©2003, Lee Iverson Lee Iverson UBC Dept. of ECE EECE 571W Week 3 Groups.
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of ©2003, Lee Iverson Lee Iverson UBC Dept. of ECE EECE 571W Week 3 Groups.
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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)
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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?
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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?
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Today
• 4 papers (+2)
• 5 minute reviews
• 20 minutes of summary etc.
• rest of class: discussion
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
McGrath 1984:Typology of Tasks
Goals:
• Provide a categorization of tasks performed in group settings that are:– mutually exclusive
– exhaustive
– logically related
– useful
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Typology of Tasks
QII
: C
ho
ose
QII
: C
ho
ose
QIV
: Execu
teQ
IV: E
xecute
QI: GenerateQI: Generate
QIII: NegotiateQIII: Negotiate
1. P
lann
ing2. C
reative
3. Intellective
4. Decisions
5. C
ogni
tive
Con
flict
6. Mixed-m
otive
7. Competitive
8. Psycho-motorCoo
pera
tion
Con
flict
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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.
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Suchman 1983:Office Procedure…
Goals:
• Provide work models that reflect actual practices
• Provide framework for producing “office automation” systems
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Suchman 1983:Office Procedure…
Context:• Social Anthropology• Office automation was focus of much
development effort in ‘80sGoal: Provide tools that would increase productivity
by introducing computers to traditional offices
• Existing work based on procedural models
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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?”
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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”
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
McGrath 1991:TIP: A Theory of Groups
Context:• Sociology• Most theories of small group behaviour
come from lab-based studies– Social psychology– Simple, artificial tasksLimited generalisability
• New emphasis on dynamics of groups
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
McGrath 1991:TIP: A Theory of Groups
4. Group behaviours show temporal patterns, including:
1. Flow of work2. Time-activity matching3. Entrainment or synchronization
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
McGrath 1991:TIP: A Theory of Groups
5. Collective action can be described by
Temporal Problem
Org. Response
Individual Response
Residual Problem
Ambiguity Schedules Temporal committment
Deadlines
Conflicting requirements
Synchronization
Norms for behaviour
Norms for smooth flow
Scarcity of time
Resource allocations
Comparts for interactions
Regulation of interaction
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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.
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Kraut 200x:Applying Social Psych…
Goals:• Suggest ways in which social psychology
can inform research toward CSCW goals:1. Support distributed groups2. Enhance work of collocated groups
• Introduce theory of “production loss”• Show how knowledge can be applied to
design of online groups
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Kraut 200x:Applying Social Psych…
Context:• Social psychology• Mixture of motivations from
engineers/CS and social theorists• Build on work of McGrath and others
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Kraut 200x:Applying Social Psych…
Production loss: Reasons groups don’t live up to aggregation effect
• Social pressure• Social loafing• Production blocking
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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 lossExample:• Effects of anonymity on three reasons:
– anonymity reduces social pressure– anonymity enables social loafing– anonymity irrelevant to production blocking
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Kraut 200x:Applying Social Psych…
Analysis:
• Good application to online group design demonstrates usefulness of approach
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Kraut 200x:Applying Social Psych…
Variable Link to Theory DesignIdentifiability •Direct deterrent to
loafing•Behaviour connected to outcomes
•Disallow anonymity
Attractiveness of task
•Increases value of individual outcomes
•Provide interactivity•Define topic clearly•Don’t constrain content
Attractiveness of group
•Increases valance of group outcomes
•Define topic clearly•Recruit membership based on external relationships
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
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
©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE
Finholt & Sproull
Summary:• Evidence suggests that egroups can
function as real groups