NetWORKers and their Activity in Intensional Networks

  • Bonnie A. Nardi
  • Steve Whittaker
  • Heinrich Schwarz


Through ethnographic research, we document therise of personal social networks in theworkplace, which we call intensionalnetworks. Paradoxically, we find that the mostfundamental unit of analysis forcomputer-supported cooperative work isnot at the group level for many tasks andsettings, but at the individual level aspersonal social networks come to be more andmore important. Collective subjects areincreasingly put together through theassemblage of people found through personalnetworks rather than being constituted as teamscreated through organizational planning andstructuring. Teams are still important butthey are not the centerpiece of labormanagement they once were, nor are they thechief resource for individual workers. We drawattention to the importance of networks as mostCSCW system designs assume a team. We urge thatdesigners take account of networks and theproblems they present to workers.

activity theory collaborative work communities of practice social networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ancona, D. and D. Caldwell (1988): Beyond Task and Maintenance. Group and Organizational Studies, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 468–494.Google Scholar
  2. Barley, S. (1988): On Technology, Time and Social Order. In F. Dubinskas (ed.): Making Time. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, J. (1954): Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations, vol. 7, pp. 39–58.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, L. (1999): Visible and Invisible Work: The Emerging Post-Industrial Employment Relation. Computer-supported Cooperative Work, vol. 8, no. 1–2. Special issue, pp. 115–126.Google Scholar
  5. Bott, E. (1955): Urban Families: Conjugal Roles and Social Networks. Human Relations, vol. 8, pp. 345–385.Google Scholar
  6. Cappelli, P. (1999): The New Deal at Work: Managing the Market-Driven Workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, C. (1995): Work, Self and Society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (1996): The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Daft, R. and R. Lengel (1984): Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organizational Design. In B. Straw and L. Cummings (eds.): Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 6. Connecticut: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. Engeström, Y. and V. Escalante (1996): Mundane Tool or Object of Affection?: The Rise and Fall of the Postal Buddy. In B. Nardi (ed.): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Engeström, Y., R. Engeström and T. Vähäaho (1999): When the Center Doesn't Hold: The Importance of Knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard and U. Jensen (eds.): Activity Theory and Social Practice: Cultural-Historical Approaches. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Epstein, A. (1961): The Network and Urban Social Organization. Rhodes-Livingstone Journal, vol. 29, pp. 29–62.Google Scholar
  13. Freeman, L. (1988): Computer Programs in Social Network Analysis. Connections, vol. 11, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, K. and M. Fisher (1998): The Distributed Mind: Achieving High Performance though the Collective Intelligence of Knowledge Work Teams. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
  15. Friedkin, N. (1982): Information Flow Through Strong and Weak Ties in Intraorganizational Social Networks. Social Networks, vol. 3, pp. 273–285.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman, L. (1988): Computer Programs in Social Network Analysis. Connections, vol. 11, pp. 26–31.Google Scholar
  17. Granovetter, M. (1973): The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1360–1380.Google Scholar
  18. Gutwin, C. and S. Greenberg (2000): The Effects of Workspace Awareness Support. Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 243–281.Google Scholar
  19. Jacoby, S. (1991): Masters to Managers: Historical and Comparative Perspectives on American Employers. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jarvenpaa, S. and D. Leidner (1998): Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 3, no. 4.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, J. (1994): Anthropological Contributions to the Study of Social Networks. In S.Wasserman and J. Galaskiewicz (eds.): Advances in Social Network Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Kraut, R., R. Fish, R. Root and B. Chalfonte (1993): Informal Communication in Organizations. In R. Baecker (ed.): Groupware and Computer Supported Cooperative Work. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  23. Kuutti, K. (1996): Activity Theory as a Potential Framework for Human-Computer Interaction Research. In B. Nardi (ed.): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1996): Aramis, or The Love of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991): Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Law, J. and M. Callon (1992): The life and Death of an Aircraft. In W. Bijker and J. Law (eds.): Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Leont'ev, A. (1974): The Problem of Activity in Psychology. Soviet Psychology, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 4–33.Google Scholar
  28. Lloyd, P. and P. Boyle (eds.) (1998): Web-Weaving: Intranets, Extranets, Strategic Alliances. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.Google Scholar
  29. Mark, G., J. Grudin and S. Poltrock (1999): Virtually Collocated Teams in the Workplace. Proceedings ECSCW'99.Google Scholar
  30. Miettinen, R. (1998): Object Construction and Networks in Research Work: The Case of Research on Cellulose-Degrading Enzymes. Social Studies of Science, vol. 38, pp. 423–463.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, J.C. (1969): Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mortensen, M. and P. Hinds Fuzzy Teams: (2001). Boundary Disagreement in Distributed and Collocated Teams. In P. Hinds and S. Kiesler (eds.): Distributed Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nardi, B., S. Whittaker and E. Bradner (2000): Interaction and Outeraction: Instant Messaging in Action. Proceedings CSCW 2000. Philapdelphia.Google Scholar
  34. Nardi, B. and V. O'Day (1999): Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nardi, B. and Engeström, Y. (1999): A Web on the Wind: The Structure of InvisibleWork. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 8, nos. 1–2. Special issue, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  36. Nardi, B., A. Kuchinsky, S. Whittaker, R. Leichner and H. Schwarz (1996): Video-as-Data: Technical and Social Aspects of a Collaborative Multimedia Application. CSCW, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 73–100.Google Scholar
  37. Nutt, G. (1996): The Evolution Toward Flexible Workflow Systems. Distributed Systems Engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 276–294.Google Scholar
  38. Nohria, N. and R. Eccles (1992): Networks and Organizations. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  39. Olson, G. and J. Olson (2000). Distance Matters. Forthcoming in Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.Google Scholar
  40. Oravec, J. (1996): Virtual Individuals, Virtual Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Orr, J. (1996): Talking about Machines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Østerlund, C. (1996): Learning Across Contexts: A Field Study of Salespeople's Learning at Work. Skriftserie for Psykologisk Institut. Vol. 21(1). Aarhus: Aarhus University, Psykologisk Institut.Google Scholar
  43. Schraefel, M.C. (1997): Talking with Antigone. PhD Dissertation, University of Victoria, British Columbia.Google Scholar
  44. Schwarz, H., B. Nardi and S. Whittaker (1999): The Hidden Work in Virtual Work. Proceedings Critical Management Conference, Manchester, July.Google Scholar
  45. Short, J., E. Williams and B. Christie (1976): The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, V. (1994): Institutionalizing Flexibility in a Service Firm:Multiple Contingencies and Hidden Hierarchies. Work and Occupations, vol. 21, no. 3.Google Scholar
  47. Star, L. (1989): Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983): Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.Google Scholar
  49. Wellman, B. and M. Gulia (1998): Net Surfers Don't Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In P. Kollock and M. Smith (eds.): Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Wenger, E. (1998): Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. White, D., V. Batagelj and A. Mrvar (1999): Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek. Forthcoming in Social Science Computer Review.Google Scholar
  52. Whittaker, S., D. Frohlich and O. Daly-Jones (1994): Informal Communication: What Is It Like and How Might We Support It? In C. Plaisant (ed.): Proceedings of CHI'94 Conference on Computer Human Interaction, Boston, USA. NY: ACM Press, pp. 130–137.Google Scholar
  53. Wildeman, L. (1998): Alliances and Networks: The Next Generation. International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 15, nos. 1–2, pp. 96–108.Google Scholar
  54. Wolfe, A. (1978): The Rise of Network Thinking in Anthropology. Social Networks, vol. 1, pp. 53–64.Google Scholar
  55. Zager, D. (2000): Collaboration as an Activity. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol 11, nos. 1–2, pp. 181–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bonnie A. Nardi
    • 1
  • Steve Whittaker
    • 2
  • Heinrich Schwarz
    • 3
  1. 1.Agilent TechnologiesPalo AltoU.S.A
  2. 2.AT&T Labs-ResearchFlorham ParkU.S.A
  3. 3.Program in ScienceTechology and Society MITCambridgeU.S.A

Personalised recommendations