Download PDF

Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 27–35 | Cite as

Empirical research in CSCW — a review of the ACM/CSCW conferences from 1998 to 2004

  • Jacques Wainer
  • Claudia Barsottini
Open Access
Articles

Abstract

This paper reviews all the 169 full papers published in the ACM/CSCW conferences from 1998 to 2004. We classify the papers according to the type of empirical research they report. The classes are evaluation of groupware, description of work situations, hypothesis testing, bibliographic research, and papers with no empirical research. We show that the field is in constant change, that the proportions of papers in these different categories have been changing in these 6 years, and that for the evaluation papers, the results by Pinelle and Gutwin do not carry for the 1998–2004 period

Keywords

groupware CSCW systematic review empirical research bibliographic review evaluation 
Download to read the full article text

References

  1. [1]_ACM. TOC: Computer Supported Cooperative Work. http://portal.acm.org/toc.cfm?id=SERIES296, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. [2]_P. Antunes, M. Borges, J. Pino, and L. Carriço. Analyzing groupware design by means of usability results.Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, 2005.Google Scholar
  3. [3]_R. M. Araujo, F. M. Santoro, and M. Borges. The CSCW Lab for groupware evaluation. InGroupware: Design, Implementation and Use: 8th International Workshop, CRIWG 2002, number 2440 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 222–231. Springer, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. [4]_R. M. Araujo, F. M. Santoro, and M.R.S. Borges. The CSCW Lab ontology for groupware evaluation. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, pages 148–153. IEEE Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. [5]_R. Baeza-Yates and J. A. Pino. A first step to formally evaluate collaborative work. InGROUP ’97: Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work, pages 56–60, New York, NY, USA, 1997. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. [6]_Andrew L. Cohen, Debra Cash, and Michael J. Muller. Designing to support adversarial collaboration. InCSCW ’00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 31–39, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  7. [7]_K. Eason and W. Olphert. Early evaluation of the organizational implications of CSCW systems. In P. Thomas, editor,CSCW Requirements and Evaluation, pages 75–89. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [8]_R. L. Glass, V. Ramesh, and I. Vessey. An analysis of research in computing disciplines.Commun. ACM, 47(6):89–94, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]_Rebecca E. Grinter and Leysia Palen. Instant messaging in teen life. InCSCW ’02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 21–30, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  10. [10]_J. Grudin. Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers.Commun. ACM, 37(1):92–105,1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] _E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincon.Effective evaluation. Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. [12]_Lena Mamykina and Catherine G. Wolf. Evolution of contact point: a case study of a help desk and its users. InCSCW ’00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 41–48, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  13. [13]_J.E. McGrath. Methodology matters: Doing research in the behavioral and social sciences. In RM. Baecker, J. Grudin, W.A.S. Buxton, and S. Greenberg, editors,Readings in Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, pages 152–169. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [14]_Dennis C. Neale, John M Carroll, and Mary Beth Rosson. Evaluating computer-supported cooperative work: models and frameworks. InCSCW ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 112–121, New York, NY, USA, 2004. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  15. [15]_W. Orlikowski and J. Baroudi. Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions.Information Systems Research, 2(1):1–28, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]_D. Pinelle and C. Gutwin. A review of groupware evaluations. InProceedings of WET ICE 2000, pages 86–91. IEEE Computer Society, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. [17]_D. Pinelle, C. Gutwin, and S. Greenberg. Task analysis for groupware usability evaluation: Modeling shared-workspace tasks with the mechanics of collaboration.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 10(4):281–311, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]_A. Pinsonnealult and K. L. Kraemer. The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research.Decision Support Systems, 5(2):197–216, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]_V. Ramesh, R.L. Glass, and I. Vessey. Research in computer science: An empirical study.Journal of Systems and Software, 70(1–2): 165–176, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]_M.P. Steves, E. Morse, C. Gutwin, and S. Greenberg. A comparison of usage evaluation and inspection methods for assessing groupware usability.Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIG-GROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work, pages 125–134, 2001.Google Scholar
  21. [21]_L.A. Suchman.Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. [22]_W. F. Tichy, P. Lukowicz, L. Prechelt, and E. A. Heinz. Experimental evaluation in computer science: A quantitative study.Journal of Systems and Software, 28(1):9–18, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]_Steve Whittaker, Quentin Jones, and Loren Terveen. Contact management: identifying contacts to support long-term communication. InCSCW ’02: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pages 216–225, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Computer Society 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacques Wainer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claudia Barsottini
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of ComputingState University of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBRAZIL
  2. 2.Department of Health InformaticsFederal University of Sao Paulo (UNIFESP)Sao PauloBRAZIL

Personalised recommendations