Computer Supported Cooperative Work as Sub-field in CHI

1. Computer Supported Cooperative Work as Sub-field in CHI • Utility • Importance of groups • Importance of communications as an integral part of computing systems • Interpersonal computing is a growth area in computer systems • Groups are important, but not perfect • Unaided groups don't live up to their potential • Current technology constrains what groups can do • Science • Lewin: Nothing is as practical as a good theory • Reversed: Nothing generates theory as a well as useful application • Malone: Challenge is to develop general theories of coordination that transcend type of actor • Both goals require an interdisciplinary enterprise

2. Groups are valuable • Way to pool resources to tackle problems that are too large or complex for an individual to solve • Effort - e.g., construction gang, large software development projects • Expertise - e.g., teaching this course, executive team • Interests - e.g., school board, Congress • Perspective/Point of view - e.g., human subjects review board • In many task groups do better than the individuals comprising them • E.g., Learning • Interacting groups learn concepts more quickly and use different strategies (e.g focus) • Students often learn better thru cooperative learning teams in schools than through individual instruction • Mechanisms for why groups are better than individuals • Aggregation of resources -- energy, ideas, points of view, etc • Error checking • Cognitive division of labor (e.g., in learning tasks, group is able to hold the hypotheses tried and their outcomes • Synergy

3. What is CSCW • Building information systems that help groups of people accomplish their goals • Applying knowledge from • Computer science • Telecommunications • Organizational behavior • Small group research • Individual cognition and motivation • Task domains • But the reference disciplines are inadequate to the task & the practitioners don't look deeply enough • Understanding the “impact” of information systems on the way groups work, play, & live

4. What is CSCW (conceptual)

5. Core social science knowledge relevant to CSCWdesign • Much CSCW design is ad hoc, based on personal experiences & limited observation (e.g., contextual inquiry) • This approach ignores a wealth of relevant core social science knowleged • Small group tradition in social psychology • Context-less group. • IPO framework • Small theories of relevant phenomena • Not A THEORY of the group • Social psychology tradition in organizational behavior • Teams in organizational context • What can the theory offer? • Identifies leverage points • Insight into design solutions • But not a blueprint for design

6. Case 1: Social loafing • People work less hard when they are working together than working alone or side-by-side • Physical tasks • Cognitive tasks

7. Karau & Williams, 1997 • Subject perform a brainstorming task, working side-by-side • Vary individual vs. collective work • Individual: Put ideas in separate boxes • Collective: Put ideas in common box • Vary group cohesion • Friends vs strangers • Vary perceived ability of others in groups • Low: “I’m lousy at this type of task” • High: Irrelevant comments or “I’m generally good at this type of task” Karau, S. & Williams, K. The Effects of Group Cohesiveness on Social Loafing and Social Compensation Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. June 1997 Vol. 1, No. 2, 156-168

8. Theory must account for these facts about social loafing • Social loafing reduced if • Task is attractive • Task is simple • Group is attractive • Individual's output is visible • Expect others to perform poorly • Own contribution is unique • Research is done in field setting • Individual is socialized to be altruistic (?): • Women, eastern cultures, young children

9. Individual effort Individual outcomes Individual performance Valance of outcome Motivational force X = Individual effort Individual performance Individual outcomes Group performance Group outcomes Social loafing: The theory • Assumption that individuals work to the extent that they think their effort will lead to some valued outcome • Being in a group may shift beliefs about the necessity of one's output, the efficacy of one's output, and the desirability of the outcome

10. Exercise • On the Internet, people under-contribute resources to the “groups” they belong to • Amazon reviews • Posts to bboards on listservs (10/1 lurker to poster ratios) • Free-riding on Napsters/Gnetella (70% share no songs; top 1% of sites deliver 30% of song) • Given what you know about social loafing, are there any design changes you can make that would lower the free-riding rates? Concretely, redesign http://www.sharedexperience.org/

11. Applying the theory to design Discussion

12. How would you handle: • Who can join: • Screen on domain expertise • Prior relationships • What can get talked about: Moderation vs. lack of moderation • How should people be identified: Anonymity vs. aliases vs. real identities • How large can the group get? • Unlimited vs. capping vs. splitting

13. How would you exploit: • Identifiability? • Attractiveness of task? • Attractiveness of group? • Group size? • Uniqueness of contribution? • Expectation that others will perform poorly? • Self-selection?

14. Why isn’t the theory more useful? • Social science typical shows bivariate (or low order) relationships among variables, all else being equal • Design demands understanding the complex of relationships • Implications • Need for intellectual tools for modeling/simulating complex systems. (But there is a problem is testing the models) • Current social science provides inspiration, but no simple heuristic for translation to design

15. Inherent difficulties in applying group theory to design • CSCW tool is attempting to optimize multiple outcomes simultaneously • Each desired outcome is multiply caused • Each system feature may have effects on multiple psychological states and group processes Psychological states/ Group process Desired outcomes System features O1 F1 S1 S2 O2 F2