Theme Objective: 'Collaboration' has been implicit in the research projects of Themes 1 to 3. In Theme 1, for instructional technologies to be effectively implemented, learning organization theory requires that administrative practices be built on collaboration among administrators, managers, teachers, staff, trainers, students and learners. In Theme 2, instructors can most efficiently cope with new learning technologies only if they collaborate with other instructors and learners. In Theme 3, we assume that the best learnware and courseware has collaboration opporunities written into their code. Some learnware, however, encourages isolation and alienation. Recalling EvNet's Executive Summary, we label this as 'worst practice', and so would eliminate rather than disseminate it. In Theme 4 we now move the concept of collaboration from implicit assumption to explicit hypothesis. In Project 4a, we hypothesize that students' informal learning and extra-curricula activities are strikingly effective as either aids or blockages to the role of technologies in delivering education and training. In Project 4b, the comparative evaluation of face-to-face vs virtual collaborative learning will assist disabled students in developing more effective learning strategies. In Project 4c, we turn our attention to the mediation of technologies in collaborative work and training in private-sector corporations, especially in the contrast between quality- circle work teams and Taylorist organizations of production. Finally, in Project 4d, collaboration takes centre stage as THE methodology on how to communicate in virtual workspaces, both among researchers in academic networks linked to partners, and among workers in labour networks organized around the attainment of strategic objectives in struggles against management. Recalling Figure 3 on page 16, Theme 4 thus frames or contextualizes all the themes and projects being proposed by EvNet.

4A) STUDENT SUB-CULTURES, GROUPS, HOME STUDY AND INFORMAL LEARNING: FACE-TO-FACE VS. COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (Principal Investigator: Brian Campbell, Mount Allison University. See Appendix D for Roles and Contribution of Other Academic Members, Collaborators and Participating Partner Organizations)

Potential Project Assets: $93,000

Objectives: To assess the relationship between interactive computer technologies, student social interaction, and the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction.

Rationale: One of the points which is often missed in setting up contrasts between the traditional classroom and the more flexible teaching possibilities provided by new technologies is the extent of the traditional dominance of the classroom in post-secondary education. We have often been too quick to accept the dominance of the classroom in the traditional educational experiences of students. It is not clear that the classroom has held a prominent position in all or most university environments. In the small residential universities, extra-curricular student life is an integral part of education, and it can become more powerful than the formal curriculum (Horowitz, 1987; Axelrod, 1990; Moffat, 1987,1991). When we move from the predominantly residential, intensive, interactive environment of the small university to the commuter campus, it is not necessarily at the expense of loss of community. It is a well established finding in community sociology that urban social landscapes are anonymous for some and sometimes lack community in the aggregate, but for many they are cross-cut with many communities and subcultures. Student cultures and communities are alive and well at larger campuses (Moffat, 1991; Howowitz, 1987), though they may not be as closely identified with the institution of the university as at smaller campuses (Kuh, 1995).

The classroom related work of students is often actively mediated by peer groups; strong interactions transcend the classroom. Students in these groups sometimes cooperate to deal with the formal curriculum through collective studying, problem solving, commiseration, and perhaps subterfuge (Albas & Albas 1984; Becker et al. 1968). No matter what the method of instruction, the educational experience of the student may be anything but passive. Just because some of the instruction that students receive is built on a pattern of formal student passivity does not mean that students are passive, or that their total educational experience is non-interactive. An assumption in this study is that learning, as an educational practice, is found outside of formal classrooms for both course and non-course driven purposes. In other EvNet research projects, this occurs via computer-mediated collaborations over the Internet. In this project, informal learning occurs across a range of contexts, including synchronously within physical campus environments (see Figures 1 and 2, pages 14-15). It may be incorrect then to say that interactive formal instruction is introducing interaction into a passive education model. Interactive teaching approaches and technologies have the potential to create social environments, but their success may depend on the way they can be adapted to existing patterns of student interaction. Part of the excitement in distance education is that these interactive technologies can help to create social environments where they did not exist before. But in other interaction rich contexts, where student interaction and sub-cultures exist in face-to-face social settings, new interactive technologies may have to compete for a niche and be mediated by existing practices. This affects both the nature of the technology as it is experienced by the student and the ultimate success of the application of these learning technologies.

In order to enhance learning effectiveness, instructors often form student groups, especially in classrooms with access to hi technology. Most past research has shown this to be a more effective teaching practice than the traditional one-to-many sponge lecture [Cohen, 1994; Allen and Thompson, 1995; Ahern, 1994; Mavarech, 1993; Pozzi et al, 1992; Roschelle, 1992; King, 1989; Mavarech et al, 1991; Webb, 1982; Keeler and Anson, 1995]. But a variable that has been ignored is pre existing student groups. Students who are friends, or who have formed informal groups through living in on-campus residences, off-campus housing, or through student clubs, may resist teacher attempts to break up such groups and distribute their members among instructor defined groups. Further, the reaction of students to course organized groupings may be different in contexts where students find it easy to engage in face-to-face interaction among familiar classmates, than in situations with restricted interaction opportunities and social distances.

When students communicate asynchronously (i.e., at different times) in computer-supported collaborative learning environments, deviations from face-to-face social intercourse may influence the learning processes of collaboration. Asynchronous communication may complicate the completion of some collaborative tasks which require the timely input of all group members. For example, students with different expectations of frequency and regularity of logins may have difficulties coordinating their activity. Dividing tasks, choosing group members and setting the agenda may also be problematic. Research suggests that groups have some problems conducting work online in the organizational context as well. For example, groups may have difficulties making decisions online; groups take longer to reach concensus via CMC than in face-to-face discussions; groups communicating online tend to make more unconventional and riskier decisions than do the same groups in face-to-face dicusssions; people have difficulties negotiating online; and there may be heightened flaming and emotional expression (Sproull & Kiesler, 1992).Therefore, one cannot simply transfer instructional strategies from face-to-face contexts into the online environment (Harasim, 1987, 1993; Hiltz, 1996; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). One of the objectives of this project is to improve collaborative learning processes in courses utilizing asynchronous, computer-supported collaborative learning. Each selected course involved will undergo a complete instructional analysis to ascertain how CSCL might most effectively be integrated into the learning and instructional processes.

In determining how CSCL might most effectively be integrated into the learning and instructional processes, we will examine three independent variables, namely: 1) structuring of activities, including a. groupings: teacher-chosen based on achievement, teamwork skills, or amount of online participation versus student-chosen; and b. task demands: task divisibility (additive, compensatory, disjunctive or conjuctive) and basis of assessment (group vs. individual); 2) type of pre-existing patterns of student interaction, as dependent on the institution (different social environments); 3) amount of face-to-face interaction with familiar classmates (ranging from extremely limited interaction opportunities in the distance education context to regular face-to-face meetings in the virtually extended classroom).

One dependent variable that we will examine is success in the CSCL environment, which may be measured by attitudes toward online learning and collaborative learning, especially the willingness to participate in online learning in the future. A second important variable that will be considered is group interaction, including the formation of new groups, disruption of existing groups, group cohesiveness, social loafing, and group productivity. A major premise of this research is that CSCL not only supports formal content-based learning interactions, but also informal, social learning interactions. CMC promotes both formal and informal communication between employees in the workplace (Sproull & Kielser, 1991). This is true in the educational context also where conference administrators tend to create a space such as Pub or Cafe for informal exchanges. Therefore, we will study both the content-based and informal learning interactions (which may occur in face-to-face interaction as well as online.) CSCL may affect these types of interaction differently. Finally, we will examine the relationship between group interaction and success in the CSCL environment.

Research Plan: Following the earlier rationale and discussion of Figure 4, Appendix A-1, we have chosen four distinct campuses that will allow us to highlight the differences among the various student social environments: Mount Allison University which has 90% of its students in residence or within walking distance in a small campus dominated town; McMaster University which is 40% residential and 60% commuter in an urban area; Athabasca University which is a totally distance education campus with no on-campus students; and, a hybrid Concordia which has no residences (like Athabasca) but is wholly commuter campus without being a distance education campus . There are two sets of researchable questions. (1) The extent to which computer technologies affect student interaction. Do these technologies reinforce or disrupt existing groups? Do they promote the formation of new groups? Do computer mediated interaction groups differ from face-to-face interaction based groups? Do computer technologies affect the informal, sometimes group-based, learning practices of students? (2) The extent to which student groups affect the use and effectiveness of computer technologies. Do informal student group activities promote the diffusion of computer skills? Do student subcultures affect the receptiveness toward computer aided instruction? Do the informal group practices of students affect the way that computer assisted instruction is implemented in courses, or its effectiveness?

Methods We will use a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods consisting of cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys and qualitative ethnographic participant observation. Cross-sectional and longitudinal student computer use surveys will be done annually on samples from the student populations at the target institutions. A panel study cohort will be followed through their career to determine shifts in computer use and attitudes. Our variables consist of student computer use, student computer skill levels, attitudes toward computer use, general social characteristics of students, student informal group formation, student subculture, cooperative computer use, and informal computer use patterns. In the qualitative participant observation phase, we will examine computer use associated with course and non-course activities.

(See Figure 7, Appendix A-6 for Schedule and Milestones)

Network Relevance/Integration: The project will be relevant to almost every other project within EvNet because it focuses primarily on the influences of informal learning and informal student groups on the effectiveness of instruction. It is a means of delivery of education and training that is not formally represented in most models, yet can have a dramatic impact on learning outcomes. This project fills a network need for a collaborative learning project in the face-to-face modes of delivery discussed in the context of Figures 1 and 2 on pages 14-15.

4B) FACE TO FACE VS. COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AMONG STUDENTS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES (Principal Investigator: Catherine Fichten, Dawson College. See Appendix D for Roles and Contribution of Other Academic Members, Collaborators and Participating Partner Organizations)

Potential Project Assets: $100,000

Objectives: The revolution in educational technology has opened avenues for the disadvantaged that have never existed before, offering opportunities for personal growth and social integration (Fichten, 1995). Yet in spite of the potentially enormous benefits for students with disabilities, the impact of recent advances in technology on academic, occupational and social outcomes for these students has not been adequately evaluated. The "visible" disability of the physically handicapped is not visible in an electronic conferencing environment. Therefore, accomodations made for their disability in face-to-face settings disappear. In a prototypical study of students with disabilities, students with and without various impairments will be exposed to different instructional conditions (individual, group) and learning environments (actual, virtual) and the effects examined on academic, social, and attitudinal measures. In particular, two aspects will be examined: first, the impact of feedback on students with disabilities in actual vs. virtual collaborative groups where group members' disability status is known and where it is not known; second, the outcomes of students with communication problems who have either good or poor written communication skills in in-vivo vs. virtual groups will be compared. In both cases, informal social outcomes as well as academic achievement will be examined.

Rationale: In CSCL, learner variables such as sex, age, and disability are not immediately evident. Thus, biases in interactions with people with disabilities are not as likely to apply, and students with disabilities do not start out from an unequal status position, as is often the case in face-to-face encounters. In such situations, non-disabled peers are frequently ambivalent and anxious, have difficulty coping with the novelty, and manifest atypical behaviours (Fichten, Robillard, Tagalakis, & Amsel, 1991). Paradoxically, in spite of rejection and avoidance in many aspects of education and employment, when face-to-face encounters are inevitable, people with disabilities are often accorded overly favourable performance evaluations. Many know this, and discount it. In electronic communications - where disability status is unknown - students with disabilities will be treated "like any other student," and experience neither the disadvantages nor the perks of being a student who has an impairment (i.e., neither rejection nor overly favourable feedback will be forthcoming). The novelty of such learning situations makes it important to evaluate the impact of feedback on students with disabilities in actual and virtual collaborative groups where group members' disability status is known and where it is not known.

Students with oral communication problems (e.g., those who have cerebral palsy, are hard of hearing, or Deaf) have particular difficulties in face-to-face groups. Virtual groups may, therefore, be of particular interest and benefit to them. But students with hearing impairments frequently have problems with written expression as well. Written language skills could, of course, be a factor in CSCL activities. This suggests that it is important to examine the outcomes of students with communication problems who have either good or poor written communication skills in in-vivo vs virtual groups of various kinds.

One of the demonstrated benefits of cooperative groups for students with intellectual deficits has been the enhancement of informal social outcomes (friendships, social protection). Socialization and friendship formation is an important aspect of the higher education experience for all students, including those with disabilities. Therefore, it is of considerable interest to compare the impact of virtual and in-vivo collaborative groups not only on academic achievement but also on "informal" educational outcomes of students with disabilities (e.g., friendship choices, attitude change in non- disabled students, self-esteem of students with disabilities).

Research Plan: This research involves several populations and research questions. Studies will be conducted sequentially, to allow for experiences gained from one study to be available for the next. The first study will consist of a descriptive investigation of current practices of computer assisted learning for students with disabilities in Canadian colleges and universities. This will be conducted by mailing a questionnaire to a random sample of coordinators of services to students with disabilities in Canadian community colleges and universities. The second investigation concerns a pervasive difficulty hampering postsecondary education for people with disabilities and seniorsalike: difficulty with transportation and extended hospitalizations. A sample of 50 coordinators of services to students with disabilities will be queried using structured interviews concerning their experiences with distance education offered by their institutions. The third investigation, to be conducted over a 2 year period, involves evaluation of academic (individual, group) and social outcomes of in vivo vs virtual problem solving groups where some groups know about members' disability status while others do not. Outcomes of students with visible an invisible disabilities as well as of students with hearing impairments will be evaluated separately. In addition, this research will compare the impact of virtual and in-vivo collaborative groups on "informal" educational outcomes of students with disabilities (e.g. friendship choices, attitude change in nondisabled students, self-esteem of students with disabilities). Dependent variables include: number of contacts on task and off task, subsequent invitations to join group forsecond set of problems, etc. In addition, we will evaluate thecontent of messages directed by various group members toward eachother in actual and virtual collaborative groups where groupmembers' disability status is known and where it is not known.Dependent variables include: feedback favorability, post-discussion self-esteem ratings, and individual measures oflearning. Virtual collaborative groups provide a natural laboratory for the systematic exploration of the impact of disclosure vs non-disclosure of one's disability (where thestudent with the disability either knows or does not know his/herdisclosure status) on a host of important outcome variables.

Methods: Data will be collected via mailed questionnaires and personal interviews. Variables of interest include: grades, number of courses completed, time to graduate, and satisfaction with various aspects of the course, including amount of contact with professors and fellow students, number of communications directed toward the student with the disability, impact of each student's contribution on the group product, as well as multiple choice and essay measures of group and individual learning; impact on group decision making, number of interventions made by and directed toward the student,attribution of desirable and undesirable personality traits (e.g., helpful, assertive, honest, trustworthy), and subsequentselection to the next virtual or in vivo collaborative groupproject. Analysis of the massive amounts of data obtained in this investigation will occupy most of the grant period. In the fifth year, dissemination will occur via focus group meetings with college and university adminstrators regarding desired computer policies for students with disabilities.

(See Figure 7, Appendix A-6 for Schedule and Milestones)

Network Relevance/Integration: This is the only project in EvNet concerned with the impact of the means of education and training delivery on students with and without physical disabilities. The comparisons between students with and without disabilities across two means of delivery (face to face and virtual) provides an important dimension to SSHRC's definition of the priority area of means of education and training delivery. On the basis of her findings, Catherine Fichten, in meetings and communications with other EvNet members, will be making recommendations regarding the adaptations and adjustments that should be make in other projects' courseware and learnware in order to accomodate students with disabilities.

4C) WORKPLACE APPLICATIONS OF COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (CSCL): COMMUNICATING AND COOPERATING (Principal Investigator: Richard Schmid, Concordia University. See Appendix D for Roles and Contribution of Other Academic Members, Collaborators and Participating Partner Organizations)

Potential Project Assets: $843,000

Objectives: The transformation of tasks in the workplace due to communication technologies is creating a virtual revolution at all levels of society (Tovar, Schmid and Gagnon, in press). Organizational restructuring means fewer people are performing more complex tasks. The key to this transformation is teamwork and collaboration, job sharing and broadly distributed decision making. The overall objective of this project is to work in partnership BDBC, ICB, Mentor, and Systemcorp to design, implement and evaluate aspects of CSCL within their environments. Issues of group formation (e.g., skills, attitudes), adaptive user interface design, process monitoring, performance support and performance appraisal will be evaluated.

Rationale: The Ontario Training Corporation issued a major report citing the training needs of public, private and not-for-profit organizations (Geis, 1991), suggesting that human resource development must undergo a radical transformation: training must be moved from cost investment, from specific knowledge and skills to generic capabilities, from information as memorized to information as accessed and used in a "just-in-time" fashion. A number of surveys (American Institute of Physics (AIP), 1995; Evans/Rush, 1991; Corporate Council on Education, 1992; Towers Perrin, 1991) have concluded that corporate executives "want universities to produce flexible thinkers, not narrowly trained workers". The Conference Board of Canada (1992) published a list of "employability skills", the third category being "teamwork". TQM, ISO9000 and other management strategies echo the same theme -- the knowledge worker must replicate in shared work environments what the assembly line imposed by way of distribution of tasks. The fundamental difference between the two approaches is the division of tasks -- knowledge workers share responsibility, rather than having distinct responsibilities. This alters collaborative processes (e.g., the decrease in identifiability of efforts may increase social loafing, rendering individual commitment to group and organizational goals more important). Collaborative processes are more important and different in the transforming workplace.

With the introduction of computer-based workplace tasks, research on learning (the cognitive sciences), social interaction (psychology and sociology), organizational development (management), and machine design (computer sciences) are increasingly being synthesized to inform the process of designing learning and productivity systems. The workplace offers special challenges because employees must: a) continuously upgrade knowledge and skills as products, processes and services change, and b) produce concrete output for the organization. Learning and producing can occur simultaneously if appropriate job design and support structures are put in place (Amundsen, 1990; Waterworth, Chignell & Zhai, 1993). The approach we will be investigating is the combination of collaborative work strategies using computer-mediated communications and machine-based knowledge construction and support tools.

Research Plan: The research sites associated with this project vary considerably with respect to the nature and extent of technology integrated into their operations. At one end of the continuum, the Institute of Canadian Bankers (ICB) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDBC) are interested in evaluating the impact of basic CMC in training systems. BDBC is interested in researching and developing methodologies for course design which address effective CMC implementation. In September 1996 the ICB will begin a pilot distance education course using the Internet, whereby two strategies will be introduced: 1) the use of on-line dialogue between learners and instructors for feedback purposes, and 2) on-line exchange of assignments between students. In the early phases of this project, collaborative product development will not be involved, though learners will be encouraged to work together in pursuit of understanding and using course content. Issues of moderator role, task demands and group cohesion will be evaluated. Similar to EvNet's Project 1, organizational factors associated with the use of communication technologies will be examined. Cost/benefits will be generated in the context of value-added services. Both ICB and BDBC utilize distance education techniques; thus, concerns regarding attraction, retention, failure rates, and competency testing will be considered.

At the other end of the continuum, companies such as Mentor and Systemcorp are concerned with software and interface design as they relate to worker productivity, both within their organization and for the clients they serve (being software/multimedia producers and learning system designers). Human factors, ergonomics, and system capabilities (e.g., networking functions and reliability) interact to support or prevent effective collaboration. We will investigate whether research results on collaborative learning from educational environments in other EvNet projects apply to the competitive workplace. We also plan to incorporate CD-ROM based performance support tools into task-specific environments. A shared workbench provides opportunity for multi-site, multi-role collaboration, but little is known about the methodologies for coordinating and managing these environments, or how they support the development of the so-called "learning organization" discussed earlier in EvNet's application. We wish to investigate what types of online information users most value, how organizational hierarchies can best serve group goal setting and performance, and whether adaptive interfaces can facilitate group problem solving and decision making. Out of these studies we will generate cases of "best practice", especially for small and medium sized organizations.

Methods: The intention of the studies proposed here is to engage in a combination of action and quasi-experimental research to: a) vary and evaluate support strategies from a human-intervention perspective (moderator/trainer role) and a machine-based intervention perspective (performance support systems - PSS) to affect individual performance, b) identify key aspects of the group process which lead to successful group outcomes ("best practice"), and c) examine organizational issues associated with the implementation of CSCL and PSSs (costs, productivity enhancement, maintenance and development).

(See Figure 7, Appendix A-6 for Schedule and Milestones)

Network Relevance/Integration: The four-way company study of CSCL in this project provides a critical base for comparision with our other education-based studies (see Figure 6, Appendix A-3). We will draw a series of 'best practices' and 'lessons learned' by which educational institutions can learn from private corporations and vice-versa. This takes us back to Project 1. What are the similarities and differences in how computer-supported collaborative learning techniques are built into the alternative means of education and training delivery in formal educational institutions as opposed to private corporate workplaces? Which are the most effective? Why? Or, are the settings so completely different that lessons cannot be transported from one organization to the other? The possible lessons learned will form a critical input in the development of the Multimedia Workplace and Higher Education Training Modules (see Part G on Dissemination).

4D) LABOUR/LEARNING AND THE VIRTUAL WORKSPACE (Principal Investigator: Sam Lanfranco, Economics Dept., York University. See Appendix D for Roles and Contribution of Other Academic Members, Collaborators and Participating Partner Organizations)

Potential Project Assets: $88,000

Objectives: Technologies which transform how we deal with time and space have revolutionary consequences for social structure and process (Harold C. Innis). Information and communication technologies are examples. They provide a new electronic venue, a virtual workspace, that alters the playing field and rules of engagement for socio-economic process. Nowhere is this more dramatic than in learning, research and the diffusion of knowledge. Labour, as a factor of production and social class, is a major stakeholder in this. The popular press views the relationship between labour and technologies as one of substitutability or complementarity. Is labour being displaced by technology? Can labour be trained for jobs in the new technology? This project asks different kinds of questions.

This EvNet project seeks to study and evaluate how labour collaborates in using this virtual workspace as a social process venue for learning and diffusing knowledge in pursuing its own socio-economic and civil society objectives. We focus on labour as a group which cuts across social formations from organized labour to cooperatives, the self-employed and the unemployed, and research how it uses this space for learning and sharing lessons learned about its role in society. In particular we are interested in how its use of this virtual workspace manifests itself in changes in organizational structure and work process among its users.

Rationale: Lessons learned here will help us understand, and approach, how labour and other social groups can use this electronic workspace in pursuing civil society objectives. The focus on labour derives from the fact that formal and informal labour groups are turning to the electronic workspace in seeking new avenues and ways of responding to the challenges facing them.

The technologies of interest are the myriad of inter-connected macro, meso and micro levels of electronic networks. The analytical model used here is derived from the fractal logic end of chaos theory. It is applicable across diverse activities (labour, education, health, civil process), while retaining operational value at each level, from the micro to the macro system.

Currently working on a project for Health Canada which examines how Canadian Community Action Programs for Children (CAP-C) use electronic networks to share lessons and collaborate, Lanfranco will draw from this experience and apply it to this project. He manages the global LABOR-L (@yorku.ca) international listserv on labour in the global economy, the world's oldest global listserv on labour. Lanfranco has extensive links with the on-line efforts of labour across Canada and around the globe. These include the non-formal communities using the labour conferences on Canada's NGO and Community Web Networks, the Asia Monitor Resource Centre project for a labour based network in Asia, European and American researchers, and the International Labour Review of the ILO (International Labor Organization).

Research Plan: This research on virtual learning spaces and social process starts from a simple set of questions. How do individuals, groups and organizations explore and use this emerging virtual workspace as an extension of traditional workspace? (See the earlier discussion of the Theory of the Learning Organization, and the logic in Figure 4 on page A-1, Appendix A). How does the workspace extend and transform social structures and social process? How does this new 'space', in turn, transform doing, learning, and research? Of what use are the lessons learned? Even the researchers working within SSHRC's five funded networks can be viewed as operating within this type of virtual workspace.

Methods: Our data will come from three sources.. First, we will explore LABOR-L which has five years of unresearched archives. We will blend the use of traditional survey research instruments with new, efficient and interactive ways of on-line research. Secondly, utilizing on-line focus groups, we will distribute and administer an on-line questionnaire to the 500 researchers and stakeholders on LABOR-L. Fom previous experience we have found that we can distribute and administer at very little cost a 30 question on-line questionnaire to 100 on-line participants in under a minute, or conduct an on-line focus group for a week or two at one-tenth the cost of a literal focus group. We will obtain wide participation and reflective results. A large number of Labor-L members have expressed interest in virtual participation in this project, both through giving critical feedback to the project and through increased participation over time. Third, within the electronic venue there is a constant iterative process of researcher-stakeholder participation and feedback at all levels of the project, as well as diffusion and distillation of lessons learned.

An integral element of the research process is the reporting of research results - in process - into the Labor-L listserv venue, for dissemination and feedback. One feature of formative evaluation within the electronic venue is the scope for continuous flow of research results, and incorporation of feedback and lessons learned into research design. This means a greater flow of research results and achievement of project milestones. Tentative results can be subjected to a wide participation research seminar - on line - to great effect in terms of feedback and dissemination. This can be done for the nominal cost of the labour of a seminar facilitator working several hours a week for several weeks. A higher quality process is supported at a fraction of the cost and on much quicker time lines.

Tentative results from the LABOR-L archive will be ready by late 1996. An on-line seminar with feedback would be complete by January 1997. By the spring of 1997 we will have completed appropriate research protocols for work with the labor component of the Web Networks services, begun to identify and apply lessons learned with Web Networks, ¦ Pathfinder Learning System, and the AMRC project in Asia. We may include links to existing labour collaborators in Russia. One part of the research design is to use on-line facilities (listserv, FTP, gopher and websites) to create on-line access to our research products.

(See Figure 7, Appendix A-6 for Schedule and Milestones)

Network Integration/Relevance: While the targeted social grouping, labour, is specific, the approach to research, learning and knowledge diffusion in the virtual workspace, is central to the mission and operation of the EvNet research proposal. As part of its strategy for a continuous research process, conducted within the virtual workspace, for accountability to stakeholders, and as a diffusion strategy, this project proposes mounting, facilitating, and sustaining an active presence in the virtual workspace for its work and for that of EvNet's partners. As well, it proposes that EvNet offer to provide the central virtual workspace site (electronic super-node) for SSHRC's five funded SRNET networks after the announcement of funding decisions in October, 1996 (see Part G on Dissemination for more details). This would facilitate knowledge diffusion through accessing lessons learned and by mentoring other networks with regard to using the virtual workspace for research and as a venue for social process.

Using the virtual workspace as an object of study and a vehicle for that study promotes group work and facilitates accountability and transparency in the research process. Consultation with interested parties beyond the research team will be an integral and on-going process. This relatively efficient approach, as compared to other means of collaboration, has been tested in other work carried out by the principal researcher, Sam Lanfranco, in his role as an INTERNET list manager and his seconded position as Senior Program Specialist for Bellanet at IDRC in Ottawa. Its virtual workspace (on-line) presence also links this Canadian initiative to similar global initiatives.

We expect to be a best practices test site for new and more interactive approaches to research participation (by collaborators, partners and stakeholders less constrained by time and space) and are prepared to train others in EvNet in the conduct of research using this electronic venue. We expect to extend that training beyond the boundaries of EvNet to the other funded research networks on learning and already have expressions of interest, through our Bellanet connections, from Ministries and agencies of the Canadian government.

We expect that, operating with a high degree of transparency in the virtual workspace, reporting out to the listservs and websites, as well as depositing relevant materials in on-line access sites, we will generate a considerable level of interaction. It is part of our research design not to stress face-to-face training sessions or extensive formal sessions in which we present research findings. It is beyond dispute that, for several of the previously mentioned services we already run, there is no better mechanism in Canada for depth and breadth of coverage, and cost effectiveness. No other dissemination and diffusion vehicle comes close.