Abstract
This paper explores the relationship between technologically-mediated nomadicity (Tm-N) and issues of computer supported collaborative work. It presents findings from a four-year research project, which set out to investigate issues of Tm-N in academic settings. The findings herein presented support the argument that Tm-N can be seen as a dynamic and emergent process, which unfolds through the enactment of an ecology of practices and permeates both the work and non-work dimension of the lives of those whose jobs allow or demand some flexibility as to when and where work assignments should be carried out. The main contributions of the paper are: (i) a holistic and in-depth frame to understanding technologically-mediated nomadicity, which provides a more fine-grained and nuanced account of assorted aspects of the notion, and (ii) an analysis on how collaborative activities and computer-mediated remote interactions are related to the spectrum of motivational forces that people draw on to engage in nomadicity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
To bring resources such as printouts, laptops, mobile phones and other sorts of resources that may be used for setting up temporary workplaces and carrying out work.
- 2.
Some of the aforementioned practices have already been observed in Su and Mark’s [28] study of T-Nomads.
- 3.
‘no decision’ means that the person did not decide to move to a location to engage in the work task in question. They move to the location due to some other reason, and then some resource becomes available and they opportunistically engage in the work task of reference.
- 4.
It is worth pointing out that the spectrum of motivational forces in Fig. 1 looks different because it is organised according to the possibility of one motivation to lead to another one. For instance, if someone chooses to move to a location and work on a determined assignment, one may engage in another work task as other resources are conveniently made available on site (e.g. inspiration, time or other people); hence, choice led to opportunity. Similarly, someone may choose to go to a location (like when they go and visit a relative) and an unexpected situation forces them to move to other location and engage in work from there (e.g. a call from the boss demanding that some action is taken with regard to something); in this case, choice was followed by obligation.
- 5.
They cannot do so when lecturing involves specific resources (particular equipment, for example) found only in some places.
- 6.
It is worth pointing out that productivity is not necessarily directly (or exclusively) related to remote interactions. The data analysis conducted for this research identified that both the distant and the co-located modalities of collaboration can effectively support productivity. Participants have pointed out that face-to-face interactions are inherently richer in terms of meaning, thus allowing the involved parts to reach a common understanding of and an agreement on underlying issues faster. Therefore, participants considered immediacy as one of the motivations for choosing face-to-face interactions when possible. On the other hand, participants recursively acknowledged that, when it comes to some modes of remote communication, e.g. email, on-line material can be easily shared and discussions can be easily recorded for future reference. In their views, such things favour productivity especially in the case of formal collaborative exchanges, which suggests that achieving productivity through a particular modality of collaboration is also related to the nature of work. Hence, one should keep in mind that issues of productivity are multifaceted and involves variables like type of collaboration, mode of interaction, nature of work, etc.
- 7.
That sheds some light on Olson and Olson’s [20] questioning whether trust can be built over remote mediated interactions.
- 8.
Participants pointed out that, as a matter of fact, sometimes collaborators might not be the most sociable people that one has to deal with: they might be important collaborators, share the same ideas, add important expertise to the group, but they “might not be the most enjoyable people”, in Tom’s words.
- 9.
Some participants expressed that personal preference plays an important role in choosing between face-to-face and remote interactions. One particular participant expressed that, if she could, she would use mostly emails for communication: “… not that I can’t talk”, she says, “I can talk forever, I just feel more comfortable in communicating that way and I feel I can think about what I have to say and I don’t speak as fast and I’ve just better control maybe over my communication” (Kate, Interview). In addition to deeper reflection, participants also appraised the support that email gives to asynchronous interaction: it facilitates collaboration between partners in different time zones, allows writing to be stopped and resumed as needed, etc.
References
Bean CJ, Eisenberg EM (2006) Employee sensemaking in the transition to nomadic work. J Organ Change Manage 19(2):210–222. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810610648915
Bradner E, Mark G (2002) Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion and deception. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/587078.587110
Chen L, Nath R (2005) Nomadic culture: cultural support for working anytime, anywhere. Inf Syst Manage 22(4):56–64. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90030.6
Ciolfi L (2013) Making place for work and life. In: ECSCW 2013 workshop “CSCW at the boundary of work and life”, Paphos, Cyprus, 1–6
Ciolfi L, de Carvalho AFP (2014) Work practices, nomadicity and the mediational role of technology. J Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 23(2)
Cousins KC, Robey D (2005) Human agency in a wireless world: patterns of technology use in nomadic computing environments. Inf Organ 15(2):151–180. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.02.008
Crabtree A, Rouncefield M, Tolmie P (2012) Doing design ethnography. Springer, London, p 205
Creswell JW (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, p 395
D’Andrea A, Ciolfi L, Gray B (2011) Methodological challenges and innovations in mobilities research. Mobilities 6(2):149–160. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2011.552769
de Carvalho AFP (2013) Technologically-mediated nomadicity in academic settings: Tm-N as a dynamic and emergent process. PhD thesis, University of Limerick, Limerick, 359 pp
Gluesing JC (2008) Identity in a virtual world: the coevolution of technology, work, and lifecycle. In: Meerwarth TL, Gluesing JC, Jordan B (eds) Mobile work, mobile lives: cultural accounts of lived experiences, Blackwell Publishing Inc., Malden, pp 70–88. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4797.2008.00020.x
Hollan J, Stornetta S (1992) Beyond being there. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, Monterey, California. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/142750.142769
Kammas S, Foley S, Rosenberg D (2003) Interface or interspace? Mediated communication for nomadic knowledge workers. In: Jacko J, Stephanidis C (eds) Human–computer interaction: theory and practice, part 2, 1 edn. CRC Press, Florida, pp 98–102
Kleinrock L (1996) Nomadicity: anytime, anywhere in a disconnected world. Mob Netw Appl 1(4):351–357
Lamming M, Eldridge M, Flynn M, Jones C, Pendlebury D (2000) Satchel: providing access to any document, any time, anywhere. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact (TOCHI) 7(3):322–352. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/355324.355326
Makimoto T, Manners D (1997) Digital nomad. Wiley, New York, p 256
Manago AM, Graham MB, Greenfield PM, Salimkhan G (2008) Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. J Appl Develop Psychol 29(6):446–458
Meerwarth TL, Gluesing JC, Jordan B (eds) (2008) Mobile work, mobile lives: cultural accounts of lived experiences. Blackwell Publishing Inc., Malden, 158 pp
Nardi BA, Whittaker S (2002) The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. In: Hinds PJ, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed work. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 82–112
Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Human-Comput Interact 15(2):139–178. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_4
Olson JR, Teasley S, Covi L, Olson GM (2002) The (currently) unique advantages of collocated work. In: Hinds PJ, Kiesler S (eds) Distributed work. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 113–136
Perry M, Brodie J (2006) Virtually connected, practically mobile. In: Andriessen JHE, Vartiainen M (eds) Mobile virtual work: a new paradigm? Springer, Berlin, pp 97–128. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28365-X_2
Perry M, O’Hara K, Sellen A, Brown B, Harper R (2001) Dealing with mobility: understanding access anytime, anywhere. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact (TOCHI) 8(4):323–347. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/504704.504707
Rossitto C, Eklundh KS (2007) Managing work at several places: a case of project work in a nomadic group of students. In: Proceedings of the 14th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, ACM, New York, pp 45–51, 28–31 Aug 2007. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1362550.1362562
Salazar C (2001) Building boundaries and negotiating work at home. In: Proceedings of the 2001 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, ACM, Boulder, Colorado, USA. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/500286.500311
Schmidt K, Bannon L (2013) Constructing CSCW: the first quarter century. J Comput Support Coop Work 22(4–6):345–372
Star SL, Ruhleder K (1994) Steps towards an ecology of infrastructure: complex problems in design and access for large-scale collaborative systems. In: Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, ACM, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, pp 253–264. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/192844.193021
Su NM, Mark G (2008) Designing for nomadic work. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on designing interactive systems, Cape Town, South Africa, 25–27 Feb 2008, ACM Press, New York, pp 305–314. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1394445.1394478
Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 318
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Dr. Luigina Ciolfi and Dr. Breda Gray for the valuable feedback on the draft versions of this paper and to acknowledge that this research was part of the “Nomadic Work/Life” project at the University of Limerick (Ireland). The project was funded by the Irish Social Science Platform (ISSP) via the Institute for the Study of Knowledge in Society (ISKS) of the University of Limerick, Ireland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
de Carvalho, A.F.P. (2014). Collaborative Work and Its Relationship to Technologically-Mediated Nomadicity. In: Rossitto, C., Ciolfi, L., Martin, D., Conein, B. (eds) COOP 2014 - Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, 27-30 May 2014, Nice (France). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06498-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06498-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06497-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06498-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)