hupfer-susanne@CS.YALE.EDU (Susanne Hupfer) (03/14/91)
I am new to the area of groupware/CSCW and would greatly appreciate
any responses to the following questions:
1) What research topics/areas do the terms "groupware" and "CSCW" encompass?
2) What is the history of "groupware" and "CSCW" research? When
did these research areas come into existence, and how has the focus
of research changed/evolved since their inception?
3) What and where are the major groupware/CSCW research efforts currently
taking place? Who and where are the most widely known researchers in
the field?
4) What papers/books/other literature are considered significant in the field?
Thanks,
Susanne Hupfer
=============================================================================
Yale U. Computer Science Dept. INTERNET : hupfer@cs.yale.edu
P.O. Box 2158 Yale Station BITNET : hupfer@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT 06520-2158 UUCP : {ucbvax,harvard,...}!yale!hupfer
=============================================================================dsstodol@daimi.aau.dk (David S. Stodolsky) (03/15/91)
A good recent review article is: Ellis, C. A., Gibbs, S. J. & Rein, G. L. Groupware: Some issues and experiences _Communications of the ACM_, Jan. 1991, vol. 24, no. 1, 39 - 58. They define groupware: computer-based systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment I would like to update the newsgroup definition to conform to the above unless there is some objection. -- David S. Stodolsky Messages: + 45 46 75 77 11 x 24 41 Department of Computer Science Tel: + 45 31 95 92 82 Bldg. 20.2, Roskilde University Center Internet: david@ruc.dk Post Box 260, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark Fax: + 45 46 75 74 01
kling@ICS.UCI.EDU (Rob Kling) (03/16/91)
David, I think that the article by Ellis et. al. is an interesting technologically focussed overview for people interested in CSCW. Unfortunately, the article is very weak in its conceptualization of work in groups.... In fact, the Ellis article is generally ambivalent about the value of social science in studies of CSCW ..... Its novel organizing concepts (e.g., shared contexts & group window) don't help us understand work processes or substance ... The article has some interesting insights about concurrency control issues & some experiences w/Grove. Their definition of groupware in terms of common goals tends to reinforce the prevailing CSCW ideologies which ignore intergroup & intragroup conflict/competition. I would not accept their conception. Rob Kling UC-Irvine
simon@cuisun.unige.ch (Simon Gibbs) (03/17/91)
In article <9103151149.aa13843@ICS.UCI.EDU>, kling@ICS.UCI.EDU (Rob Kling) writes: > > ... > In fact, the Ellis article is generally ambivalent about the value > of social science in studies of CSCW ..... > ... > Their definition of groupware in terms of common goals tends to > reinforce the prevailing CSCW ideologies which ignore intergroup & > intragroup conflict/competition. I would not accept their conception. > > Rob Kling > UC-Irvine Perhaps, as one of the co-authors of the article mentioned (and since Skip Ellis is off the net for a period of time), I could respond to the above comments. First I am surprised that the article gave the impression of being "ambivalent about the value of social science in studies of CSCW." This, I'm very sure, is not the personal opinion of any of the authors. The article does focus on technology rather than social science, however this merely reflects the background of the authors. There are a number of indications in the paper of the importance of social science to the development of successful groupware applications, just a few of these indications are: "Drawing on the expertise of many specialists, including social scientists, CSCW looks at ..." "Thus, an important area not covered in this paper is concerned with the social and organizational aspects of groupware ..." "It is our belief that in groupware design, it is very difficult to separate technical issues from social concerns - and that the methods and theories of the social sciences will prove critical to groupware's success." The last quote is the last sentence in the article. I don't see how this could be interpreted as being "ambivalent". Concerning the second comment about the groupware definition given in the paper, ie: computer-based systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment let me just make a few remarks about why we ended up with this particular definition. The main reason is that we wanted a definition of groupware rather than CSCW. I see two differences: 1) The term groupware, at least in its popular usage, is closely associated with technology. CSCW, on the other hand, is associated with a broad range of issues and concepts. The technological connotation of "groupware" is worth preserving since the "ware" part of groupware suggests some analogy with hardware/software, both of which deal with technologies. 2) CSCW specifically refers to "work". But many interesting examples of groupware, such as multi-player games and shared virtual realities, are not directly concerned with work and so "work" should not appear in a definition of groupware. Simon Gibbs University of Geneva
kling@ICS.UCI.EDU (Rob Kling) (03/18/91)
Dear Simon, Thanks for your note. As I said, I read your article as AMBIVALENT about the value of social theory/social analysis. You've identified some of the observations in "Groupware: Some Issues and Experiences."< CACM 34(1)(Jan 1991):38-58> which support the value of social theory/social analysis. And there are others. On page 55 you note: "the system and the group are intimately interacting entities (p. 55)." The role of social theory is limited, at best, in the conception offered in your paper. On page 45, you treat "social theory" as sociology applied to design. This ignores the importance of "impacts studies" which would help potential adopters and users, as well as designers, understand the virtues and problematics of CSCW in use. For a comprehensive review of some of this literature, see "Technology and Groups: Assessments of Empirical Research" Kenneth L. Kraemer and Allain Pinsonneault. Chapter 14, Intellectual Teamwork. <Jolene Galegher, Robert Kraut, and Carmen Egido (Ed.) Erlbaum, 1990.> But I also see important elements in your paper which consistently question the value of social ANALYSIS. For example, you discuss 2 systems influenced by social theories, Quilt and Coordinator. And you simply observe that these systems make make additional & perhaps burdensome demands on users. <That's all folks!> I am *not* a fan of Coordinator. It is based on speech act theory, a philosophical theory of communication. There is **no** sound organizational sociology in speech act theory. You may believe that social theory/social analysis can can constructively inform CSCW designs. But the way you and your coauthors wrote these passages doesn't give the reader examples or ideas to illustrate your claims. Your passing examples undermine the value of having sound social analysis inform CSCW designs.. In another passage, you write that "social protocols" allow a system to be more adaptive to a group's preferences. You quickly qualify this observation by noting that social protocols (e.g., leaders sets agenda and sums up a meeting) can be unfair. What is left unsaid that it is technologically **impossible* and *unlikely* that one would build unfair technical protocols. (grin). I read this passage as indicating how technology is necessarily "good" and "the social" may be bad. I realize that you may not have intended these interpretations. For my CSCW seminar I carefully read your paper for your approach to social aspects of CSCW. I found that you clearly treated CSCW as embedded in groups and said some priaseworthy general things about the value of social analysis. But you examples tended to undermine your general claims. Perhaps unintended. But now you're in print with 75,000 copies of that CACM issue circulating worldwide. Best wishes, Rob Kling
yamo@nas.nasa.gov (Michael Yamasaki) (03/23/91)
Greetings. I've new to this news group, but have followed the
recent conversation about the role of social theory in CSCW/groupware.
My background is probably a bit different from most of the participants
in this news group and as such may see things from a slightly different
angle. I am a researcher in scientific visualization for NASA and one
of my current interests is the use of CSCW in scientific visualization.
The visualization area is primarily computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
There is a high degree of collaboration among CFD scientists and
frequently scientists from geographically remote locations. The
visualization process makes use of high performance graphics workstations
and frequently supercomputers.
Visualization techniques which utilize the advanced capabilities of
high-performance graphics workstations are for the most part not
transportable beyond the workstation without some loss of informational
content: resolution degradation, color degradation, lack of motion or
animation, or lack of interactivity. This lack of transportability
makes it difficult to communicate the results of the visualization
process to collaborators. Hence, techniques to share the vis process
or at least present simultaneous, identical images is important for
collaboration in CFD research.
It seems as though this is a slightly different paradigm than what I
read in the few groupware/CSCW papers that I've read. The purpose is
more on the level of basic communication, sort of a very high tech
fax, than for some higher level of social interaction. The basis for
exchange is something like:
"Let me show you something that I found in the data..."
"Oh, that's interesting, did you notice this feature over here..."
"Yes, that's related to this thing over here..."
etc.
It's more an exploration of an unknown shared environment rather than the
building of a shared environment, if that makes any sense. Consequently,
a level of agreement between the participants required for building a
shared environment is not necessary. The "common task (or goal)" in this
instance is the somewhat abstract understanding of the data being
visualized and is detached, really, from the actual shared environment.
-Yamo-
yamo@nas.nasa.gov
yamo@wk209.nas.nasa.gov
{ncar, decwrl, hplabs, uunet}!ames!amelia!yamo