Saeko Nomura
ABSTRACT
Coordinating goals, schedules, and tasks among collaborators is difficult, and made even more so when there are disciplinary, geographic and institutional boundaries that must be spanned. Designing CSCW tools to support coordination in these settings, however, requires an improved under-standing of the constraints and conflicts that impede effective collaboration. We present findings from a study of distributed collaborations between academic surgeons and biomedical engineering researchers. These two groups differ significantly in their work priorities and institutional contexts, but are nonetheless able to work together and co-ordinate effectively. They accomplish this via human mediation, frequent ad hoc communication, and optimizing the use of their limited face-to-face interaction opportunities.
- Aoki, P. M. and Woodruff, A. Making space for stories: Ambiguity in the design of personal communication systems?. In ACM CHI(2005). 181--190. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L. and Messina, P. Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2003.Google Scholar
- Barley, S. R. Technicians in the workplace: Ethno-graphic evidence for bringing work into organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, (1996). 404--441.Google Scholar
- Birnholtz, J. When do researchers collaborate? toward a model of collaboration propensity in science and engineering. JASIST, 58, 14 (2007). 2226--2239. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Birnholtz, J. P. What does it mean to be an author? the intersection of credit, contribution and collaboration in science. JASIST, 57, 13 (2006). 1758--1770. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cummings, J. and Kiesler, S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36, 10 (2007). 138--152.Google ScholarCross Ref
- DeSanctis, G. and Monge, P. R. Introduction: Communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10, 6 (1999). 693--698. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Finholt, T. A. Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12, 1 (2003). 5--25.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Finholt, T.A. and Birnholtz, J. P. If we build it, will they come? the cultural challenges of cyberinfrastructure development. In NBIC Convergence 2004(2004).Google Scholar
- Galison, P. and Hevly, B. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
- Goffman, E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1959.Google Scholar
- Grady, D. and Altman, L. K. Global collaboration bears fruit as SARS gives up some secrets. The New York Times, 1, May 26, 2003.Google Scholar
- Hagstrom, W. The Scientific Community. Basic Books, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
- Handel, M. and Herbsleb, J. D. What is chat doing in the workplace?. In ACM CSCW(2002). 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hargens, L. L. Patterns of Scientific Research. American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, 1975.Google Scholar
- Haythornthwaite, C., Lunsford, K. J., Bowker, G. C., and Bruce, B. Challenges for research and practice in distributed, interdisciplinary, collaboration. In C. Hine (Ed.), New Infrastructures for Science Knowledge Production. Idea Group, Hershey, PA, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heyer, C., Brereton, M., and Viller, S. Cross-channel mobile social software: An empirical study. In ACM CHI(2008). 1525--1534. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hinds, P. and McGrath, C. Structures that work: Social structure, work structure and coordination ease in geographically distributed teams. In ACM CSCW(2006). 343--352. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hutchins, E. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Pressfield, Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
- Knorr, C. K. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.Google Scholar
- Kouzes, R. T., Myers, J. D., and Wulf, W. A. Collaboratories: Doing science on the internet. IEEE Computer, 29, 8 (1996). 40--46. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kraut, R., Egido, C., and Galegher, J. Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration. In ACM CSCW(1988), 1--12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, C., Dourish, P., and Mark, G. The human infrastructure of cyberInfrastructure. In ACM CSCW(2006). 483--492. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malone, T. W. and Crowston, K. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 24, 1 (1994). 87--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- March, J. and Simon, H. Organizations. Wiley, New York, NY, 1955.Google Scholar
- Mervis, J. Marburger asks social scientists for a helping hand in interpreting data. Science, 308, (2005). 617.Google Scholar
- Nentwich, M. Cyberscience: Research in the Age of the Internet. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 2003.Google Scholar
- Olson, G.M. and Olson, J. S. Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction, 15, (2001). 139--179. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Olson, J. S. and Teasley, S. D. Groupware in the wild: Lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation. In ACM CSCW(1996). 419--427. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Powell, W. Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40, 3 (1998). 228--240.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pratt, M. G. and Rafaeli, A. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Acad. Management J, 40, (1997). 862--899.Google Scholar
- Reddy, M., Dourish, P., and Pratt, W. Temporality in medical work: Time also matters, In ACM CSCW(2006). 29--53. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schmidt, K. The problem with 'awareness'. CSCW, 11, (2002). 285--286. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shrum, W., Genuth, J. and Chompalov, I. Structures of Scientific Collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thompson, J.D. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
- Van De Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A. L. and Koenig Jr., R. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 2 (1976). 322--338.Google Scholar
- Whitley, R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.Google Scholar
- Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D., and Daly-Jones, O. Informal workplace communication: What is it like and how might we support it? In ACM CHI(1994), 131--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Cutting into collaboration: understanding coordination in distributed and interdisciplinary medical research
Recommendations
Barriers to virtual collaboration
CHI EA '08: CHI '08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis paper reports on the implementation and use of a virtual collaboration system - a virtual collaborative desk (VCD) that has been introduced to a software design team in an organizational context. Virtual collaboration systems are complex and can be ...
Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration
In this paper we make a case for the use of multiple theoretical perspectives—theory on boundary objects, epistemic objects, cultural historical activity theory, and objects as infrastructure—to understand the role of objects in cross-disciplinary ...
A "Distance Matters" Paradox: Facilitating Intra-Team Collaboration Can Harm Inter-Team Collaboration
CSCW1By identifying the socio-technical conditions required for teams to work effectively remotely, the Distance Matters framework has been influential in CSCW since its introduction in 2000. Advances in collaboration technology and practices have since ...
Comments