EECE 571W
Week
3
Groups
Paper Reviews
Goal: A paper is reviewed in order
to
– understand
– situate
– evaluate
– in context of
• a group (e.g. the
class, research group)
• a field (e.g.
CSCW, …)
• a task (e.g.
building a system)
Review Structure
(possible)
Goals
– Why was the
paper written?
– What is it
trying to demonstrate?
Context
– What field is
it in?
– What was the
state of knowledge when it was written?
Review Structure (cont’d)
Summary
– What does the
author claim?
– What hypotheses
are tested or proposed?
Analysis
– Did the author
succeed wrt. the goals?
– Are the claims
supported?
– Are there
things you didn’t understand?
– Did you agree
with authors conclusions?
Today
• 4
papers (+2)
• 5
minute reviews
• 20
minutes of summary etc.
• rest
of class: discussion
McGrath 1984:
Typology of Tasks
Goals:
• Provide
a categorization of tasks performed in group settings that are:
– mutually exclusive
– exhaustive
– logically related
– useful
McGrath 1984:
Typology of Tasks
Context:
• Social
psychology
• Body
of work that had observed and analysed task-oriented behaviour
• Need
to provide a means of organizing these findings to aid in understanding of
task-oriented behaviours
Typology of Tasks
McGrath 1984:
Typology of Tasks
Analysis:
• Useful
model
– Quadrants
organized by processes
– Subtypes make
clear distinctions
• Distinction
between tasks that assume cooperation with tasks that recognize and resolve
conflict is important.
Suchman 1983:
Office Procedure…
Goals:
• Provide
work models that reflect actual practices
• Provide
framework for producing “office automation” systems
Suchman 1983:
Office Procedure…
Context:
•
Social Anthropology
•
Office automation was
focus of much development effort in ‘80s
Goal: Provide tools that would increase productivity by introducing
computers to traditional offices
•
Existing work based on procedural
models
Suchman 1983:
Office Procedure…
Summary:
•
Identifies problems
w/procedural model
–
unable to handle informal activity
•
Proposes practical
action model
–
focus on meaning of
actions
–
how actions contribute
to goals, tasks and groups
•
“What are procedures for practitioners of office work?”
Suchman 1983:
Office Procedure…
Summary:
• Observation
of real workers on site
• Analysis
of conversations related to “Accounts Payable”
– Problem to be
solved
– Outside of normal
procedures
– Characterize ways
in which conversations serve the larger task
Suchman 1983:
Office Procedure…
Findings:
• Systems
need to be designed so that communications and procedures can be modified to
produce “smooth flow” in exceptional cases
• Office
automation is not a desirable goal
• Systems
should assist any work needed to reach goals
Suchman 1983:
Office Procedure…
Analysis:
• Place
existing practice “under the microscope”
• Probably
better than designing systems to align users with restrictive assumptions of
“best practices”
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
Goals:
• Develop
theory of task-oriented group activities
• Explore
consequences of the theory
– Analysis of
patterns of behaviour
– Implications for
system designs
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
Context:
• Sociology
• Most
theories of small group behaviour come from lab-based studies
– Social psychology
– Simple, artificial
tasks
ÞLimited generalisability
• New
emphasis on dynamics of groups
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
1. Groups
are complex social systems
•
Have relationships to (functions)
•
Organizations they are inside (production),
•
Their own members (member-support), and
•
The group itself (group well-being).
•
Have purpose in
terms of shared goals
•
Partially nested
•
Complex membership relationships
•
Loosely coupled
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
2. Group
actions have modes:
I. Inception
(Goal choice)
II.Technical solution (Means
choice)
III.Conflict resolution (Policy
choice)
IV.Execution (Goal attainment)
3. Modes
are not fixed sequence, but kinds of activity to categorize particular actions of members
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
4. Group
behaviours show temporal patterns, including:
1. Flow
of work
2. Time-activity
matching
3. Entrainment
or synchronization
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
5. Collective
action can be described by
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
6. Efficient
workflow requires complex matching of activity bundles to periods of time
7. Social
entrainment is useful for constructing temporal patterns
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
8. TIP
Theory: Group interaction process refers
to small scale flow of work in groups
9. TIP
Theory: At any point, a group has a focal task
10.TIP Theory: Every action can be
categorized as germane or not wrt. the
current focal task
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
11.Acts have situated (not generic) meaning wrt. modes, functions and
paths of group activity.
12.Aspects of work flow are
reflected in different ways of aggregating acts.
McGrath 1991:
TIP: A Theory of Groups
• Analysis:
• Seems
like useful model
– Emphasizes context
and purpose of group activity
– Flexible in a
variety of situations
– Does have some
implications for how to think about design of systems
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
•
Goals:
•
Suggest ways in which
social psychology can inform research toward CSCW goals:
1.
Support distributed
groups
2.
Enhance work of
collocated groups
•
Introduce theory of
“production loss”
•
Show how knowledge can
be applied to design of online groups
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
• Context:
• Social
psychology
• Mixture
of motivations from engineers/CS and social theorists
• Build
on work of McGrath and others
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
•
Summary:
•
Build on
Input-Process-Output models
•
Recognize that outcomes
sometimes conflict:
–
Star communication model
leads to better problem-solving but reduces group satisfaction
–
Skeptics in
brainstorming groups improve performance but reduce satisfaction
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
•
Social loafing: “Group membership allows individuals to reduce
their own effort towards group goals.”
•
Cultural phenomenon
< Asians, women and children
> Western, men and adults
•
Varies with task type
and group composition
< Individually valued tasks
< Lack of trust in group
< Own unique contribution
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
•
Production loss: Reasons groups don’t live up to aggregation
effect
•
Social pressure
•
Social loafing
•
Production blocking
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
•
System Design
Suggestions:
•
Analyse tasks in terms
of production loss
•
Categorize in terms of
three reasons
•
Use strategies that
combat reasons for loss
•
Example:
•
Effects of anonymity on
three reasons:
–
anonymity reduces social
pressure
–
anonymity enables social
loafing
–
anonymity irrelevant to
production blocking
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
Analysis:
• Good
application to online group design demonstrates usefulness of approach
Kraut 200x:
Applying Social Psych…
Finholt & Sproull
• Goals:
– Compare
“real” group with electronic groups (mailing lists)
– Understand effect
of DLs on organizational behaviour
– Provide framework
for evaluating group activity
– Evaluate DLs in
that context
Finholt & Sproull
• Context:
– Organizational
Behaviour
– LANs uncommon in
1988
– Internet was
largely built on Usenet and email
– Electronic groups
are seen to be having increasing influence on organizations
Finholt & Sproull
Summary:
• Groups
are more important than individuals within organizations
• Assume
that egroups should be considered as secondary preference for
“natural” groupings
• Observe
that some egroups behave like “real” groups
Finholt & Sproull
Summary:
• Restrict
their interest to behaviours that only
exist online
• DLs
used for variety of purposes:
– social groups
– required
(organizational) groups
– discretionary work
groups
Finholt & Sproull
Summary:
• Assume
that all conversational acts can be categorized as:
– Interaction
– Influence attempts
– Identity
maintenance
• Go
through every message on DLs and classify them
Finholt & Sproull
Summary:
• Evidence
suggests that egroups can function as real groups