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 December 7, 2004 4:43 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.zephoria.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3083
Well, on the other hand you could consider that they have been able to follow what happens if IM is introduced into a workplace and how people deal with it's addition. In a workplace it is common that the firewall prevents workers to use IM with the outside world anyway, regardless of how it's built into their lifestyle at home. So here you have a very good case for allowing IM in the workplace as they show what happens with people who are familiar and unfamiliar with the technology and how different styles develop regardless. I believe researchers note that some of the heavy IM users were familiar with the technology prior to using hubbab (familiar with other technology that is). If that's not in the paper, then it must have been in the session. I was at the two sessions when she presented them @ CSCW (albeit not entirely "present" but still, that one caught my attention :).
Posted by: Irina at December 13, 2004 10:44 PM