Constructing Interdependencies with Collaborative Information Technology

  • Helena Karsten
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 41)


Interdependence construction is the gradual formation of mutual relationships between people. In this study, the area is narrowed to interdependencies at work, in long term projects or groups. Viewing interdependence relationships dynamically, as social practices, it is possible to appreciate the complex and situated nature of this formation. The main goal of the study is to develop a theoretical account of the dynamics of the intertwined processes of interdependence construction and collaborative technology appropriation and use. The main dimensions of this account are: (1) how interdependence is constructed and established as a social process, (2) how information and communication are involved in these processes, and (3) in what ways collaborative information technology can contribute to or hamper these processes. Three earlier case studies are revisited using it. The theoretical approach opens up an extensive research program of interdependence construction in relation to collaborative information technology appropriation and use.


Interdependence collaboration collaborative information technology structuration theory information communication 


  1. Attewell, P. “Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing,” Organization Science (3: 1 ), 1992, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
  2. Barley, S. R. “The Alignment of Technology and Structure through Roles and Networks,” Administrative Science Quarterly (35), 1990, pp. 61–103.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.Google Scholar
  4. Buscher, M., and Mogensen, P. H. “Mediating Change: Translation and Mediation in the Context of Bricolage,” in Facilitating Technology Transfer through Partnership: Learning from Practice and Research, T. McMaster, E. Mumford, E. B. Swanson, B. Warboys, and D. Wastell (eds.). London: Chapman & Hall, 1997, pp. 76–91.Google Scholar
  5. Button, G., and Sharrock, W. “The Production of Order and the Order of Production: Possibilities for Distributed Organizations, Work and Technology in the Print Industry,” paper delivered at the European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’97), Lancaster, UK, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Clement, A., and Wagner, I. “Fragmented Exchange: Disarticulation and the Need for Regionalized Communication Spaces,” in Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’95), H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad, and K. Schmidt (eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1995, pp. 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleman, D. Electronic Collaboration on the Internet and Intranets. San Fransisco: Collaborative Strategies, 1996 ( Google Scholar
  8. Connolly, T., and Thorn, B. K. “Discretionary Databases: Theory, Data, and Implications,” in Organizations and Communication Technology, J. Fulk and C. Steinfield (eds.). London: Sage, 1990, pp. 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. “Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior and Organization Design,” in Research in Organizational Behavior (Volume 6), B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1984, pp. 191–233.Google Scholar
  10. Daft, R. L., and Lengel, R. H. “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Ddesign,” Management Science (32), 1986, pp. 554–571.Google Scholar
  11. Dennis, A. R., and Kinney, S. T. “Testing Media Richness Theory in the New Media: The Effects of Cues, Feedback, and Task Equivocality,” Information Systems Research (9:3), 1998, pp. 256–274.Google Scholar
  12. Dyson, E. “Why Groupware is Gaining Ground,” Datamation, March 1, 1990, pp. 52–56.Google Scholar
  13. El-Shinnawy, M., and Markus, L. “Acceptance of Communication Media in Organizations: Richness or Features?” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication (41:4), 1998, pp. 242–253.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. Gallivan, M., Goh, G. H., Hitt, L. M., and Wyner, G. Incident Tracking at Infocorp: Case Study ofa Pilot NOTES Implementation. Working Paper No. 149, Center for Coordination Science, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A., and Pierson, C. Conversations with Anthony Giddens: Making Sense of Modernity. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. Interaction Ritual. London: Allen Lee, 1972.Google Scholar
  20. Goody, J. The Interface between the Written and the Oral. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. Haraway, D. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Culture. London: Free Association Books, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. Joerges, B. “Technology in Everyday Life: Conceptual Queries,” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior (18: 2 ), 1988, pp. 219–237.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, M. R. “Structuration Theory,” in Re-thinking Management Information Systems, W. J. Currie and R. Galliers (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 103–135.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, M. R., and Karsten, H. “Collaborative Information Technology and New Organizational Forms: A Case of a Consulting Firm,” paper delivered at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS’97), Brisbane, Australia, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. Karsten, H. “Converging Paths to Notes: In Search for Computer-based Information Systems in a Networked Company,” Information Technology and People (8:1), 1, 1995, pp. 7–34.Google Scholar
  26. Karsten, H. “Relationship between Organizational Form and Organizational Memory: An Investigation in a Professional Service Organization,”Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce Special Issue on Organizational Memory Systems (9:2), 1999, pp. 129–150. Google Scholar
  27. Karsten, H., and Jones, M. “The Long and Winding Road: Collaborative IT and Organizational Change,” paper delivered at the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’98), Seattle, WA, November 16–18 1998.Google Scholar
  28. Kling, R. “Cooperation, Coordination and Control in Computer-supported Work,” Communications of the ACM (34:12)1991, pp. 83–88. Google Scholar
  29. Kock, N. “Can Communication Medium Limitations Foster Better Group Outcomes? An Action Research Study,” Information & Management (34: 5 ), 1998, pp. 295–305.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B. On Technical Mediation: The Messenger Lectures on the Evolution of Civilization, Cornell University, April 1993. Working Paper ISRN LUSADG/ IFEF/WPS-93/9—SE. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, 1993.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyytinen, K., and Ngwenyama, O. “What Does Computer Support for Cooperative Work Mean? A Structurational Analysis of Computer Supported Cooperative Work,” Accounting, Management, & Information Technology (2:1), 1992, pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
  33. Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979.Google Scholar
  34. Ngwenyama, O. Breakdowns and Innovations in Computer Mediated Work: Groupware and the Reproduction of Organizational Knowledge, unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan Business School, Ann Arbor, MI, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. Ngwenyama, O. “Groupware, Social Action and Emergent Organizations: On the Process Dynamics of Computer Mediated Distributed Work,” Accounting Management & Information Technology (8:4), 1998, pp. 123–143. Google Scholar
  36. Orlikowski, W. J. Evolving with Notes: Organizational Change Around Groupware Technology, Working Paper 186, Center for Coordination Science, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, June 1995.Google Scholar
  37. Orlikowski, W. J. “Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective,” Information Systems Research (7:1), 1996, pp. 63–92.Google Scholar
  38. Poster, M. The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  39. Poster, M. The Second Media Age. Cambridge, England: Polity Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  40. Prinz, W., Mark, G., and Pankoke-Babatz, U. “Designing Groupware for Congruency in Use.” paper delivered at the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’98), Seattle, WA, November 16–18, 1998.Google Scholar
  41. Robinson, M. “Computer Supported Cooperative Work: Cases and Concepts,” in Readings in Groupware and Computer Supported Cooperative Work, R. Baecker (ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Morgan Kaufman, 1991.Google Scholar
  42. Rogers, Y. “Exploring Obstacles: Integrating CSCW in Evolving Organizations,” in Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’94), Chapel Hill, NC, 1994, pp. 67–77.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidt, K. “Of Maps and Scripts: The Status of Formal Constructs in Cooperative Work,” paper delivered at the GROUP’97 ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, Phoenix, AZ, 1997.Google Scholar
  44. Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. Connections: New Ways of Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  45. Suchman, L. Plans and Situated Action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  46. Swanson, E. B., and Ramiller, N. C. “The Organizing Vision in Information Systems Innovation,” Organization Science (8: 5 ), 1997, pp. 458–474.Google Scholar
  47. VanHouse, N. A., Butler, M. H., and Schiff, L. R. “Cooperative Knowledge Work and Practices of Trust: Sharing Environmental Planning Data Sets,” paper delivered at the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’98), Seattle, WA, 1998.Google Scholar
  48. Weick, K. E. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979. Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  49. Zuboff, S. In the Age of the Smart Machine. New York: Basic Books, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Karsten
    • 1
  1. 1.University of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations