©2003, Lee Iverson Lee Iverson UBC Dept. of ECE EECE 571W Week 3 Groups

©2003, Lee Iverson <[email protected]> UBC Dept. of ECE

EECE 571W

Week 3

Groups


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)


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?


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?


Today

• 4 papers (+2)

• 5 minute reviews

• 20 minutes of summary etc.

• rest of class: discussion


McGrath 1984:Typology of Tasks

Goals:

• Provide a categorization of tasks performed in group settings that are:– mutually exclusive

– exhaustive

– logically related

– useful



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


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



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.


Suchman 1983:Office Procedure…

Goals:

• Provide work models that reflect actual practices

• Provide framework for producing “office automation” systems



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



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?”



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



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



Analysis:• Place existing practice “under the

microscope”• Probably better than designing systems

to align users with restrictive assumptions of “best practices”


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



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



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



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



4. Group behaviours show temporal patterns, including:

1. Flow of work2. Time-activity matching3. Entrainment or synchronization



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



6. Efficient workflow requires complex matching of activity bundles to periods of time

7. Social entrainment is useful for constructing temporal patterns



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



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.



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


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



Context:• Social psychology• Mixture of motivations from

engineers/CS and social theorists• Build on work of McGrath and others



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



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



Production loss: Reasons groups don’t live up to aggregation effect

• Social pressure• Social loafing• Production blocking



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



Analysis:

• Good application to online group design demonstrates usefulness of approach



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


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


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


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


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


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


Finholt & Sproull

Summary:• Evidence suggests that egroups can

function as real groups

Documents

©2003, Lee Iverson Lee Iverson UBC Dept. of ECE EECE 571W Week 3 Groups