E N D
Trustworthy in the eye of the beholder?-A cognitive perspective on personal profile information in virtual project teamsEllen Rusman1, Jan van Bruggen1, Peter Sloep1,Rob Koper, Martin Valcke21) CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands, The Netherlands2) Department of Educational studies, Ghent University, Belgium CSCL conference 9th of July 2011 Hong Kong
Source: centre for effective organisations http://www.marshall.usc.edu/web/CEO.cfm?doc_id=5181
http://www.zazzle.nl/virtuele_teamappreciatie Peter Steiner, 1993, The New Yorker
Able? Open? Honest? Integer? Willing to help? Bron: http://www.ibtimes.com/data/blogs_editor/careerealism/design-hall-mirror-94175.jpg Available? Friendly?
Cognitive perspective on personal profiles Character traits Age Hobbies Personal motivation for project Workexperience Family situation Photo Nationality Education Availability Interests Recommendations Position
Thank you for your attention ! Want to know more?Please talk to me now, or later via: ellen.rusman@ou.nlor take a look at my PhD thesis on:http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/3411CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands
Method • Questionnaire: 226 respondents with virtual project experience selected the 10 information elements they considered most important to form an initial trustworthiness assessment from the results of their own brainstorm and a pre-defined list (with 143 elements) • They were asked to provide an explanation of their selection: • What are the facts you can derive from this information? • Why is this information valuable for your assessment of the trustworthiness of your team members? What do you derive from this information?
Method (2) • Use of frequencies to determine 15 most common mentioned information elements • Coding of explanations with TrustWorthinessANtecedent schema (TWAN) • Coding unit: explanation, different multiple-codes/per explanation allowed, no double codes/per explanation allowed • Initial set of explanations (10%) coded by 2 coders. Interrater-reliability: 0.79 (good to excellent). Excluded one category (Other) to calculate alpha as the two coders consistently understood this category differently • Use frequencies and percentages of ‘code-use’ to determine whether and how often antecedents are mentioned in explanations and whether respondents associate similar antecedents with similar information elements
Conclusions • Participants prefer information elements which provide multiple cues for multiple antecedents • Antecedents of competence, commitment, responsibility, availability and communality are most often referred to in initial phase • Participants did not seem to prefer information elements which provided unique cues for an antecedent • Information preferences can not all be cognitively explained (e.g. photo) • Can guide the design of artifacts to get acquainted and inform trustworthiness assessments • Coding scheme can function as an analysis framework for interpersonal trust related problems in collaborative settings
Thank you for your attention ! Any questions or suggestions?ellen.rusman@ou.nlTake a look at my PhD thesis on:http://dspace.ou.nl/handle/1820/3411CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands