Working CSCW:

Multivalent Social Relationships in Computer Supported Workplaces

---

---

December 1995

Note: This paper is adapted from "Cooperation, Coordination and Control in Computer Supported Work." Communications of the ACM 34(12)(Dec, 1991):83-88. It will be published in Sara Kiesler (Ed.) Research Milestones on the Information Highway. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum (1996 or 1997).

Keywords: computer supported cooperative work, computers and work, theory of organizational interfaces, social impacts of computing, groupware

CR Review Categories: H4.2 H4.3 H4.5 K4.3

Acknowledgements: I sharpened this paper through electronic discussions with Werner Beuschel, Jon Grudin, Matthew Jones, Hannes Lubich, Sara Kiesler, Dale Larson, David Pipes, Peter Renzland, David Stodolsky, Alan Wexelblat and the anonymous reviewer. John King was particularly helpful in convincing me that coordination requires control strategies to be effective. Funds for developing this paper came from NSF Grant IRI9015497. Sara Kiesler's enthusiasm for republishing this paper in the mid-1990s served as an important opportunity to update it. 

---

Abstract

Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) is becoming possible for work group computing as the technology continues to advance, but CSCW involves much more than technology since the entire social structure of a work environment plays a major role. CSCW restructures the work environment, something that many writers, in their enthusiasm for CSCW, ignore or discount. There are positive aspects to CSCW, such as cooperation, collaboration and commitment, but the difficult aspects of working with other people are often important as well: competition, conflict and control. In practice, many working relationships can be multiva- lent, and mix elements of cooperation, conflict, conviviality, competition, collaboration, commitment, caution, control, coercion, coordination and combat.

Many prototypes for CSCW systems have been developed, but relatively few have become viable commercial products. The same holds true for groupware applications, which have not found commercial success, with the exception of electronic mail, some conferencing programs, and recently the myriad of products that help people browse and manage documents on the World Wide Web. The social dynamics of work make CSCW the center of a technology-based social movement rather than merely a technological advance. The movement's ideology focuses on the social value of new products. But this focus ignores many key social practices which shape the use of computing technologies, including CSCW. Automation can support workplace transformations that are shaped by managerial practices and team work practices, but it is not an independent cause of social change. The paper illustrates these ideas with examples from the CSCW and information systems research literatures.

The Technologies for Computer Supported Cooperative Work

The term "CSCW" was publicly launched in the early 1980s. Like other important computing terms, such as artificial intelligence, it was coined as a galvanizing catch-phrase, and later given more substance through a lively stream of research. A community of interest formed around the research programs and conferences identified with the term and advanced prototype systems, studies of their use, key theories, and debates about them. CSCW is best characterized as an arena rather than a "field" since most of the active participants maintain primary identities in other fields, such as human-computer interaction, information systems, and social impact studies. Even though most CSCW researchers participate in multiple research communities, CSCW offers special excitement: it is a term in the making and a way of conceiving of fundamentally new possibilities of computer support for work.

CSCW denotes at least two kinds of things: special products (groupware), and a movement by computer scientists who want to provide better computer support for people, primarily professionals, to enhance the ease of collaborating. The earliest groupware focussed on products that were enriched forms of electronic mail or systems designed to help people schedule meetings more efficiently by having access to their colleagues' calendars.

Researchers disagree about the definition of CSCW, but the current definitions focus on technology. I see CSCW as a conjunction of certain kinds of technologies, certain kinds of users (usually small self-directed professional teams), and a worldview that emphasizes convivial work relations. These three elements, taken together, differentiate CSCW from other related forms of computerization, such as information systems and office automation, which differ as much in their typical users and the worldview describing the role of technology in work, as the technology itself. CSCW is the product of a particular computer-based social movement rather than simply a family of technologies (Iacono and Kling, 1996). Descriptions of these products in the CSCW literature are saturated with rich social meanings in addition to explanations of their technological features.

But the CSCW movement (Iacono and Kling, 1996) has rapidly advanced new technological visions. Today, a group of professionals can use sophisticated text processors, graphics displays, spreadsheets and other analytical programs, and software development systems, to develop software or a complex report on workstations in their private offices. However, if they hold a meeting to discuss their work, their underlying technological support is much weaker. When they walk into a typical seminar room, they leave their computers behind. They pick up ruled pads and meet in rooms which provide, perhaps, whiteboards and and overhead projectors. If two or more group members wish to discuss documents or programs, they also have to meet face to face in one of their offices if they want to use their best computer tools. Today's computer tools are designed for one person's work at a time. Even shared systems, such as electronic mail or databases, are based on models of one user at a time accessing certain information.

Some computer scientists feel that the speed and ease of intellectual teamwork would be enhanced if computerized systems could provide seamless platforms for people to use their best computerized tools regardless of their locations (Ishii and Miyake, 1991. These applications would enable people to have the electronic equivalents of shared blackboards and notepads, with all the capabilities added by computer storage, retrieval, and manipulation, in their private offices and in their meeting rooms. Some system designers have gone further after noting that communication limited to telephone and computer is relatively low bandwidth. They have enhanced their shared computer systems with two-way interactive video channels so that participants could see each other or documents on each others' desks. Other CSCW researchers are interested in providing special software to make meetings more effective. These special systems help brainstorm, organize agendas, and provide computational support for group decision making strategies. Schrage's (1990) vivid book title, Shared Minds, captures some of the underlying sensibility, (although "sharing" misses the concerns for privacy of information in some systems).

Certain distinctive slogans help distinguish the CSCW movement from other computer-based social movements: "cooperative work," "shared minds," "seamless systems," "collaborative systems," "intellectual teamwork" resonate with relentlessly positive social imagery (Howard, 1987; Iacono and Kling, 1996). CSCW developers often focus on the fine grained organization of features, the design of interfaces, and the way that people could actually use their systems (see for example, (Ellis, Gibbs and Rein, 1991, Kyng, 1991). There is an intimate quality to these concerns, with a focus on the pragmatics of interpersonal communication and the practical activity of groups. For example, Kyng (1991) coins the term "mutual learning" to denote a relationship of professional parity between system designers and system users. One of the striking features of the CSCW literature is the way that many designers try to respect the ways that people actually organize and use information. There is significant attention to the pragmatics of communication and information handling -- as in concerns over whether people prefer to point by hand or with a mouse. These concerns are a byproduct of CSCW developers' keen interests in developing systems which are very usable insofar as their model of work, interfaces and features is aligned with fine grained elements of social interaction.

In the past decade, participants in the CSCW movement have produced numerous prototypes and a few commercial systems. The prototypes have served as platforms for interesting technological experiments and for some systematic behavioral studies of how people can work while using these new systems (Kraemer and Pinsoneault, 1990). But many groupware applications have not taken off commercially. Much depends how one characterizes "groupware applications" and assesses successful adoptions: electronic mail and computer-conferencing with usenet-style boards have arguably been the most successful application. On the other hand, group calendaring systems, which are part of several widely adopted commercial "office automation" systems, are rarely used (Bullen and Bennett, 1996). And few organizations have yet purchased specialized computer conferencing systems or services.

But many CSCW researchers' ambitions reach far beyond the boundaries of communication with discrete messages. CSCW system advocates often suggest ways to transform the way that people work. After all, why invest time and money in new technologies, if they don't produce magnificent effects?

Cooperation, Coordination, and Control with CSCW at Work

Why have many CSCW applications been slow to be adopted and used, even though they are intended to dramatically improve the level of collaboration and cooperation in workplaces? The easiest answer identifies the newness of CSCW technologies, and the limitations and clumsiness of the early applications. Any technological enthusiast can explain slow adoptions with these "reasons" for the first few years. There is often a huge discrepancy between the promises embodied in a technological movements' images and any set of early prototypes and products. Artificial intelligence researchers, for example, suggested huge potential benefits long before some workable AI technologies could be commercially exploited (Iacono and Kling, 1996). But these kinds of explanations often seem to be offered as weak excuses, because they don't help us understand when people will be willing to utilize relatively clumsy technologies and when even refined technologies will be little used or valued.

Fundamental and sometimes subtle social processes in work strongly influence the ways that CSCW applications are adopted, used, and influence subsequent work. An important, but small stream of research, examines the adoption and use of CSCW applications in-vivo -- in non-laboratory workplaces. Grudin (Grudin, 1989) for example, examined the use of computerized calendaring systems and argued that they best fit the needs and work patterns of managers, who were most likely to call meetings. In contrast, the professionals who were most likely to be the participants in meetings called by managers often did not have comparable secretarial support to keep their calendars up to date. The political economy of effort favored managers, who were also likely to approve the purchase of systems with group calendars. Grudin's analysis is important because he moved from the possible usage of group calendars to the actual incentive structures for using group calendars in "typical" organizations.

Following Grudin, Orlikowski (1993) examined the use of Lotus Notes' use at a major consulting firm in the months after it was being installed. Her study raises questions about the extent to which powerful new technologies can provoke professionals in organizations to change their ways of working. Part of Orlikowski's analysis rests on the way that Notes' use was related to the reward structure at the consulting firm. Orlikowski observed that the staff and partners who had significant job security, were most willing to learn Lotus Notes and share professional information. In contrast, the numerous associates were preoccupied with their careers and the risk of being fired if they did not produce lots of billable services for their immediate clients. They were reluctant to learn Notes or to share their special expertise with each other. Why should people whose promotions depend upon being seen as having unique expertise be willing to give it away to others, just because a slick computer system facilitates it?

A key dilemma in understanding the likely usage and impacts of new CSCW lies in many CSCW articles' reliance of positively loaded concepts, like "cooperation," "collaboration," and images of convivial possibilities to characterize workplace relationships, while understating the levels of conflict, control, and coercion which are also common in professional workplaces. Virtually all work has a cooperative element. To take an extreme case, even prisoners in chain gangs often cooperate in some simple ways with their guards in their conduct of daily life. Otherwise, they would have to be dragged from place to place, even if they did not rebel violently. However, if their relationships were primarily cooperative, the prisoners would not be chained.

Most workplaces are much less coercive than chain gangs. But the primary alternatives are not simply limitless cooperation, as if these are all-or-nothing characteristics of group relations. As Grudin (1989) points out in the case of group calendars, most professionals are not so eager to cater to their managers' preferences that they will continually inconvenience themselves and lower their productivity in order to help their manager's secretary schedule meetings. They are somewhat cooperative, but also somewhat autonomous and self-oriented. Further, some kinds of conflict in groups are critical for identifying alternative lines of action and avoiding groupthink, as long as conflicts are resolved constructively and with dignity. In practice, many working relationships can be multivalent, and mix elements of cooperation, conflict, conviviality, competition, collaboration, commitment, caution, control, coercion, coordination and combat (just to stay with some "c-words"). They also involve attention to substantive tasks, managing the organization of work, genuine sociability, and even play (Finholt and Sproull, 1990).

Some computer scientists, like Morton Kyng(1991), develop CSCW applications with a deep appreciation of the complex nuances of social relations at work that lead to unexpected patterns of computer use. Unfortunately, most articles about CSCW in computer science journals and conferences downplay the likely uses when social relationships are less euphoric than the happy terms, "cooperation and collaboration," connote. But social life is rarely so convivially univalent. Professionals and managers are often concerned with enhancing their control, avoiding control, and countering control. It is common for professionals to be mildly competitive, even when they have long-standing collaborations and coordinate routinely. Many CSCW designers wish to enhance the cooperative elements of worklife. When they avoid discussions of control and conflict, they act as if they are fundamentally illegitimate, and that recognizing their importance could amplify their power. Some CSCW applications have interesting features which can enhance teamwork in new ways when groups are already cooperating and eager for more.

Unfortunately, the common practice of understating the importance of conflict and control at work make the implicit theories in many CSCW papers too limited to understand the actual uses of groupware. Coordination often requires significant control to insure compliance when the participants don't satisfy their obligations. For example, one might easily schedule a meeting and with six busy people, and then find that they don't all come on time, stay, and contribute constructively. Without ways to insure that participants don't overschedule themselves, are meticulous with their calendars, attend scheduled meetings conscientiously, and participate constructively, coordinating a common meeting time and scheduling follow on tasks can be for naught. In this example, sanctions for shirking would lie outside of the groupware, but not outside an effective group.

The problems of relying upon resolutely convivial concepts to characterize work relations are most visible when there are overt contradictions between authors' concepts and their examples. These misfits also give us some clues about the limits of the "language of possibility." For example, Ishii and Miyake, (1991) characterize "groupware" as systems that "supports dynamic collaboration in a work group..." The activity on which they demonstrate their "TeamWorkstation" is an instructional task in which one skilled person teaches another how to perform a specific task. They note, without any reflexive interpretation, that one of their two instructors simply "limited himself to issuing procedures." Their key example illustrates authoritarian control as well as "dynamic collaboration."

Such overt contradictions are less common than key gaps in an analysis. Researchers often illustrate their CSCW systems with hypothetical groups, or groups drawn from universities or industrial labs where reciprocal give and take is commonplace. Conse- quently they tend not to observe (or report) how status differences, organizational control systems, and hierarchy are reflected in the use of their groupware prototypes. It is not sufficient to simply state that social relationships and organizational arrangements are important, and then give them incidental attention. Nor should they be glossed, as in the key article about The Coordinator (Flores, Graves, Hartfield and Winograd, 1988), a well-known and controversial CSCW system. This enhanced email system is designed with an assumption that reduced ambiguity in communication and the resulting tighter organizational controls are important reforms for all organizations. However, the authors characterize The Coordinator as a tool which opens possibilities for conversations to better explore alternative actions and commit- ments to them. They assume that patterns of "authority, obligation, and cooperation" are stable. But they argue for important changes in the way that people communicate about possibilities and the actual nature of their actions. However, these kinds of conversations sometimes question and disrupt existing patterns of authority, obligation, and cooperation. Flores, et. al. do not examine the interplay between actual organizational control patterns, real work, and the use of The Coordinator.

Francik, Rudman, Cooper and Levine (1991) illustrate a serious alternative for computer scientists. They initiate their discussion of Wang's Freestyle with a typical technology-driven description, in this case expanding the capabilities of a PC to include a tablet, pen and voice handset as new I/O devices. While they are excited by the possibilities of this technological enhancement, they do not gloss organizations as systems which are free from contradictions and conflicts of interest. For example, they identify the conflicts between the way that work is organized across departmental boundaries and important organizational control patterns when they discuss their pilot projects. They tacitly indicate that computerization is embedded in a web of complex organizational relationships (Kling, 1987, Kling, 1992). Their article opens up interesting and important questions about the design of pilot tests and adoption issues pertinent to CSCW applications that cut across organizational control lines.

CSCW developers and researchers can communicate more realistic accounts of the likely uses of new technologies if they examine the rich multivalent social relationships in workplaces: simultaneously cooperative, conflictual, collaborative, controlling, convivial, competitive. The articles which underplay the richness of workplace relations can't help us advance our understanding of the uses and impacts of CSCW. For example, the discussions of The Coordinator focus on specific kinds of conversations about tasks in organizations, and ignore conversations about the processes of organizing that might restructure patterns of authority, obligation, and cooperation. Consequently, they ignore fundamental and pervasive organizational processes, such as those organized around power and belief systems. Similarly, Ellis, Gibbs and Rein (1991) characterize the "coordination problem" as "the integration and harmonious adjustment of individual work efforts towards the accomplishment of a larger goal." "Harmonious adjustment" in workplaces involves diverse strategies of social control. But the authors' two key concepts, shared contexts and group window, don't help us understand how computer systems can help restructure or reinforce different control patterns in workplaces.

When computer scientists have studied the key behavior that inhibits group performance in real workplaces, they have often found interesting phenomena. For example Krasner, Curtis, and Iscoe (1987) studied the practices that most significantly impeded large scale software development projects. They found a variety of communication problems. For example, developers did not understand how the customer's operating conditions influenced design tradeoffs. A software environment that can help developers more readily capture, store, and retrieve documents about the alternative design choices and tradeoffs could reduce some of these communication problems. The discussion of alternative design ideas are often primarily in a few people's heads when the collaborations and communications are supported by face to face meetings and telephones (Yakemovic and Conclin, 1990). Such CSCW applications may or may not have a favorable political economy of effort Grudin (1989), depending upon the level of additional effort that designers would have to expend and benefits to them, as well to other system developers who work downstream.

Some designers, however, might have additional reservations about providing broad access to rich design discussions, based on the ways that rewards, credit and blame are allocated in their organizations. If designs don't work out as planned, designers could be subjected to tough "Monday morning quarterbacking." Their detailed electronic notes could provide strong evidence that they rejected choices that appear "obviously best" in retrospect or they had misvalued "obvious tradeoffs." System designers may avoid using this kind of groupware to support their development team's efforts if they fear that they can be blamed if their designs don't work out well. Many professionals who are attracted to buoyant images like "intellectual teamwork" and "shared minds" may balk at using groupware that also facilitates downstream participants "sharing blame" with them. Would they be foolish to avoid sharing key design notes and debates if they work in a somewhat punitive organization? As Kyng (1991), notes with a different kind of example, "sharing information" can lead to many different kinds of consequences, depending upon the social relationships between those who provide information about their work practices and those who use it.

One related and inescapable point is the way that the use of computerized systems, including CSCW, depend upon managerial policies and practices (Finholt and Sproull, 1990). Designers who are developing generic products cannot control the managerial styles of organizations that adopt their systems. But "truth in advertising" requires that system developers be willing to face and write about the use of their systems in the context of managemerial practices that will be common for likely adopters. For example, some organizations may allow their workers to mix play and work with computerized bulletin boards (Finholt and Sproull, 1990) while others will turn off systems when employees use raunchy language or discuss taboo topics, like the treatment of women in workplaces (Zuboff, 1988). Organizations vary considerably in the tightness of managerial control and their openness to debate. In contrast with Flores, et. al. (1988), Perrolle (1991) argues that organizations that restrict electronic discussions to technical questions distort important communications (and thus hamper their effectiveness). Clement (1994) examined the willingness of CSCW researchers who develop advanced multi-media systems that support workplace communication and control through surveillance to account for the possibility of their artifacts being use to create electronic prisons in some workplaces. Unofrtuantely, he found these researchers to be very reluctant to systematically consider such possibilities.

The Contradictions of Technological Revolutions and Social Transformations

Like advocates of other new computerized technologies, many CSCW advocates allude to the possibilities of fundamentally transforming important social practices and relationships. CSCW researchers explore CSCW's special character, and often differentiate CSCW from related kinds of technologies: Office Automation and Information Systems. CSCW researchers do not view today's artifacts as graceful and always easy to work with. For example, Kyng (1991) provides numerous illustrations of the ways that technically interesting systems fit and misfit practical work relationships. Rouncefield, Viller, Hughes, and and Tom Rodden (1995) examine the design of CSCW systems to fit small offices where people constantly interrupt ach other.

In addition, CSCW researchers are rediscovering the aspects of organizational behavior, such as the dilemmas of altering institutionalized work patterns and workplace politics, that information systems researchers discovered some time ago (Andrada, 1995). In the last few years, some information systems researchers have explicitly examined the organizational dilemmas of using groupware, such as Lotus Notes, to change organizational practices (Bullen and Bennett, 1996; Orlikowski, 1993). But this small stream of research seems to be primarily known to researchers rather than to a much broader array of practicing computing profesionals.

Unfortunately, profesionals who are exploring a new technological family, such as CSCW, CIM, and expert systems, often write as if their new technologies can transform organizations in ways that were fundamentally impossible with precursor technologies. They often adopt a mode of analysis, technological utopianism, that amplifies the possibility of valued social changes and underplays the possibilities of little change or significant problems as a byproduct of the technology (Kling, 1996). These utopian assumptions, that are often implicit and relatively modest, makes it hard for researchers, professionals and managers to understand the real social opportunities and limitations of the new technological family. Further, when scientists also proselytize for the value of their systems, they risk exaggerating the strength of the evidence that supports the value of their favorite technologies.

Computerization alone rarely transforms organizations (Kling, 1991). Many CSCW researchers often seem ambivalent about this issue. They want the excitement of "revolution" without the fear and risks that social upheavals bring. Perin (1991) characterizes the stable elements of organizations as "social fields." She astutely notes that organizations do not always adopt every technological capability. Her best example is the case of telecommuting. Today, millions of white collar professionals could be more productive on tasks that require sustained concentration by working outside their normal office where they are subject to frequent interruptions. Many of these people could productively work at home one or two days a week, perhaps with computer and electronic mail support. But aside from a few occupations such as college teaching, software development, and freelance journalism, relatively few organizations allow their professionals to work at home one or two days a week in lieu of reporting to their offices daily. Perin argues that managers' interest in controlling their workers biases them against supporting significant work at home programs. (Of course, people are free to work at home as much as they wish during the evenings and on weekends!).

The case of telecommuting is an important example to help us understand the opportunities and dilemmas of organizational control in the case of new technologies. Perin's argument ignores the ways that some organizations, such as universities and research labs, allow some of their highest status professionals to telecommute some of the time. Her theorizing doesn't acknowledge and help us understand important organizational differences. But her article helps us clearly see the ways new computerized technologies are used in workplaces where both cooperation and control are fundamental social processes. Those who argue that telecommuting will become commonplace when some interesting technology is commonplace, such as ISDN or home-based video conferencing, usually ignore the incentives and mindset that encourage many managers to prefer having their subordinates on site. While some managers could change their styles of management, the simple availability of an interesting technological alternative is rarely a sufficient incentive to drive large scale organizational change (Kling and Zmuidzinas, 1994). One cannot adequately understand the selective adoption and actual use of telecommuting, or other CSCW applications, without appreciating the rich multivalent social relationships of workplaces.

New technologies expand the limits of the possible, and CSCW systems support interesting means for reducing the complications of intellectual teamwork. But how CSCW systems restructure social relationships at work, if at all, depends upon preexisting patterns of authority, obligation, and cooperation, and an organization's openness to significant change, as well as the technology's information processing capabilities (Blomberg, 1988; Orlikowski, 1993; Kling and Zmuidzinas, 1994; Kling and Jewett, 1994). A view of work and organization as "people working together in cooperative task systems" which dominates much of the CSCW design literature is not sufficiently rich to understand the actual use and impacts of CSCW.

We have to expand the range and depth of studies that examine CSCW's integration into richly complex and nuanced worlds of work, technology, and organization in order to to have a more systematic basis for understanding when the exciting promis- es are most likely to be realized. We need a more substantial shift from technological utopianism to social realism in the CSCW literature. This article identifies a rich stream of studies that illustrates how socially rich perspectives about the use of CSCW artifacts deepens our understanding of their adoption and likely consequences for workers and organizations. Most seriously, it is also important to make the key ideas from this stream of research widely known to CSCW designers and other information and computing professionals.

References

Andrada, Rosemary. 1995. Building Community Through the World Wide- Web. Technical Report ICS-TR-95-11. Department of Information an Computer Science. University of Hawaii. (July).

Bikson, Tora K. and S. A. Law. 1993. Electronic Mail Use at the World Bank: Messages from Users. The Information Society 9(2)(Apr-Jun):89-124.

Blomberg, Jeanette. 1988.. The Variable Impact of Computer Technologies on the Organization of Work Activities. pp 771-781 in Irene Grief (Ed.) Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings. San Mateo, Ca: Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.

Bullen, Christine and John Bennett. 1996. "Groupware in Practice: An Interpretation of Work Experiences." in Rob Kling. Computerization and Controversy (2nd Edition) (2nd ed.) San Diego, Academic Press.

Clement, Andrew. 1994. "Considering Privacy in the Development of Multi-media Communications." Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2:67-88. also in Rob Kling. Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. (2nd ed.) San Diego, Academic Press.

Ellis, Clarence, S.J. Gibbs, and G.L. Rein. 1991. Groupware: Some Issues and Experiences. CACM 34(1)(Jan):38-58

Finholt, Tom and Lee S. Sproull. 1990. Electronic Groups at Work. Organizational Science 1(1), 41-64.

Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B. and Winograd, T. (1988). Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 6(2):153-172.

Francik, Ellen, Susan Erlich, Rudman, Donna Cooper and Stephen Levine. 1991. "Freestyle, a multimedia communications system: Strategies for Development and Adoption: Communications of the ACM 34(12)(December):52-63

Grudin, Jonathan. 1989. "Why Groupware Applications Fail: problems in design and evaluation." Office: Technology and People, 4:3, pp. 245-264.

Grudin, Jonathan. 1994. Groupware an Social Dynamics: Eight Challenges for Developers. Communications of the ACM 37(1)(January):92- 105

Howard, Robert. 1987. "System Design and Social Responsibility: The Political Implications of 'Computer Supported Cooperative Work.'" Office: Technology and People. 3:175-187.

Iacono, Suzanne and Kling, Rob. 1996. "Computerization Movements and Tales of Technological Utopianism" in Rob Kling. Computerization and Controversy (2nd Edition) (2nd ed.) San Diego, Academic Press.

Ishii, Hiroshi and Naomi Miyake. "TeamWorkStation. An Open Shared Workspace." Communications of the ACM 34(12)(Dec, 1991):36-50.

Kling, Rob. 1987. "Defining the Boundaries of Computing Across Complex Organizations." in Critical Issues in Information Systems, R. Boland and R. Hirschheim (eds.). John-Wiley.

Kling, Rob. 1991. "Computerization and Social Transformations" Science, Technology and Human Values. 16 (3)(Summer):342-367.

Kling, Rob. 1992. "Behind the Terminal: The Critical Role of Computing Infrastructure In Effective Information Systems' Development and Use." In Challenges and Strategies for Research in Systems Development. William Cotterman and James Senn (eds.) New York: John Wiley. 153-201.

Kling, Rob. 1996. "Hopes and Horrors: Technological Utopianism and Anti-Utopianism in Narratives of Computerization in Rob Kling. Computerization and Controversy (2nd Edition) (2nd ed.) San Diego, Academic Press.

Kling, Rob and Tom Jewett. 1994. "The Social Design of Worklife With Computers and Networks: An Open Natural Systems Perspective" in Advances in Computers. Volume 39. Marshall C. Yovits (ed.) San Diego: Academic Pres s.

Kling, Rob and Mary Zmuidzinas. 1994. "Technology, Ideology and Social Transformation: The Case of Computing and Work Organization" Revue' International de Sociologie #2-3(1994):28-56.

Krasner, Herb, Bill Curtis, and Neil Iscoe. 1987. "Communication Breakdowns and Boundary Spanning Activities on large Programming Projects." in Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop Gary Olson, Sylvia Sheppard & Elliot Soloway (Ed.) Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub Co..

Kraemer, Kenneth L. and Alain Pinsonneault. 1990. "Technology and Groups: Assessments of Empirical Research" in Galegher, Jolene, Robert Kraut, and Carmen Egido (Eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Intellectual Foundations of Cooperative Wor k. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kyng, Morton "Designing for Cooperation" Communications of the ACM 34(12)(Dec, 1991): 64-73.

Markus, M. Lynne. 1994. "Finding a 'Happy Medium': The Explaining the Negative Effects of Electronic Communication on Social Life at Work" from ACM Transactions on Information Systems. (12)2 (April):119-149. also in Rob Kling. Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. (2nd ed.) San Diego, Academic Press.

Markus, Lynne and Dan Robey. 1988. "Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research" Management Sciences. 34(5):583-598.

Orlikowski, Wanda J. 1993. Learning from Notes: Organizational Issues in Groupware Implementation. The Information Society 9(3) (Jul-Sep):237-250. also in Rob Kling. Computeri zation and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. (2nd ed.) San Diego, Academic Press.

Perin, Constance. 1991 Electronic Social Fields in Bureaucracies. Communications of the ACM 34(12)(Dec.):74-82

Perrolle, Judith. 1991. "Conversations and Trust in Electronic Interfaces" in Charles Dunlop & Rob Kling (Eds.) Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston, Academic Press.

Rouncefield, Mark, Viller, Stephen, Hughes, John A., and Tom Rodden. 1995. Working with "constant interruption": CSCW and the small office. The Information Society v11, n3 (Jul-Sep 1995):173-188.

Yakemovic, K.C.B. and E. Jeffrey Conklin. 1990. Report on a Development Project Use of an Issue based Information System. CSCW'90 Proceedings. (Oct.) pp. 105-118.

 Zuboff, Shoshana. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. Chapter 10. New York, Basic Books.

---

 
Last modified 3/25/02