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.

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.

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