Don't give up the community: a viewpoint of trust development in online collaboration

Abstract

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -This paper aims to examine the development of trust during online collaboration. The purpose of the inquiry is to improve the understanding of individual trust development in longitudinal online collaboration teams. Design/methodology/approach -The paper reveals the conclusion of a longitudinal online collaboration case study of two student cohorts over a two-year period, where each cohort is in their first year, based on a previous trust research model. However, the study is conducted in a new context through the implementation of online collaboration tools. Data is collected using longitudinal surveys and in-depth interviews. Findings -The paper demonstrates that trust development in different online collaboration groups does not follow a particular pattern in this case study. This development is characterised by fluctuation and complexity. Trust development does not attain the ideal state discussed in previous research and trust development is different within each team. The paper provides insight into the complexities of trust development in an online collaboration environment and information system understanding.Research limitations/implications -The paper demonstrates the findings regarding development features are context-specific and have not been subjected to testing for replication within other settings. The authors intend this for future research. Practical implications -The observations will help team leaders to understand changes in trust. It will also aid system developers and designers to consider trust development features in future system design for online collaboration environment and tools. Originality/value -The paper builds upon a previous trust development model but applies it to the context of online collaboration using student groups to analyse the findings over time.

Investigating the individual trust and school performance in semi-virtual collaboration groups

“…To measure an individual's performance, all students were required to complete a questionnaire three times during the project period to value their trust level from the six trust factors we selected (Cheng, Nolan and Macaulay, 2013). We also conducted interviews with each of the students.…”

Application of a novel collaboration engineering method for learning design: A case study

“…In our case study, we found that thinkLets can also improve the satisfaction of the learning design. For example, thinkLets can reduce distraction within the discussion which is an important issue in group learning (Cheng et al , ). One student said that “ With the help of the thinkLets process, we could also save a lot of time and reduce deviation from the topic at hand .” To sum up, thinkLets can help students to reduce distractions, get consensus quickly and create more ideas.…”

“…Some scholars in the CE field have mentioned that some factors are important when applying the CE method, and could be considered as influencing factors, such as low participation (Cheng et al , ; McFadzean & McKenzie, ), distraction (Briggs et al , ; Davison & Briggs, ) and inefficiency (Minnaert et al , ). Understanding influencing factors, especially their relationships, will help future CE design and improvement.…”

“…This stream of research and method is called collaboration engineering (CE), which is now considered to be an effective design method to design collaborative processes (Briggs, Kolfschoten, de Vreede & Douglas, ; Kolfschoten, Briggs, De Vreede, Jacobs & Appelman, ). According to the theoretical and practical studies, the CE method can produce high‐quality outcomes for collaborative efforts in many industrial and educational fields (Cheng & Macaulay, ; Cheng, Nolan & Macaulay, ; Kolfschoten, de Vreede, Briggs & Sol, ). A thinkLet is “a named, packaged facilitation technique that creates a predictable, repeatable pattern of collaboration among people working towards a goal” (Briggs, de Vreede, Nunamaker & Tobey, ).…”

Individual Trust Development in Business Virtual Teams: An Experimental Study

“…The design of the questionnaires was based on the Trust Evaluation Survey of prior study [53] about trust and trust factors in computer mediated collaboration. In our research, we selected all questions of the Trust Evaluation Survey from the perspective of risk, benefit and interest, in addition, we added three questions about individual trust.…”