« November 2004 | Main | January 2005 »

December 7, 2004

Isaacs, et. al.: "The Character, Functions, and Styles of Instant Messaging in the Workplace"

Isaacs, Ellen, Alan Walendowski, Steve Whittaker, Diane Schiano, Candace Kamm. 2002. "The Character, Functions, and Styles of Instant Messaging in the Workplace." CSCW 2002. New Orleans, LA. 11-20.

Abstract:

Current perceptions of Instant Messaging (IM) use are based primarily on self-report studies. We logged thousands of (mostly) workplace IM conversations and evaluated their conversational characteristics and functions. Contrary to prior research, we found that the primary use of workplace IM was for complex work discussions. Only 28% of conversations were simple, single-purpose interactions and only 31% were about scheduling or coordination. Moreover, people rarely switched from IM to another medium when the conversation got complex. We found evidence of two distinct styles of use. Heavy IM users and frequent IM partners mainly used it to work together: to discuss a broad range of topics via many fastpaced interactions per day, each with many short turns and much threading and multitasking. Light users and infrequent pairs mainly used IM to coordinate: for scheduling, via fewer conversations per day that were shorter, slower-paced with less threading and multitasking.

Synopsis:

This is a quantitative study to deeper address the qualitative study on Interaction and Outeraction. In this study, they take various characteristics and measure them using the data from 437 subjects' use of their own IM deployment - Hubbub. They are really good at noting when and where aspects of their study might not align with uses of other IM clients.

The key findings of this paper, as far as i'm concerned, are the differences between heavy and light users in many different aspects of behavior. They also challenge the significance of certain behaviors based on statistical commonalities. For example, saying 'hello' is not as common as people assume, nor is media switching. Furthermore, they emphasize how heavy users have no problems using IM for work-related tasks and that this is their most significant use.

Commentary:

This study is a fantastic complement to the aforementioned ethnographic study, showing statistical accounts of usage. Unfortunately, i'm still wary of some of the findings because of their decision to use their own deployment rather than tracking users who have IM built into their lifestyle. I think that a work-related deployment will have different characteristics than one that is seen explicitly neither a work nor personal tool. I am excited by the implications around familiarity, or where IM becomes naturalized as a mode of communication.

Category: instant messaging

Posted by zephoria at 4:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

December 6, 2004

Nardi, Whittaker, Bradner: "Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action"

Nardi, Bonnie, Steve Whittaker, Erin Bradner. 2000. "Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action." CSCW 2000. Philadelphia, PA. 79-88.

Abstract:

We discuss findings from an ethnographic study of instant messaging (IM) in the workplace and its implications for media theory. We describe how instant messaging supports a variety of informal communication tasks. We document the affordances of IM that support flexible, expressive communication. We describe some unexpected uses of IM that highlight aspects of communication which are not part of current media theorizing. They pertain to communicative processes people use to connect with each other and to manage communication, rather than to information exchange. We call these processes "outeraction." We discuss how outeractional aspects of communication affect media choice and patterns of media use.

Synoposis:

This ethnographic report is a phenomenal discussion of how IM operates in task-driven conversation communities, with a deep awareness that there is a division between IM in these contexts and IM in social contexts.

Interaction Functions of IM: (81-82)
- quick questions and clarifications
- coordination and scheduling formal meetings
- coordinate impromptu social meetings
- keep in touch with friends and family

These interactions are fundamentally important because of the flexibility of IM and the ability to have expressive conversations

IM is disconcerting for some because of 1) lack of record; 2) distasteful interface; 3) interruption culture

Outeraction functions of IM: (82)
- establishing social connection
- preserve a sense of conversational context
- manage the communication situation as it unfolds

For example, some feel as though IM "reduces interruptivity by allowing recipients to negotiate availability" (83)

There is a deep connection between the interaction and the outeraction features of IM, marked by stages: negotiate availability, intermittent episodes of conversation, maintain a sense of connection, active communication zone, tool for switching to different media (79).

Commentary:

This ethnographic analysis of IM is solid, showing how people manage presence and communication as well as the intermediary stages in cultures that are task-driven. I would argue that identity-driven cultures (i.e. teen culture) have many of these same features as well in order to maintain the always-on intimate community that is so endemic to this group. Yet, by focusing on IM in the workspace, this article shows how IM is not just a tool for conversation and identity, but that always-on intimate communities also have value in groups that require task completion.

Category: instant messaging

Posted by zephoria at 2:59 PM | TrackBack (0)

December 2, 2004

Donald Davidson: "What Metaphors Mean"

Davidson, Donald. 1978. "What Metaphors Mean." In On Metaphor (Ed. Sheldon Sacks). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

Summary:

Davidson's essay appears to be situated in a philosophical debate concerning what metaphors mean. His essay is very much directed at Max Black, who he signals has opposing views.

He begins with his thesis, stating that "metaphors mean what the words, in their most literal interpretation mean, and nothing more" (30). He opposes those who believe that, in addition to the literal sense, it has an additional sense or meaning and lists many, including: Aristotle, Freud, Plato, Lakoff. He suggests that his approach means that metaphors accomplish more than what they're given credit for and what they accomplish is different than what others suggest. His argument is that "metaphors belong exclusively to the domain of use" (31) and that to suggest that they have an additional meaning is to weaken their power.

He continues on to address different rules for understanding the meaning of a metaphor, focusing on literal interpretations that include both the original meaning of the word and the extended meaning. Metaphors promote similarities and extensions of word meanings, but they are not arbitrary - they are always based on one of the original meanings. One should compare similes and metaphors in this analysis (36).

He moves on to give examples, explicitly addressing Black's texts in the process and offer further justification for his thesis.

[It should be noted that at the end of the book, Max Black offers a direct rebuttal to Davidson, effectively telling him he's on crack and point-by-point deconstructing his essay in bulleted form.]

Reaction:

My goal in reading this was to get another perspective on metaphor and i feel like i walked into a mine field. In reading this essay and surfing on the web, i discovered that there are two key philosophical camps on making sense of metaphors. Davidson and Searle minimize the significance of metaphor and believe that metaphor can only be analyzed literally. Black, on the other hand, is part of a camp that believes that "metaphor arises out of interactions between the conceptual structures that lie beneath the level of words" (poetry portal). Of course, Lakoff and other linguists are in an entirely different camp. He believes that metaphor is an innate cognitive trait that stems from building connections between synapses in the brain. He argues that everything can be reduced to metaphor and that it is the fabric of thought.

While i found Davidson's perspective interesting, his arguments ran so counter to my Lakoff-framed view and the tone was so aggressive that i found myself dismissing him. Perhaps i am missing something, but i'm not sure how to resolve this.

Category: philosophy

Posted by zephoria at 12:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)