UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (01/06/90)
One way that Delphi and other similar methods try to avoid Group Think
is by using anonymity. In short, low status right-thinkers can stand up to
higher status wrong-thinkers because it is harder to know exactly who
they are.
Of course, another important point is that our current decision making and
discussion techniques are very susceptible to Group Think. New methods
might try to reduce the tendency, but could still be useful even if
they were no worse.
leelamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) (01/09/90)
In article <90006.101744UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >One way that Delphi and other similar methods try to avoid Group Think >is by using anonymity. In short, low status right-thinkers can stand up to >higher status wrong-thinkers because it is harder to know exactly who >they are. I thought that Delphi was supposed to also identify distinct differing opinions, as well as a consensus if it exists. At least, that is what I have read. The idea would be that the opinions cluster around a number of consensuses. The hope is that these clusters would be much smaller than the number of participants. Is this not correct? Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9, UUCP ames!lamaster NASA Ames Research Center ARPA lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov Moffett Field, CA 94035 Phone: (415)694-6117
huff@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Charles Huff) (01/09/90)
Are we sure that we want to encourage systems that completely (or as much as possible) eliminate groupthink? Some of the characteristics of groupthink are: 1) a cohesive group 2) a directive leader 3) gatekeepers who block out unwanted information 4) a press for consensus Of course, if we use phrases like "premature consensus" or "too directive" it become obvious. But we might _want_ a directive leader to exercise influence and _want_ to exclude people who disagree from our discussion. For vindication of these suggestions, see T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Laudan, P. Feyerabend or most other "new" philosophers of science. These folks argue eloquently that science is (to some extent at least) an enterprise that needs some social influence in it (and not mere logical, empirical, argument). If we keep people from exercising social influence in CSCW (which we may not be able to do anyway) we may produce chaos. Kiesler, Sproull et al. (at CMU) have done studies showing that Email negotiations take much longer to conclude than face-to-face negotiations - and often do not conclude at all but end up with people screaming in all caps at each other and leaving the lab by separate exits. The Information Lens allows for some social influence. You can, for instance always dump mail from Joe Jerk (be a gatekeeper). Perhaps the challenge is to find a way to smoothly wed social influence with CSCW. -Chuck Huff Psychology Department St. Olaf College Northfield MN 55057
UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) (01/11/90)
I doubt that we are good enough social engineers yet to really control
or predict the amount of groupthinkness that this or that system might
embody. Telephones "encourage" teletag, while email doesn't. That's
simply one of the differences between those two media.
The degree to which the Information Lens, Coordinator, EIES, UseNet, or
whatever do or do not contribute to groupthink is a question for
empirical study, and will characterize them (in part, of course) as
we discuss them in the future.
leebdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (01/11/90)
In article <40069@ames.arc.nasa.gov> lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes: |[...] |I thought that Delphi was supposed to also identify distinct differing |opinions, as well as a consensus if it exists. At least, that is what I |have read. The idea would be that the opinions cluster around a number |of consensuses. The hope is that these clusters would be much smaller |than the number of participants. Is this not correct? Most places I know about, the number of distinct differing opinions is significantly larger than the number of participants... -- \\\\ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \66/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< \_ "Head-slam me, Jesus, on the turnbuckle of life" - Godzibo
reggie@dinsdale.nm.paradyne.com (George W. Leach) (01/11/90)
In article <90010.110838UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >I doubt that we are good enough social engineers yet to really control >or predict the amount of groupthinkness that this or that system might >embody. Telephones "encourage" teletag, while email doesn't. That's >simply one of the differences between those two media. Dr. Hiltz (EIES) is a sociologist. >The degree to which the Information Lens, Coordinator, EIES, UseNet, or >whatever do or do not contribute to groupthink is a question for >empirical study, and will characterize them (in part, of course) as >we discuss them in the future. %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %A Murray Turoff %T The Evolution of User Behavior in a Computerized Conferencing System %J Communications of the ACM %V 24 %N 11 %D November 1981 %P 739-751 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %T Impact of a Computerized Conferencing System upon use of other %T Communication Modes %J Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer Communication %C London, England %D 7-10 September 1982 %P 577-582 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %A Murray Turoff %A K. Johnson %A C. Aronovitch %T Equality, Dominance and Group Decision Making: %T Results of a Controlled Experiment on Face to Face Vs. Computer %T Mediated Discussions %J Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Communication %C Atlanta, USA %D 27-30 October 1980 %P 343-348 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %A Murray Turoff %T Applications and Impacts of Computerized Conferencing in the %T Multi-National Organization %J Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Computer Communication %C Kyoto, Japan %D 26-29 September 1978 %P 711-716 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %T Impact of a Computerized Conferencing System upon Scientific %T Research Specialties %J Journal of Research Communication Studies %V 1 %D 1978 %P 111-124 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %T Experiments and Experiences with Computerized Conferencing %B Emerging Office Systems %B based on Proceedings of the Stanford University International %B Symposium on Office Automation %E Robert M. Landau %E James H. Bair %E Jean H. Siegman %I Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey 07648 %D 1980 %P 187-204 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %T The Human Element in Computerized Conferencing Systems %J Computer Networks %V 2 %D 1978 %P 421-428 %A Starr Roxanne Hiltz %T Computer Conferencing: Assessing the Social Impact of a New %T Communications Medium %J Technological Forecasting and Social Change %V 10 %D 1977 %P 225-238 George W. Leach AT&T Paradyne (uunet|att)!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-133 Phone: 1-813-530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 FAX: 1-813-530-8224 Largo, FL 34649-2826 USA
bannon@betelgeuse.csc.ti.com (Tom Bannon) (01/13/90)
In article <90010.110838UH2@PSUVM.BITNET> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes: >> The degree to which the Information Lens, Coordinator, EIES, UseNet, or I am working on a groupware system that could be entitled "Coordinator". If things go well it should be on the net in 4 months or so. In 2 months I may advertize for beta testers. I would be interested in information about this "Coordinator"; a description of what it is and/or some references would be nice. Thanks, Tom bannon@csc.ti.com