Perspectives on CSCW: From HCI and CMC to CSCW*
In Proceedings International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (EW-HCI'92), St. Petersburg, Russia, August 1992 , pp 148-158. (Also "published" in electronic form with interactive discussion between readers and author on BCS HICOM electronic conference system, January, 1993)
Liam J. Bannon
Dept. of Computer Science, Copenhagen University
Universitetsparken 1, DK-2100, Copenhagen Ø
DENMARK
bannon@diku.dk
Abstract
This paper provides a perspective on the emergence of a new field of research entitled Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), tracing it to a growing realization within several communities of problems in existing approaches. The focus in this particular paper is on problems within the human-computer interaction (HCI) field, and on how the broader range of disciplinary perspectives evident in CSCW research can be seen to offer some resolution, or at least offer some new approaches, to the "crises" within the field. Along the way, we will also make some reference to another loose research community grouped under the heading of computer-mediated communication (CMC), and show how this work can be seen as a contributory step towards the development of the CSCW research field. The purpose of the paper is thus to help place the emergence of this "new" field within a framework that outlines both continuities and discontinuities with other established research traditions.
This paper discusses the origins and development of a new field of scientific research and information technology application called Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, or "CSCW" as it is more commonly called. The paper argues that the idea of CSCW has attracted attention because it helps to overcome certain problems appearing within extant research fields, specifically human-computer interaction (HCI) and to a lesser extent, computer-mediated communication (CMC). While such portrayals of the field are inevitably biased and incomplete, and paint with an overly thick brush, they may serve a useful orienting function for people new to the field, and confused about the relation between this new field and other related areas.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 provides some background concerning the numerous attempts to delineate the CSCW field. Section 2 then discusses some issues and emerging problems in the HCI field, and is followed by an outline of studies in the field of computer-mediated communication. Section 4 then shows how CSCW can partly be seen as a response to the problems mentioned in the earlier sections.
1. Defining CSCW
Understanding what CSCW is all about turns out to be a somewhat difficult task. Indeed, whether CSCW can be viewed as a field of research in its own right has been questioned by some. At the same time, interest in the topic has risen dramatically over the last several years, since the first open conference on the topic held in 1986. (See Bannon & Schmidt, 1989, Grudin, 1990, 1991, and Hughes et al., 1991 for some background and perspectives on the field). Despite this interest, there is still no commonly accepted definition of the field (Wilson, 1991). In an earlier paper, Bannon et al. (1988) noted how CSCW might be viewed as simply an "umbrella term" that allowed people from a variety of different disciplines, with partially overlapping concerns, to come together and discuss issues, without any common ground as to the concept of CSCW, other than the very loose idea that it was somehow about the use of computers to support activities of people working together. In a somewhat similar vein, Rob Kling has spoken of CSCW as an "arena" where different groups vie for the attention of participants, rather than a coherent focused field. Hughes et al. (1991) view CSCW as a paradigm shift in the way we think of designing computer support systems, rather than a new research area per se. This echoes the views of Suchman (1989), who describes CSCW as "....the design of computer-based technologies with explicit concern for the socially organized practices of their intended users."
A focus on groups has been the hallmark for much work in the field to date, and has given rise to the term "groupware" to distinguish the computer products marketed in this area. Irene Greif, one of the originators of the term CSCW, has provided a more restrictive description of the new field, defining it as "an identifiable research field focused on the role of the computer in group work" (Greif, 1988). This focus on the support of groups per se has been critiqued by others. Greenberg (1991) attempts to evade definitional problems by using both terms in the title of a recent edited collection in the area, stating that groupware describes the development of software for groups, and CSCW is the research area concerned with the nature of work practices etc., on which groupware builds.
Bannon & Schmidt (1989) define CSCW as "an endeavour to understand the nature and requirements of cooperative work with the objective of designing computer-based technologies for cooperative work settings". Here the emphasis is on understanding cooperative work as a distinctive form of work, and on supporting these cooperative work forms with appropriate technology. This broadens the scope of the field considerably beyond that of computer support for groups. This definition is echoed in that of Lyytinen (cited in Robinson, 1990), who argues: "CSCW is neither solely a tool or technology business, not just a new way to study computer impact on the work place. Instead, in CSCW, equal emphasis is put on the distinctive qualities of co-operative work processes, and on questions of design: how to mould computer technology to fit into and support these work processes."
These latter definitions can serve as a useful starting point when considering the nature of CSCW. They emphasize the deep understanding that is needed of the nature of cooperative work arrangements, and even more importantly the design issue of how technology could be involved in supporting, and developing, these cooperative work practices. In sum, CSCW can be seen as a new research field involved in exploring a wide range of issues concerning cooperative work arrangements and its support via information technology. Thus studies in areas such as computer-aided design (CAD), computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM), computer-aided software engineering (CASE), etc., are all relevant to the CSCW field to the extent that they study the use of computers to support cooperative work in different domains. Such a view of the field opens it up to a wider mix of disciplines than simply computing and software engineers, encompassing cognitive and social psychologists, work sociologists and anthropologists, and many others.
That the nature of the CSCW field has been, and continues to be, debated is not necessarily a problematic sign. In any area of science, the definition of the field - its core concerns and its boundaries - is best viewed as "contested terrain", even more so as the field struggles to find a unique identity, so it can set itself apart from its progenitors. The simple fact that there is dispute is symptomatic of a healthy debate about the underlying issues of computer support, the nature of work, the role of groups in organizations, etc. We now proceed to link the development of this field to related, existing, fields of research - in this case, human-computer interaction and computer-mediated communication.
2.0 Issues in HCI
There are a large number of factors that have encouraged the emergence of the CSCW field (Bannon et al., 1988; Bannon & Schmidt, 1989; Greif, 1988; Grudin, 1991; Hughes et al., 1991; Robinson, 1990). One reason for the emergence of a new framework or research area is dissatisfaction with the methods and results of the currently constituted fields. In this Section, I concentrate on a particular area of research, human-computer interaction (HCI) and argue that the field has been encountering a series of crises concerning the utility of its conceptual approach and empirical methodology over the last few years. Later I will argue that the shift in perspective underlying CSCW research can be seen to avoid or reduce the severity of some of these problems. While some argue that CSCW is simply an "extension" of existing HCI research and development, my point is that one can detect a switch not simply in emphasis, but also in conceptual frameworks, and even methodologies, in the new research field.
While the field of HCI is itself perhaps best viewed as an arena in which different disciplinary viewpoints vie for attention, the cognitive science perspective has been the most dominant in recent years. My basic thesis is that this mainstream "cognitive science"-inspired HCI research has come up against a number of problems, both in terms of its research agenda and the usability and utility of its empirical results for the software design community (Bannon, 1990, 1991). A brief account of the problems follows. Much HCI modelling work is still undertaken with a view to replacing human skill by "intelligent" systems, rather than with the intent of supporting people via the design of better computer tools. Advances in HCI seem to emerge from design groups without any clear lineage from the conceptual frameworks or empirical methods touted by cognitive science. Much of the early research done in the HCI field was confined to rather small controlled experiments, with the presumption that the findings could be generalised to other settings. It has become increasingly apparent that such studies suffer from a variety of problems that limit their usefulness in any practical setting. For example, just as we were beginning to learn something about how people used line oriented editors, the technology had already upgraded to display oriented editors! For another, the social nature of much human learning is downplayed. Questions of motivation in the performance of experimenter-defined tasks are not considered sufficiently. The underlying model of the "user" apparent in this perspective seems at times patronising and misguided - naive users, idiot-proof system design, etc.
That there is some form of crisis within segments of the HCI community can be gleaned by the emerging debate about the role of cognitive theory in HCI (Carroll, 1991), the increased emphasis on usability issues, and on the need for field studies. There is a call for changes, of a more or less radical kind, in the conceptual frameworks employed, the kinds of research undertaken and methods used in HCI. For example, Thomas & Kellogg (1989) discuss the "ecological gaps" caused by bringing studies into the lab, both by omission of factors in the real world, and by the addition of new elements in the testing situation that do not correspond to real world eventualities. They discuss the "user gap", based on individual differences, and motivations, which is often not addressed, and the "task gap", where the laboratory task may not generalize to actual work situations. There is the "problem formulation gap", which has to do with how the user realizes that a particular tool is appropriate for a task. An "artifact gap" exists if the application does not fit into other applications. The "extensionality gap" refers to the difference between brief laboratory use of a tool in an experiment and continuing use over perhaps years in a work setting. There is a tendency to focus too much on novice users in HCI studies or user testing, generally, with a concomitant neglect of the growth of competence and the development of people's qualifications within work settings. Perhaps one of the most important kinds of gaps noted, in the present context, are what Thomas & Kellogg refer to as "work-context gaps" concerning the social setting, the culture of the workplace, etc. Other voices raised in criticism include Landauer (1987, 1991) and Whiteside and Wixon (1987) who note how far removed some of the cognitive science work is from real world situations. It is this lack of appreciation of the use setting that is a major problem with much of the cognitive science HCI work to date.
Much work in HCI focuses on the development of better interfaces between users and computer systems. Emphasis has been on the individual user's model of the task, the actual behaviour of users, their errors, etc. A core problem in HCI has been that the majority of studies to date take as their focus the individual user working on a computer system. This is adequate for certain purposes, yet the uncritical acceptance of this situation as the norm in the field has meant that the everyday needs of people to communicate with others both around and through the computer system have received scant attention. Extending the focus of concern from the human-computer dyad to larger groups of people and machines engaged in collaborative tasks can be seen as one attempt by the HCI community to extend their horizon of enquiry, and in so doing, begin to address the concerns of the nascent CSCW field.
In the early eighties a number of researchers from a variety of fields began to evaluate the acceptance and use of computer applications that supported electronic communication between people, such as electronic mail and computer conferencing systems. While these messaging systems could be described as computer tools, it seemed more appropriate to view them as media through which people could communicate. Thus one could examine the social dimensions of this technology with some of the tools and techniques already available in the social and organizational sciences for studying the effects of other media, e.g. print, radio, television, etc. Let us look more closely at this work, as it has helped focus attention on how the computer can support communication and activities between people, and can be viewed as a step in the evolution of a new perspective on the relation between people and supporting computer technology that has contributed to the development of the CSCW field.
3. The emergence of computer mediated communication (CMC) studies
What makes this work on the computer as medium distinct from much classical HCI work is that the object of interest is no longer simply human-computer interaction (HCI), but rather human-computer-human-interaction (HCHI). The computer thus becomes a medium though which human communication and work activities are mediated. A few distinct strands in this loosely aligned area, referred to as computer-mediated communication (CMC) studies, can be discerned. One line of investigation comes from experimental and social psychology, and focuses on comparisons between media, e.g. face-to-face interactions vs. computer mediated interactions, often under traditional controlled laboratory conditions (See, e.g. Kiesler, Siegel & McGuire, 1984). A quite different line of investigation can be seen in studies done from an organizational and administrative studies framework, which often involve field studies of use of CMC in an organization, involving a mixture of observational studies, qualitative interview techniques and various quantitative measures - logs on usage, content analyses etc. (e.g. Feldman, 1986). While the study of aspects of CMC has developed, and attracted researchers from a number of different disciplinary backgrounds (psychology, sociology, communication studies, organization theory), it has not really formed into a distinct research area. We thus find a mix of conceptual frameworks and methods for studying social dimensions of CMC (See Kerr & Hiltz, 1982, Hiltz, 1984, Rice, 1984, Bannon, 1986, Sproull & Kiesler, 1991, for reviews of this material). While this work can be seen as a strand in the web of CSCW, I believe there are some some important differences in terms of overall perspective. One key difference between much of this work and what might be regarded as "prototypical" CSCW work is that the former often restricts itself to communication possibilities and effects, with scant regard for the content of what they are discussing, i.e. what the purpose of the communication is. Questions such as - Why are people communicating? and - What is the nature of the collaboration? - are often not asked or answered. Laboratory type manipulations are extended into field settings without adequate understanding of the contingencies involved. The focus in CSCW is more on the nature of the work performed, and the role of computers in its support or disruption, than simply on the affordances offered by technologies of "communication".
What the CMC work has done, however, is to broaden the nature of HCI, by focussing attention on the computer as an important intercessor in person-to-person communication, and to map out certain properties of the medium. It has helped to shift attention away from simple "interface" issues, by showing that in appropriate circumstances, even shockingly poor interfaces can be mastered and used by a variety of people, provided they could see certain needs being solved by the medium, offering opportunities for communication and collaboration with other people that were unavailable heretofore. It has also introduced a wider variety of research methods than were traditional in HCI work into the arena. On the debit side, much of the CMC work still holds to an overly determinist view concerning the role of technology in human affairs, attempting to assess impacts of new technology in general, and missing out on the interplay of social forces in the acceptance and use of the new media. Effects of technology are always mediated by a social process, so it is difficult to discuss more generic "effects" of any technology, without an understanding of the particular context of use. For example, the welter of studies concerned with the substitutability of one form of communication by another are problematic as they do not pay sufficient attention to how any effects they observe are contingent on aspects of the particular groups being studied, their needs, the organizational culture, etc. Perhaps a more fruitful avenue of research is to study the enhancements to existing communication channels made possible by CMC and their uses in different settings, rather than focus on the issue of media substitutability as a generic concern.
Also, the orientation of much of the CMC work is on evaluation rather than on gathering material to be used for design or re-design of technologies. Research is thus more reactive than pro-active. This affects the kinds of research methods used, the problems addressed in research, etc. We now turn to see to what extent the CSCW field goes beyond both HCI and CMC studies, as typically constituted, in attempting to understand these issues and applying different empirical methods.
4. The promise of CSCW
Let us start with a diagram (Figure 1) that provides a caricature of differences between prototypical studies in the areas of HCI, CMC, and CSCW. In HCI, prototypically the unit of analysis is the individual computer user, the empirical method is laboratory experimentation - often with novice users for brief (1-2 hour) durations, and the underlying conceptual framework used is information-processing cognitive science. In CMC, we find a more heterogeneous collection of studies, partly because as we noted it is not really a research field in its own right, but we could note 2 prototypical kinds of research: CMC (1) the unit of analysis is a group, the method is a lab study of relatively short duration, often with novice users, and the conceptual framework applied comes from social psychology; In CMC (2) we find the unit of analysis being the organization, the method being some form of field study, with actual workers, sometimes extending over months, and with conceptual frameworks coming from organization theory and sociology. Aspects of the latter can overlap with what might be called prototypical CSCW studies, but the latter go well beyond the study of communication, and the use of communication media in organizations, and emphasize the work practices of the work community. While obviously much simplified, this diagram can serve as a basis for further discussion.
HCI CMC CSCW
conceptual cognitive science social psychology, sociology framework organization theory anthropology
unit of analysis individual group, organization work ensemble
method controlled lab study lab study, field study ethnography
duration hours hours, weeks weeks, months
"users" students, novices students, workers workers
Figure 1. A caricature of prototypical studies in the HCI, CMC, and CSCW fields.
While there are obviously a variety of disparate activities that are pursued under the rubric of CSCW, ranging from software development to cooperative work analysis, one can discern a number of concerns common to a significant segment of CSCW researchers. For one thing, the object of interest, the unit of activity being investigated, is not defined by a single "user" interacting with a computer system. Support for cooperative work arrangements, encompassing, but not limited to group and team support, is the focus of attention within CSCW. This focus has lead to the need for extensions to existing conceptual and methodological frameworks as well as the search for more appropriate frameworks from other disciplinary areas. For example, within the cognitive science tradition, we see an extension of the basic conceptual apparatus in a number of directions, e.g. examining the role of artifacts in human cognition (Norman, 1991), and the way cognition is distributed among people and artifacts - "distributed cognition" (Hutchins, 1990). Others have critiqued the original cognitive science tradition for its neglect of such issues, and its dismissal of the "situatedness" of cognition (Lave, 1988). The concern with cognitive activities that are situated and distributed in time and space opens up some interesting avenues for research that should contribute to the development of CSCW. Another alternative conceptual framework that has been applied within CSCW is the Russian tradition of socio-cultural or activity theory (Kuutti, 1991). While the conceptual apparatus of this framework is difficult to apply directly, its focus on the concept of activities, which are inherently collective, not individual, phenomena, and on mediation of activity via instruments, tools, procedures, methods, etc. make it quite apropos for CSCW.
Obviously, fields such as social psychology have contributions to make to CSCW as well, although much of the work in this field has concentrated on artificially created "groups". In CSCW, the focus is more on cooperative work arrangements that emerge as a result of the nature of the actual work being performed. Thus there is a greater emphasis on field studies in specific work domains. Again, while traditional task and work analysis methods from work psychology and sociology can contribute here, much interest has centered on more qualitative, interpretive, ethnographic studies of work practices in an effort to understand more fully the "artful practices" of ensembles of workers as they accomplish their work activities. Again, while more traditional sociological and anthropological concepts - division of labour, issues of power and control, symbolism, etc. are of importance to CSCW, there has been particular interest in studies of an ethnomethodological nature. The emphasis in these studies is on the work that members do in order to make their work accountable to themselves and each other, focusing on the "working division of labour" (Anderson, Sharrock, & Hughes, 1987) as distinct from viewing the division of labour as an analytical category. This work seems of particular relevance to designers of CSCW systems, where lack of attention to such matters as how the work is actually accomplished by members of the working community has lead at times to the development of systems that fail dramatically (see e.g. Harper, Hughes & Shapiro, 1991).
Given the acknowledged problems in performing requirements analyses for the development of appropriate computer systems, there is a hope that such studies will be able to better inform the design process. This is no easy matter. For one thing, social scientists have tended to feel their work is complete when they describe the practices of the community they are studying. Opening up a dialogue with computer scientists, systems analysts, and software engineers on the implications of this work for design raises a host of serious issues, apart from the obvious one of the difficulty of just communicating across different disciplinary boundaries. A process of mutual learning is required here. While the jury is still out as to the success of the attempt to make the results of these studies relevant to designers, the mutual dialogue that has begun is promising (Hughes, Randall & Shapiro, forthcoming).
As we have noted, CSCW can be discussed from many different perspectives, and the reasons for its emergence at this time can be posited to a variety of factors. This paper has shown how the emergence of the field can partly be seen as an answer to certain problems within extant fields of research, such as mainstream HCI, and CMC studies, and their relation (or lack thereof) to the understanding and design of computer systems that truly support the needs of people working together. Opening up to a variety of conceptual frameworks, extending the design boundary of HCI outwards to include groups and other ensembles of people working with technology, and focusing more on the use situation, leads to a rapprochement between the concerns of HCI work and CSCW. The new field explicitly pays attention to how people work together to perform tasks, in ways that are crucial to the successful, smooth handling of the work.
Turning to differences with the CMC field, while CSCW studies issues related to cooperative work, including cooperation, collaboration, coordination and communication, it does not reify the communication aspect, but is more focussed on collaboration technology of all forms, with a focus on supporting the interactions required due to the nature of the tasks which people are trying to accomplish. These may or may not involve the need for simple person-to-person messaging, as often interaction in work settings is accomplished "at arm's length", indirectly (Schmidt and Bannon, forthcoming). Thus the field of CSCW has a wider remit than that of CMC. Wilson (1991) notes three other important kinds of enabling technologies in CSCW, aside from communication systems: shared work space systems, shared information systems and group activity support systems. In terms of what Wilson labels "group activity support", which covers areas such as workflow or procedure processing systems and more general activity and coordination systems, we are learning about how to provide systems that structure aspects of activities, yet provide people with the flexibility necessary to be able to modify these systems for particular occasions of use. Here we can see a clear evolution of systems over the last several years as we learn from experiences of use of early prototypes leading to the re-design of more flexible systems (Kreifelts et al.., 1991). We have only just begun to understand the issues raised by shared workspace and information systems (Schmidt & Bannon, 1992). This kind of CSCW work goes well beyond issues addressed in the CMC work, both in scope, and in the focus on design, and not simply evaluation.
In sum, by extending the boundaries of traditional human - computer interaction studies in a variety of ways, e.g. focusing on ensembles of people working together through computers, emphasizing the need for field studies, opening up a wider variety of conceptual frameworks, and stressing how the technology must fit to the requirements of the work situation, CSCW opens up a host of interesting new interdisciplinary research issues. Hopefully, CSCW can become a field where the insights of the social sciences can be fused with the ingenuity of system developers and the work experience of practitioners to result in computer systems that are experienced by people at work as computer-based tools that truly support their cooperative work practices.
References
Hughes, J., Randall, D. & Shapiro, D. (forthcoming) Faltering from Ethnography to Design.
Kerr, E.B. & Hiltz, S.R. (1982) Computer-mediated communication systems. New York: Academic Press.
Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Wilson, P. (1991) Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An Introduction. Oxford, Intellect Books.