Within this subsection, I examine the results of some empirical research by Galegher and Kraut [1994], Kiesler and Sproull [1992], Kraut et. al. [1992], and Lea and Spears [1991] regarding media effects on cooperative work.
Like the others, Galegher and Kraut compare computer-mediated communication in intellective teamwork to face-to-face communication. They discuss the effects of communication modalities on:
I shall use this classification as a guideline.
The findings of Galegher and Kraut point out that in the situation of computer-mediated communication, it takes more time than in the situation of face-to-face meetings to complete each stage of the task. Groups communicating by means of the computer apparently spent more total time working as well as more time communicating with each other.
Yet, despite their investment in time, groups interacting by computer still report greater difficulty in coordinating their work. From this, Galegher and Kraut conclude that the negative impact of computer-mediated communication is a function of the communicative requirements of particular tasks within the project. For example, especially in the context of equivocal problems, the lack of expressiveness and interactiveness of computerised media is experienced by group members (Kraut et. al.).
The advantage of face-to-face communication might be that it makes possible all, or most, of the forms of other communication that other media can provide. For example, in face-to-face meetings, members can easily move from individual thought, to group discussion, to initial sketches of their plans, and back to discussion of those plans, and all witin the space of a single meeting. When opportunities for interactive and expressive communications are constrained, movement between these activities becomes much more difficult (Galegher and Kraut). These difficulties would explain why it takes groups more time to complete each stage of their task in the case of computer-mediated communication.
According to Galegher and Kraut, a computer-mediated communication group was able to produce a document that was very similar in overall quality to any document which was produced by a group that was able to meet face-to-face. However, as was shown in the previous paragraph, it took the latter less time than the former to achieve the same result. Thus, the groups were equally effective in accomplishing their task, but the ones that interacted through computerised media proved to be less efficient!
Apparently, people faced with an inappropriate match between task and technology, can nevertheless carry out their work. They simply adjust their behaviour to meet their goals! As Galegher and Kraut explain, the greater amounts of time that people in the restricted communication conditions spent working and communicating about the project can be seen as adaptations to a difficult set of circumstances.
Kraut et. al. discovered that when groups can choose the modality they use to communicate about a co-writing project, they are likely to choose a rich medium when they are planning and revising; they avoid face-to-face communication when they are most intensely drafting the manuscript. In that case, they favour the use of electronic mail.
Galegher and Kraut claim that computer-mediated communication does not only interfere with efficiency, but that it also undermines the ability to establish amicable relationships. As a reason, they state that computer-mediated communication interferes with the smooth flow of conversation, making it more difficult for individuals to come to know and appreciate each other.
Meijer [1994] makes a distinction between two major movements in the study of effects of computer- mediated communication. First, he signals the RSC approach (RSC is an acronym for Reduced Social Cues) which is, among others, represented by Kiesler and Sproull. They find that because computerised communication is mainly by text, interaction lacks social context cues that are present in face-to-face settings and conversation. Based on this notion, the RSC movement came up with a number of explanations that should account for the fact that groups communicating via computer apparently produce more polarised decisions than groups that interact face-to-face. The following figure represents the RSC approach in diagram form.
Second, Meijer mentions the SIDE model (an acronym for Social Identity DE-individuation) which is, among others, represented by Lea and Spears. They suggest that the RSC movement underestimates the role of social contextual factors and normative processes in computer-mediated communication. The SIDE model is shown in the following figure:
Where in the RSC approach group polarisation is inherent in the system, the SIDE approach expects it depends on the group members whether or not this state is ever reached. Moreover, the RSC movement expects group members to act uninhibited, deregulated, and even anti normative whereas the SIDE approach expects group members to adhere to personal norms and standards.
I conclude this subsection with a remark from Galegher and Kraut, who claim that computer-mediated communication can help to distinguish tasks that seem to require the interactivity and expressiveness of face-to-face communication from those which distributed workers can perform easily and efficiently using leaner media. For the time being, it is important to learn that discussions of complicated problems, especially during the early as well as the final stages of intellective cooperative work appear to demand face-to-face communication (Kraut et. al.). Moreover, designers of computerised systems that claim to support cooperative work groups should be aware that these groups have a more difficult time carrying out their work and form weaker bonds for member support than do face-to-face groups.
Sjoerd Michels, Tilburg, The Netherlands