A linguistic analysis of group support systems interactions for uncovering social realities of organizations

Abstract

Talks are actions, and language represents the medium through which we encounter reality, carry out practical reasoning, and construct social actions. This study applies the speech act theory to analyze the data collected in a study by Trauth and Jessup [2000] and confirms previous research findings that both the topic and the group size influence the pattern of discussion, especially when issues are threatening. It also shows that the abundance of speech acts like assertives, directives, and expressives can be accounted for by a few simple recurring patterns, indicating participants are rather close-minded. More important, linguistic analysis helps uncovering defensive speech routines that inhibit the generation of valid information and create self-sealing patterns of escalating error. Linguistic analysis may therefore complement positivist and interpretive analysis by examining if participants' engagement is superficial or profound, if consensus is reached or blocked, and if certain speech acts lead to dysfunctional organizational learning. Hence, in the era of participatory Web in which language is the primary medium for interactive sharing and dynamic collaboration, linguistic analysis can be applied to study the promises and declarations that people rely on to initiate, coordinate, and complete social actions.

References

1. Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., and Rosenthal, R. 1996. More than words: Linguisitic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. J. Person. Social Psychol. 70, 5, 996--1011.
2. Argyris, C. 1990. Overcoming Organozational Defense. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
3. Argyris, C. 1994. Initiating change that perseveres. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 4, 3, 343--355.
4. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and Smith, D. M. 1985. Action Science. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. CA.
5. Argyris C. and Schön, D. A. 1978. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison Wesley, New York.
6. Argyris C. and Schön, D. A. 1996. Organizational Learning II. Addison Wesley, New York.
7. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
8. Dennis, A. R. and Wixom, B. H. 2002. Investigating the moderators of the group support systems use with meta-analysis. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 18, 3, 235--257.
9. Dennis, A. R. and Reinicke, B. A. 2004. Beta versus VHS and the acceptance of electronic brainstorming technology. MIS Quart. 28, 1, 1--20.
10. DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R. B. 1987. A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Manag. Sci. 33, 5, 589--609.
11. DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. 1994. Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organiz. Sci. 5, 2, 121--147.
12. Fjermest, J. and Hiltz, S. R. 1999. An assessment of group support systems experiment research: Methodology and results. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 15, 3, 7--149.
13. Gordon, M. D. and Moore, S. A. 1999. Depicting the use and purpose of documents to improve information retrieval. Inf. Syst. Res. 10, 1, 23--37.
14. Gurak, L. J. 2001. Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with Awareness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
15. Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
16. Herring, S. 1999. Interactional coherence in CMC. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vo4/issue4/herring.html
17. Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. A. 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
18. Holtgraves, T. 2002. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language Use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London.
19. Huang, W. W. and Wei, K. K. 2000. An empirical investigation of the effects of group support systems (GSS) and task type on group interactions from an influences perspective. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.17, 2, 181--206.
20. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., and McGuire, T. W. 1984. Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. Amer. Psychol. 39, 10, 1123--1134.
21. Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis. Sage, London.
22. Lacity, M. C. and Janson, M. A. 1994. Understanding qualitative data: A framework of text analysis methods. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 11, 2, 137--155.
23. Lim, T. and Bowers, J. W. 1991. Face-Work, solidarity, approbation, and tact. Hum. Comm. Res. 17, 3, 415--450.
24. Littlejohn, S. W. 1999. Theories of Human Communication. Wadsworth Publishing, New York.
25. Lyytinen, K. J. 1985. Implications of theories of language for information systems. MIS Quart. 9, 1, 61--74.
26. Lyytinen, K. J. 2004. The struggle with the language in the IT--Why is LAP not in the mainstream? In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP'04).
27. Mingers, J. 2003. The paucity of multimethod research: A review of the information systems literature. Inf. Syst. J. 13, 233--249.
28. Mingers, J. and Moore, S. A. 2001. A foundation for flexible automated electronic communication. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 1, 34--62.
29. Mullen, B., Jason, C., and Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic Appl. Social Psychol. 12, 1, 3--23.
30. Nastri, J., Peña, J., and Hancock, J. T. 2006. The construction of away messages: A speech act analysis. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol1/issue4/Nastri.html
31. Neff, B. D. 1998. Harmonizing global relations: A speech act theory analysis of PRForum. Public Relat. Rev. 24, 3, 351--376.
32. Rafaeli, S. and Sudweeks, F. 1997. Networked interactivity. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/rafaeli. sudweeks.html
33. Ramiller, N. C., Swanson, E. B., and Wang, P. 2008. Research directions in information systems: Toward an institutional ecology. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9, 1, 1--22.
34. Schein, E. H. 2003. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Reflect. 4, 4, 27--38.
35. Schoop, M. 2001. An introduction to the language-action perspective. ACM SIGGROUP Bull. 22, 2, 3--8.
36. Searle, J. R. (Ed). 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, UK.
37. Searle, J. R. 1979. Expressing and Meaning. Cambridge University Press, Oxford, UK.
38. Searle, J. R. and Vanderveken, D. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logi. Cambridge University Press, New York.
39. Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., and McGuire, T. W. 1986. Group processes in computer-mediated communication. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 37, 2, 157--187.
40. Spears, R. and Lea, M. 1992. Social influence and the influence of the “social” in computer-mediated communication. In Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, M. Lea, Ed., Harvester-Wheatsheaf, London, 30--65.
41. Sproull, L. and Kiesler, S. 1991. Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
42. Trauth, E. M. and Jessup, L. M. 2000. Understanding computer-mediated discussion: Positivist and interpretive analyses of group support system use. MIS Quart. 24, 1, 43--79.
43. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., and Jacobs, S. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentation Discourse. The University of Alabama Press.
44. Vanderveken, D. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts Volume I Principle of Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
45. Winograd, T. 1988. Language/action perspective on design of cooperative work. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3, 3--30.
46. Winograd, T. and Flores, F. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition. Ablex, Norwood.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Collaborative and social computing