User:MrsABCSmithson/sandbox

The term computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) was first coined by Irene Greif and Paul M. Cashman in 1984, at a workshop attended by individuals interested in using technology to support people in their work.[1] At about this same time, in 1987 Dr. Charles Findley presented the concept of Collaborative Learning-Work.[2] According to Carstensen and Schmidt,[3] CSCW addresses "how collaborative activities and their coordination can be supported by means of computer systems."

CSCW and Groupware

On the one hand, many authors consider CSCW and groupware to be synonymous. On the other hand, different authors claim that while groupware refers to real computer-based systems, CSCW focuses on the study of tools and techniques of groupware as well as their psychological, social, and organizational effects. The definition of Wilson (1991)[4] expresses the difference between these two concepts: “CSCW [is] a generic term, which combines the understanding of the way people work in groups with the enabling technologies of computer networking, and associated hardware, software, services and techniques.”

Resource [1] CSCW is interdisciplinary in nature and draws from many fields, including: economics, social psychology, anthropology, organizational theory, and education, combined with expertise of technologists to help understand technological constraints and venues for possible development. Essentially, CSCW goes beyond building technology itself and looks at how people work within groups and organizations and the impacts of technology on those processes. CSCW has ushered in a great extent of melding between social scientists and technologists as developers work together to overcome both technical non-technical problems within the same user spaces. For example, many R&D people are computer scientists who have realized the social factors that play an important role in the development of collaborative systems. On the flip side, many social scientists who understood the increasing role of technology in our social world became “technologist” who work in R&D labs. ______________

CSCW and Human Computer Interaction CSCW involvement grew largely out of the HCI field. Early vendors interested in capturing the CSCW market started working on the enhancement of single-user applications with group features and new ways to facilitate collaboration and incorporate multimedia technologies and began to take into consideration the “social, motivational, and political aspects of workplaces.” Focus on working through the conflicting goals that are often present in organizations. Developers and users are concerned with HCI What about recent developments?

Criticism
“Cooperative” work is more of a lofty goal than a realistic aim. (Grudin)

Almost impossible to capture requirements because user/group/organization needs and requirements change through the introduction of the system itself (Koch). Even when researchers study requirements through several iterations, such requirements often change yet again by the time that researchers have completed a particular iteration of inquiry.

Challenges and Problems
Even within the CSCW field, researchers often rely on different journals, research, contextual factors and schools of thought, which can result in disagreement and confusion especially when common terms in the field are used in subtly different ways (user, implementation, etc.) Also, user requirements change over time and are often not clear to participants due to their changing nature. Resource [1]

[Neale, Carroll, Rosson 2004] The range of disciplinary approaches leveraged in implementing CSCW systems makes CSCW difficult to evaluate, measure, and generalize to multiple populations. Because researchers evaluating CSCW systems often bypass quantitative data in favor of naturalistic inquiry, results are often subjective due to the complexity and nuances of organizations themselves. Possibly as a result of the debate between qualitative and quantitative researchers, three evaluation approaches have emerged in the literature examining CSCW systems:

Methodology-oriented frameworks explain the methods of inquiry available to CSCW researchers without providing guidance for selecting the best method for a particular research question or population.

Conceptual frameworks provide guidelines for determining factors that a researcher should consider and evaluate through CSCW research but fail to link conceptual constructs with methodological approaches. Thus, while researchers may know what factors are important to their inquiry, they may have difficutly understanding which methodologies will result in the most informative findings.

Conceptoriented frameworks provide specific advice for studing isolated aspects of CSCW but lack guidance as to how specific areas of study can be combined to form more comprehensive insight.

Difficulty in deciding which set of tools will benefit a particular group (Koch)

Getting a critical mass to participate (Koch)

Ensuring that the disparity between effort put in and benefit received in small (Koch).