immediate, incremental steps toward improving the representation of time in the data and in the data gathering process can be serve the larger, future goals of attaining real-time situational awareness.