Thursday, February 28, 2008

Text Scribing vs. Graphic/Visual Scribing

I have been fascinated by the concept of graphic/visual scribing like that promoted by Grove. (I just received an email from Grove which sparked this post.) While the visual approach of Grove is quite appealing, I have never actually seen it used. I would like to hear from others about how effective it is.

I know that text scribing -- when done well -- generates very useful output that can be put to use by the team. Does the visual scribing approach actual produce output that can be put to use? I suspect the visual approach may be fun to experience, but am concerned about the usability of the output. It is probably a matter of context -- the visual approach works well in some applications while the textual approach is better suited to other situations.

Any thoughts from others with graphic/visual scribing experience?

2 comments:

Cara Holland said...

I have both used and experienced as a participant Graphic Scribing, and find it's success to be entirely dependent upon the individual involved. We have all experienced an end outcome of illegible or unintelligable scribing whether visual or text based. I know that as a graphic facilitator I am biased, but I believe that (if carefully done) graphic scribing can not only have clear and usable outputs, but also capture the less tangible emotions and subcontexts in the session that can be hard to capture with linear text. www.caraholland.co.uk

Paul Groncki said...

Thanks for the input Cara. I think text scribing is probably equally dependent on the individual scribing, as well as the other situational elements (the lead facilitator, the room, the participants, the particular challenge). It is good to hear that so much can be gotten from graphic scribing. I am interested in experiencing and even possibly learning some graphic scribing skills to augment my text scribing skills.