Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

The final chapter presents an informed point of view in concluding the analysis. The conclusions
begin with the synthesis of the findings and discussions, and reflect on the overall research
framework and the research question. I will also propose alternative considerations and further
research directions for the study of virtual places and artifacts as multimodal digital phenomena.
The social actors and power relations in groups
In the three case studies, design tasks were divided among participants and the products were
assembled into their final forms as a collaborative effort through evaluations and modification
efforts of the team members. Both Metrotopia and PAL design teams had specific clients and chief
designers. In Metrotopia’s design, the roles and responsibilities of the participants, as well as the
provisional schedules for various design tasks, were agreed upon and documented by a contract.
However, in PAL’s design team, being a relevant RL professional was not the major determinant in
the configuration of social roles. The PAL team actually had a team leader, AmyLee, but this was
the result of a more organic process, which developed throughout years of friendship and
collaboration in SL. The 4-year-long evolution of the PAL design team gradually led Curiza to
organize the team, and assign a ‘chief of design’, while he also mentions that he wants the team to
keep its amateur spirit. In time, decision-making in PAL’s co-production became more
systematized, and roles in the team became more hierarchical. The changes in the team hierarchy
and the decision-making process had certain consequences about the final visual language of the
design. In fact, a main issue of dispute was about the ‘RL-like’ness of the proposed design style.
Collaboratively designing comprehensive virtual places such as Metrotopia or PAL does not
necessarily require the design teams to be formed by professional acquaintances; neither does it
necessarily limit participation to only designers. Furthermore, as I have shown above, social roles
can change in time and from situation to situation. In my findings of these design cases,
participation is shaped by social relations, and the internal power dynamics and decision-making
patterns of design teams show variations in relation to the participants’ conditions of and interests
in engaging.
In workshop projects, the context was rather different. While fifteen international students formed
four random groups with no apparent hierarchy, certain power relations also marked the process;
particularly the fact that students were also learning how to use SL for these purposes, for which
they needed constant supervision and tutoring. Therefore, the educational contexts brought forth
new relations and considerations about power. The students were equally responsible towards each
other within the group, but they were ultimately bound by the schedule and the requirements of the
course. In many aspects, the effects of these contextual differences, the motivations for engagement
238