Constructing CSCW: The First Quarter Century

Schmidt, Kjeld; Bannon, Liam J.

doi:10.1007/s10606-013-9193-7

Cited by 104 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the 1980s and 1990s, the field exploded due to "practical but potent technical developments" (Schmidt & Bannon, 2013: 346) ranging from the Internet, the Web, groupware, and ubiquitous email to social media, mobile interaction, and widespread connectivity. The CSCW field has variously labeled these radical innovations "computer-mediated communication" (e.g., Kerr & Hiltz, 1982;Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984), "teleinformatics" (e.g., Speth, 1988), "office information systems" and "office automation" (e.g., Hammer & Sirbu, 1980), "collaborative working environments" (e.g., Prinz, 2006), social "collaboration technologies" (e.g., Bentley, Busbach, Kerr, & Sikkel, 1997), advanced forms of "computer conferencing" (e.g., Grasso & Convertino, 2012), "context-aware computing" (e.g., Schmidt, Gross, & Billinghurst, 2004), augmented and mixed-reality interfaces (e.g., Billinghurst & Kato, 2002;Wagner, 2012), the Internet of things (e.g., Atzori, Iera, & Morabito, 2010), and smart connected products (e.g., Porter & Heppelmann, 2014), among others (Schmidt & Bannon, 2013). This collection of labels hints at-but doesn't directly identify-a key commonality across all of these CSCW technologies: in order to marry technology with people and achieve the joint optimization that the STS literature originally identified requires that technology do a better job of capturing, in digitalized and therefore analyzable data, its observation of people.…”

Section: Observation As a Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CSCW field has variously labeled these radical innovations "computer-mediated communication" (e.g., Kerr & Hiltz, 1982;Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984), "teleinformatics" (e.g., Speth, 1988), "office information systems" and "office automation" (e.g., Hammer & Sirbu, 1980), "collaborative working environments" (e.g., Prinz, others (Schmidt & Bannon, 2013). This collection of labels hints at-but doesn't directly identify-a key commonality across all of these CSCW technologies: in order to marry technology with people and achieve the joint optimization that the STS literature originally identified requires that technology do a better job of capturing, in digitalized and therefore analyzable data, its observation of people.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Making Transparency Transparent: The Evolution of Observation in Management Theory

Bernstein¹

2017

ANNALS

176

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Observation is key to management scholarship and practice. Yet a holistic view of its role in management has been elusive, in part due to shifting terminology. The current popularity of the term "transparency" provides the occasion for a thorough review, which finds (a) a shift in the object of observation from organizational outcomes to the detailed individual activities within them; (b) a shift from people observing the technology to technology observing people; and (c) a split in the field, with managers viewing observation almost entirely from the observer's perspective, leaving the perspective of the observed to the realm of scholarly methodology courses and philosophical debates on privacy. I suggest how the literature on transparency and related literatures might be improved with research designed in light of these trends.KEYWORDS: transparency, privacy, performance, organizations, management theory ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I thank Julie Battilana, Ethan Burris, Tim Earle, Amy Edmondson, John Elder, Elizabeth Hansen, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Joshua Margolis, Tsedal Neeley, Nitin Nohria, Shefali Patil, Kathy Qu, Ryan Raffaelli, Lakshmi Ramarajan, and Bradley Staats for feedback on prior versions of this work; Jim Detert, Sim Sitkin, and two anonymous reviewers for insightful and developmental feedback; and the Harvard Business School for financial support.Please cite as: Bernstein, E. S. Making transparency transparent: The evolution of observation in management theory. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1): 217-266. 2We are increasingly observed and observing at work. Fifty years ago, a typical manager might have tracked production, revenue, and expenses against budget and periodically observed workers during in-person audits (e.g., Dalton, 1959). Today, advances in technology, from smart cameras to wearable tracking devices, make possible a kind of real-time "SuperVision" (Gilliom & Monahan, 2012) far beyond any level of observability envisioned 50 years ago or when Frederick Taylor (1911) originally promoted managerial oversight through scientific management.Public attention is captured by extreme examples of observation at work, like handheld computers (Amazon) or wearable bands (Tesco) tracking and optimizing employees' every move (Head, 2014;Kantor & Streitfeld, 2015;Rawlinson, 2013), embedded sensors in large fleets of company-owned trucks (e.g., UPS) recording hundreds of measurements to capture every action of the truck and its driver to unearth and enforce time-saving tactics (Goldstein, 2014;Levy, 2015), cameras at Las Vegas casino Harrah's tracking the smiles of card dealers and wait staff as a proxy for customer service quality (Peck, 2013), point-of-sale systems scraping every transaction for signs of employee fraud (Pierce, Snow, & McAfee, 2015), and RFID (radiofrequency identification)-enabled workspaces automatically capturing factory worker progress (Ranganathan, 2015), how long employees spend at their desks (Zillman, 2016), and even who does and does not use hand-soap and hand-sanitizer dispensers ...

show abstract

Section: Observation As a Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Transparency Transparent: The Evolution of Observation in Management Theory

Bernstein¹

2017

ANNALS

176

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vast amount of existing research in the field of CSCW [21] has illustrated how groups adopted IT tools and integrated them into their social dynamics to support teamwork. Researchers have identified specific patterns of behavior supported by the appropriation of collaboration tools [10; 17; 18; 19] and how those patterns changed through their appropriation [24].…”

Section: Fitting Technology In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Peepdeck: a dashboard for the distributed design studio

Muñoz-Alcántara¹,

Kosnar²,

Funk³

et al. 2016

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Designers adopt a large amount of generalpurpose tools for supporting their remote collaborative tasks. Each tool provides very diverse functionalities: from file sharing to instant communication and video collaboration. The designer struggles when filtering and combining the right information spread across the multitude of tools. This research extends McGrath's framework of task circumflex to map the collaborative demands of the design practitioner and proposes Peepdeck, a design exploration to support them. Peepdeck is a dashboard that assembles information scattered across multiple tools in a personalized and organized way. Through two design iterations followed by evaluations of the user interface, several requirements were identified for supporting collaboration awareness in design teams. Insights confirmed the relevance of combining information from different but already familiar tools, rather than attempting to replace them. It was identified the importance of optimizing for visual scanning, supporting search of content and allowing users to customize the tool.

show abstract

“…Eventually, implications for design are drawn with suggestions for the development of new technologies. Hence, this perspective is particularly relevant to CSCW, since one of the main concerns of the field is to understand the mediational role that computer technologies have in work practices and cooperative activities such as collaboration, coordination, awareness mechanisms and information sharing (Schmidt and Bannon 2013).…”

Section: Framing Nomadicitymentioning

confidence: 99%