Fayad, François
[Université de Montréal]
Lambotte, François
[UCL]
The experience of working in VTs is greatly influenced by the characteristics of virtual environments (VE) in which they operate. They present certain advantages absent in face-to-face interactions such as the flexibility in time management (Burge: 1994), the possibility of revising conversations through archiving, the reduction of digressions by focusing conversation on task (Lopez-Ortiz and Lin: 2005) and low hierarchical structures (Warschauer: 1997). In addition, their asynchrony helps to build and share knowledge (Stacey: 1999) and it allows more reflection on posts (Sorensen: 2004). All these advantages have been highlighted with enthusiasm by the first authors interested in CMC (computer mediated communication). In their vision, technology tends to naturally improve collaboration. Hara and Kling (2000, p. 558) describe this position as a “promotional bias“ . The original enthusiasm has not waned, but researchers, who multiply studies on their own teaching experiences with VEs, realize that some benefits of the technology can also become disadvantages. Indeed, if asynchrony is useful for learning by allowing a reflection on posted messages (Burge: 1994, Warschauer 1997; Stacey: 1999, Vonderwell: 2003) it becomes a problem in terms of interaction. It leads to delays that may be harmful to collaboration: discrepancies in the interpretation of messages (Finegold and Cooke: 2006), misunderstandings due to the absence of nonverbal cues (Kreijns et al.: 2003; Lopez-Ortiz and Lin: 2005), or frustration due to delays in feedback (Burge: 1994, Finegold and Cooke 2006). These limits imply that VTs generally communicate less efficiently (McDonough et al.: 2001) and less frequently (Webster and Wong 2008) than traditional teams. According to Axtell and her colleagues (2004), the greater the distance and the dispersion between team members, the lesser are opportunities for communication. Under these conditions, shortcomings in the development of shared knowledge and language appear which, in turn, further undermine communication (Crampton: 2001).  Most researchers who mainly focus on the limitations of technology draw their inspiration from the theory of media richness (Daft and Lengel: 1986, Daft et al.: 1987). In this perspective, face-to-face interaction is considered the richest media available. Hence, constraints imposed by CMC diminish the quality of interactions due to the poverty of online medias (Axtell et al.: 2004). This theoretical approach, called the “cues-filtered-out“ paradigm following Culnan and Markus (1987), became the canonical position in the study of VTs. The main criticism addressed to this approach is that it does not take into account the effects of time. Walther (1992), for example, argues that cues alleged to be lost in CMC are in fact available but slow to take effect. Yet, not all VTs have time due to budgetary and profitability constraints or their temporary nature. Thus, to address the problems introduced by the use of CMC, practitioners and designers worked on enhancing the technology (Suthers: 2006). However, some believe that improved technology do not guarantee better collaboration within VTs. According to Axtell et al. (2004) the extent of CMC limitations also depends on the adaptability of users, one’s experience with the technology, communication partners and the context of interactions. We find it interesting to study how VTs members’ interpretative frameworks shape their collaborative experience. Several authors outline the importance of shared common grounds (knowledge, language and meaning) among members in VTs (including Cramton: 2001, Bjorn and Ngwenyama: 2009). Others, like Suthers (2006), discuss intersubjective meaning making to study collaborative learning in VEs. By cons, we found no studies on how the individual construction of meaning helps to shape the collective construction of meaning. Also, it seems interesting to widen the issue of construction of collective meaning in VTs focusing on sensemaking of individual members. We propose that the quality of a collaboration in a VT depends on which environmental cues individuals and the group decide to focus their attention. This research attempts to answer the following questions: 1.How do students make sense of their collaboration in VT? 2.How does individual sensemaking contribute to constructing collective sensemaking? In order to answer these questions, we adopt an interpretive stance and a narrative approach to study VT collaboration lived by students in Belgium and Quebec as part of a course taught simultaneously in a Belgian university and a Quebec university.
Bibliographic reference |
Fayad, François ; Lambotte, François. Negotiating collective sensemaking in virtual teams.26th EGOS Colloquium (Lisbon, Portugal, du 01/07/10 au 03/07/10). |
Permanent URL |
http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/154042 |