See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340141525

The Impact of Using Technology-Based Communication on Quality of Work

Relationships

Article in Baltic Journal of Modern Computing · January 2020

DOI: 10.22364/bjmc.2020.8.1.07

CITATIONS READS

6 4,343

2 authors:

Madara Pratt Sarma Cakula

Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences
10 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 528 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Madara Pratt on 06 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Baltic J. Modern Computing, Vol. 8 (2020), No. 1, 143-153
https://doi.org/10.22364/bjmc.2020.8.1.07

The Impact of Using Technology-Based

Communication on Quality of Work Relationships
Madara PRATT, Sarma CAKULA

Vidzeme University of Applied Sciences

Cēsu iela 4, Valmiera, LV - 4201, Latvija

[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. The use of modern technologies have changed work setting and this change offers us
many advantages and benefits. Technology-based communication allows to span time and distance
among people. Technology development is moving at such speed that social human behavior
science has not kept pace. There is enormous research on human behavior, but we lack new
models for guiding managerial practices. The aim of this research is to investigate technology-
based communication effect on quality of relationships within the company and the factors
affecting it. It was discovered that an important factor is cultural background of the company
employees – the communication style and expectations for high context and low context cultures
are very different. It is clear that technology-based communication within a company is negatively
affecting quality of work relationships - it means that new methods should be discovered to power
up technology-based communication. IT professionals should include this knowledge in their work
in order to improve communication systems.

Keywords: technology-based communication, work relationships, high-context and low-context

culture, computer supported cooperative work

1. Introduction
The ways of communication have changed and, in turn, changed the work environment;
many companies developed virtual teams with team members in different cities,
countries and even continents. This has developed new and more complex challenges for
leadership, because of issues arising from new communication formats (Ekeland et al.,
2010). The question is how to have highly performing, motivated and satisfied
employees within companies, where communication is fully or partly technology-based.
Traditional relationship between employer and employee obviously has changed, but
there is not a clear understanding about its replacement. We lack new models capable of
guiding managerial behavior in this new era of work. Steers, Wickham and Acitelli
believe that it is time to redirect intellectual energies into discovering new models and
research towards new models of work motivation and job performance (Steers et al.,
144 Pratt and Cakula

2014). Barrier emphasizes that companies can not continue to blindly accept and
introduce components into information systems without studying the effectiveness,
feasibility and efficiency of the individual components of their information systems;
these systems have to be managed (Barrier, 2001).
Although behavioral and social scientists have done enormous research on human
behavior, researchers and developers have rarely utilized them (Kraut, 2003). In 2004
“ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work” held in Chicago, the
topic of how to incorporate group and organization theory in CSCW (Computer
Supported Cooperative Work) was discussed (Barley et al., 2004). It is clear from
discussions that CSCW community should adopt a stronger orientation to social science
disciplines (Ghaoui, 2005).
In addition to that, with a greater attention to psychological literature about human
behavior in groups and organizational context, data can be collected and analyzed in a
way that salient and generalizable features of human behavior are identified (Finholt and
Teasley, 1998). Human-computer interaction (HCI) is a discipline with a focus on
implementation of interactive computing systems for human use in a social context and
the design and evaluation of these systems (Ghaoui, 2005). HCI research should strive to
increase our understanding of the technology and its effects, to discover what impact
computers (or uses of computers) are having on people's productivity, job satisfaction,
communication with other people, and the general quality of their lives (Helander,
2014). Deep understanding of interactions between technology and complex social,
political, and motivational dynamics is required in order to have effective support for
multiple users, groups, or organizations (Wallace et al., 2017).
The aim of this article is to investigate how technology based communication is
affecting quality of relationships within the company and which are the factors affecting
it. The conceptual model (Fig. 2), developed by the authors, shows that relationship
between technology-based communication work setting and quality of relationship is
moderated by culture and development of social relationships among employees.
Communication via technology has a negative effect mainly because of
misunderstandings and anonymity (Levi, 2014). Considering cultural differences and
implementing suggestions for the development of social relationships, the quality of
relationships can be improved.

2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Technology-Based Communication

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is a research area where the use of
computing and communication technologies, which support group and organizational
activity, is studied (Ghaoui, 2005). The studies of CSCW are carried at four levels –
individual, group and team, organization, and industry. In wider perspective, family,
occupation, nation, or culture can be discussed within CSCW. One of main focuses is to
understand of how these communication technologies affect human behavior.
Information technologies can be experienced at 3 levels, called POA – process,
outcome and affect. Within POA three key issues are approached – what user does, what
user attains and how user feels (Dillon, 2002). Within these three steps the aim is to
understand user’s moves and attention through the information system, observe what it
 The Impact of Using Technology-Based Communication 145

means for user to feel accomplishment or closure, and to identify what the interaction
means for the user (Dillon, 2002). Researchers and developers should integrate the
knowledge of social sciences within these three steps.
Technology allows us to have coordinated work in companies where employees are
geographically dispersed. In many cases employees can be located in different places,
countries and even continents. Also, working hours can be different – full time, part time
work schedule and different shifts. Many companies have created virtual teams. The
main reasons for developing virtual teams are to improve task performance, increase
range and speed of information, and overcome time and space distances (McGrath and
Hollingshead, 1994). Other benefits of virtual teams are discussions based on
knowledge, facts and improved brainstorming (Levi, 2017).
These teams rely heavily on virtual communication, including phone calls, e-mails,
instant messaging, video chats, videoconferences, shared screen sessions, shared files
and others. The degree of virtual communication within organization or teams can be
discussed at three levels - face-to-face teams that meet personally, low virtuality teams
that use synchronous, media-rich technologies and high virtuality teams that use
asynchronous, media poor technologies, such as e-mail (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2011).
Criteria for technology can be analyzed in terms of speed, interactivity, richness and
documentation of messages (Levi, 2014).
Companies can categorize their meetings in four categories by time and place
(Mittleman and Briggs, 1999). STSP (same-time, same-place) are face-to-face meetings.
STDP (same-time, different-place) meetings are combination of video, audio or text. The
information technology serves as a storage system. DTSP (different-time, same-place)
meetings work as a storage system and are used for example for employees with
different shifts. Within DTDP (different-time, different-place) meetings team members
share the same virtual space and web (Levi, 2014).
Companies have to be cautious of effects that technology has on their work
environment and relationships. Technology has an impact on work design,
organizational design, communication patterns and secondary social effects (Hartman et
al., 1991). Without clear understanding and strategy, technology can cause several
issues. The challenges of these kinds of teams are miscommunication, less social
rapport, more task orientation, lack of interpersonal relationships and lower member
satisfaction (Levi, 2017). In order to overcome these challenges Levi suggests having
face-to-face communication in initial phase of employment (Levi, 2017).
Communication technologies change how status is perceived; communication within
this context is based on knowledge and opinions. It decreases status differences. In face-
to-face meetings there are one or few persons who talk; controversial virtual
communication tends to be more democratic (Levi, 2014).
Other effects are increased anonymity and increased amount of miscommunication.
Taking into consideration that within technology-based communication part of the
intended message can be lost and the absence of non-verbal cues, it can lead to
miscommunication, lack of personal relations, social rapport and less satisfied members
(Levi, 2017), the amount of this communication within company can be a significant
measurement of quality of relationships among these team members. Within this paper,
author predicts, that the more communication is through computer-based technologies,
the lower is quality of relationships within company.
Although technology offers many benefits, human interaction promises much more.
However, the work environment has changed and these issues have to be solved and
146 Pratt and Cakula

research of social sciences integrated in company and developer strategies, in order to

have more satisfied employees and gain competitive advantage in the market.

2.2. Richness of Communication

Communication is a very critical part of our lives – private life as well as business life.
We develop our communication skills beginning in early childhood and these include
expressing our thoughts in an understandable manner and exchanging ideas with other
people around us. The means of communication are not only through our words and our
language but also through our body language, our tone of voice and our emotions. Most
of human communication is non-verbal; it can be through kinesics (facial expressions,
gestures, body movement etc.), proxemics (perception and use of space) and chronemics
(perception and use of time) dimensions.

2.3. Development of Social Relationships

Two main challenges that companies have to overcome are communication problems
and creation of effective interpersonal relationships (Thompson and Coovert, 2006).
One of the impacts of technology-based communication is increased anonymity.
There are several effects. First of all, it results in loss of self-awareness.
Deindivualization can result in social loafing. People would say what otherwise they
would not say in face-to-face communication. Within this communication there is less
pressure and it affects how teams make decisions and resolve conflicts. Having less
social pressure can result in higher levels of conflicts, inability to resolve conflicts and to
reach consensus in decision-making situations (Levi, 2014). There are also benefits of
anonymity – better generation of ideas, greater willingness to participate and to generate
more ideas (Levi, 2014). Another issue is miscommunication, because of
misunderstandings and reduced communication, that results in conflicts (Hertel et al.,
2005).
It was thought that increased levels of videoconferencing would solve these
communication problems; however, expectations were not realized (Thompson and
Coovert, 2006). Videoconferencing does not require full attention as face-to-face
communication and mainly matched the name to face, but doesn’t substitute for face-to-
face communication, because of its inability to read non-verbal cues (Hambley et al.,
2007).
Most of the work is done individually; within this work setting, well-defined
structure and consistent meetings are necessary. For building social relations it is
suggested to have face-to face meetings including social activities and to encourage
employees to communicate informally on every day basis; it is normal practice to use
technology for bonding social ties among employees (Levi, 2014).
Vignovic and Thompson suggest concentrating on developing social relations and
using communication norms in order to overcome communication problems (Vignovic
and Thompson, 2010). Both low and high virtual teams can take advantage of
communication norms. Some of the suggestions for having norms are:
For e-mails: construction, timeline of responses and recipients of e-mail messages;
not sending an e-mail when upset or in an emotional state;
 The Impact of Using Technology-Based Communication 147

For videoconference: start the conference with letting know who is present, no side
conversations, notification if something is unclear (Levi, 2014).

2.4. High-context and Low-context Cultures

Even though all people learn to communicate at an early age, we have differences in the
way we convey and perceive information. These differences can evolve from our
personalities, education, experience, and intelligence and also are deeply rooted in our
culture. As Hall noted in his book “The Silent Language” – “Culture is communication
and communication is culture” (Hall, 1976).
We think, behave, assign value, and interact with each other in different ways and
with that in mind, culture becomes a focal point in research of technology-based
communication (Ghaoui, 2005).
Cultural differences have to be considered, work communication cannot use static
and inelastic model for every situation. Impact of communication differs depending on
culture and age differences (Tannenbaum, 2012). Cultural background is an important
factor influencing abilities and qualities of technology user for system developers to
consider. Röse and Züblke recognized a gap in developer’s knowledge when handling
product design according to the culture dependent user requirements of a foreign market
(Röse and Züblke, 2001). Within the research about specification, analysis and
integration of relevant intercultural variables, Röse specified, that modern and user-
friendly products have to include cultural diversity as one of their key features (Röse,
2004).
Culture is a very complex concept and can be discussed from many different
perspectives. Within this article, communication is the main concern. The richness of
communication varies among different cultures. Hall developed a theory of low-context
(LC) and high-context (HC) cultures (Hall, 1976). This theory has helped to understand
the world and, by showing differences, help distant cultures find ways of understanding
each other better. The most important premise is to understand that each culture has a
different way of communicating deeply rooted in their biological past, history, traditions
and societal norms. The more distant the cultures, the more complex the communication
becomes and mutual understanding is harder to achieve. In many cases, understanding of
another party has been disrupted because of these reasons. Knowing the culture of an
opposite party can ease communication and have great benefits, because the way of
thinking is strongly affected by culture.
One might think that communication problems stem from differences in linguistic
codes, but Hall argues, that the problem lies in the context, which carries varying
proportions of the meaning (Hall, 1976). Spoken language in fact is an abstraction of
thoughts and, in turn, written language is an abstraction of spoken language. The actual
event happening is much more complex and richer than the abstraction of it within
spoken language and written language. It is natural that people choose some parts of
information and unconsciously ignore others.
According to Hall, the patterns of perceiving information are learned early in life and
taken for granted (Hall, 1976). What man perceives is influenced by five sets of different
categories of events – the subject or activity, the situation, one’s status in a social
system, past experience, and culture. There are many factors to be considered in order to
convey a message in multicultural context. Also any transaction can be characterized as
high, low or middle context (Hall, 1976). Hall has presented a model in his book
148 Pratt and Cakula

“Beyond Culture” (Fig. 1) which shows the difference between HC and LC culture
communications (Hall, 1976). There is much more context and little or no information in
HC communications, but LC communication provides a lot of information with little or
no hidden context.
High-context culture communication context is rooted in the past; communication
meaning is deeply embedded in information and not everything is explicitly stated in
written or spoken language. It is indirect and within this communication there is a
tendency to talk around things. This communication involves emotions and close
relationships, disagreements are personalized. Within this communication trust is built
slowly and personal identity tends to be based in groups, such as family or work groups
(Bennett, 1998).
Low-context communication is based on the logical part of the brain and is less
personal (Bennett, 1998). There is more direct meaning explicitly stated through
language.

Fig. 1. Information and meaning in HC and LC communication (Hall, 1976).

Communication within this culture is direct, precise, dramatic, open, and based on
feelings or true intentions (Gudykunst et al., 1988). There is more emphasis on task,
roles and what needs to be done. Disagreements focus on rational solutions and problem
solving is based more on data analysis. In LC communication, personal identity tends to
focus on one’s accomplishments.
The most HC cultures are Japan, Arab countries, Southern Europe and the most LC
cultures are German-Speaking countries, Scandinavian Countries and North America
(Hall, 1976).
HC and LC communication can differ by emotional expressions and relationship
building, directness of message conveyed, use of verbal or nonverbal behaviors, and use
of digital or an analogous language (Salleh, 2005). Within technical development and
modernization, very large part of people communication has shifted to digital
 The Impact of Using Technology-Based Communication 149

communication, which is more direct. These technologies help us save time and
disregard the distance. At the same time, however the communication is losing its
critical part of context that is carried in a message. Generally, technology carries low-
context messages and deeply embedded in information which can be unseen and missed.
In a changing and complex world, low-context communication is saving time and
information overload, but at the same time it can be losing meaning.
Within technology-based communication, the most complex issue is transmitting
desired message in high-context cultures. As most of the meaning is not transmitted in
words, it can lead to misunderstandings. In general HC communication is economical,
fast, efficient and satisfying. To have sufficient HC communication programming has to
be done; if that is not done, this communication is insufficient (Hall, 1976). Controversy
in LC communication can be very brief and short and not have all information explained
in sufficient detail and lack emotion and personal relationships. In work context, quality
of work relationships is as important as practical outcomes. Organizations with
technology-based communication have to consider this cultural aspect in order to assure
better quality of relationships within their company. Thompson and Coovert’s
experiments revealed that within e-mail communication, receivers formed negative
perception if e-mail contained technical language violations, but these negative
perceptions were reduced when they had information that the sender is from a different
culture (Thompson and Coovert, 2006). Negative attributions from etiquette violations
were not reduced even if it was known, that it was received from a source in a foreign
country (Thompson and Coovert, 2006). This proves the importance of cultural research
within companies using technology based communication channels. Within use of these
suggestions technology based communication can have less negative effect on quality of
relationships within a company.

2.5. Quality of Relationships

There is no doubt that technology-based communication is affecting the quality of

relationships in the company. Communication is an important factor for maintaining
social relations and organizational culture and lack of social information can limit social
relations in the company (Duarte and Snyder, 2006).
It is difficult to establish and maintain mutual knowledge (Driskell et al. 2003).
When the facial expressions and non-verbal cues are missing, it is harder to understand if
information was understood. For example, in an e-mail it is not always clear if a person
is being sarcastic or funny and experiments have proven that people think they can
communicate more efficiently than they actually can. These studies suggested that the
overconfidence comes from egocentrism, the inherent difficulty of detaching oneself
from one's own perspective when evaluating the perspective of someone else (Kruger et
al., 2005). These misunderstandings can lead to false conclusions and assumptions about
person’s character especially when communication is across cultures (Levi, 2017;
Vignovic and Thompson, 2010).
150 Pratt and Cakula

2.6. Conceptual model

Technology-based communication is critical because of its influence on several factors

and the connections between the variables can be arranged in a conceptual model (Fig.
2) reflecting major constructs from literature review.
From presented literature review it can be concluded that technology based
communication (the amount of technology used) is affecting quality of work
relationships, which is mediated by culture and can be influenced by face-to-face events
and norms. The more work communication is done through technology-based means, the
harder it is to maintain high quality relationships inside the company.

1.2. Development of social

relationships:
Norms
Face-to-face events

Technology-based
communication 1.5. Quality of
Balance between relationships
technology vs face-to-
face

1.1. HC and LC
cultures

1.6. Richness of
communication

Fig. 2. Conceptual model of technology-based work communication

(created by the authors)

3. Conclusion and Future Work

In this article, the lack of concentration on human behavior science in CSCW work is
recognized. The future competitive advantage will be motivated work force in
combination with advanced technologies. CSCW community should adapt stronger
orientation to social science disciplines (Finholt and Teasley, 1998). The effects and
impacts of computers and their use on employees’ job satisfaction and communication
 The Impact of Using Technology-Based Communication 151

have to be understood. There is a call for research and new contextual models capable of
guiding managerial work behavior in the new era of work (Steers et al., 2014). The work
context has changed dramatically. The old model of communication has changed and
there is a little understanding of the new model that has taken place.
The current article has described relevant literature pointing out the most important
theories and influencing aspects of presented contextual model. The model (Fig. 2)
presents relationships between technology-based communication work setting and
quality of relationships among employees. The connection of these variables is clear and
the more communication in the company is through technology-based means, the less is
the quality of relationships among members. There are several suggestions for improving
these relationships.
First of all the cultural differences have to be taken into account, especially in a
multicultural context. LC culture members tend to be more specific and clear with their
messages, while HC culture members tend to have hidden context and messages that are
not so clear, because of missing context that is rooted in the past. It is known that one of
the main struggles in technology-based communication is miscommunication and it is a
very important concept to consider in multicultural organization (Levi, 2017). The
cultural aspect is a moderator in relationship between the amount of technology-based
communication and quality of relationships within a company. The better is the
understanding of the culture or cultures within a company, the more possible it is to
design and program communication in a way that it improves the relationships among
members of the company.
Another mediator that can improve quality of relationships is development of social
relationships. There are several suggestions on how to do it. First of all, the most
important is to have face-to-face meetings in initial phase of employment. Also it is
suggested to have periodic face-to-face meetings afterwards. Company meetings and
training programs are beneficial for developing better social relationships among
members of the company. Employee-employee relationships are also important. These
peer relationships create bonds and trust in the team and company. Possibly pairing new
employees with experienced employees could be used to support and help create loyalty
and trust. Another suggestion is to encourage employees to socialize with co-workers
through technology. Second way of ensuring better social relations is to introduce norms
using technology to avoid misunderstandings; for example, creating the rules of writing
e-mails or attending videoconferences.
For further research authors recognize the importance of leadership as the most
important role in maintaining good quality of relationships within the company. Leaders
have more challenges within virtual teams than those who work mostly face-to-face.
These companies have to develop according strategies taking into account all mentioned
influencing aspects.
In future research this model should be continued by investigation on technolgy-
based communications effect on work motivation and work satisfaction. Quality of work
relationships are expected to have an influence on employee satisfaction and this idea
could be discussed in order to extend the current model.
152 Pratt and Cakula

References
Barley, S. R., Dutton, W. H., Kiesler, S., Resnick, P., Kraut, R. E., Yates, J. (2004). Does CSCW
need organization theory? In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer
supported cooperative work, pp. 122-124.
Barrier, T. (Ed.). (2001). Human computer interaction development & management. IGI Global.
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings.
Intercultural Press, Inc., PO Box 700, Yarmouth, ME 04096.
Dillon, A. (2002). Beyond usability: process, outcome and affect in human-computer interactions.
Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science.
Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on
team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 297–
323.
Duarte, D. L., Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that
succeed. John Wiley & Sons.
Finholt, T. A., Teasley, S. D. (1998). Psychology: The need for psychology in research on
computer-supported cooperative work. Social Science Computer Review, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.
40-52.
Ghaoui, C. (Ed.), (2005). Encyclopedia of human computer interaction. IGI Global.
Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication.
Sage Publications, Inc.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of
leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 1-20.
Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C. M., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., Zubrow, D.
(1991). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network
technologies. Written Communication, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79-113.
Helander, M. G. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of human-computer interaction. Elsevier.
Hertel, G., Geister, S., Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical
research. Human resource management review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 69-95.
Huang, R., Kahai, S., Jestice, R. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team
collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 26, no. 5, pp.1098-11.
J. McGrath, and Hollingshead, A. (1994). Groups interacting with technology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kraut, R. E. (2003). Applying social psychological theory to the problems of group work. HCI
models, theories and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science, pp. 325-356.
Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, Ng, J., Z. W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate
as well as we think? Journal of personality and social psychology, vol. 89, no. 6, p. 925.
Levi, D. (2014). Group Dynamics for Teams. 4th edition, Sage Publications, Inc.
Levi, D. (2017). Group Dynamics for Teams. 5th edition, Sage Publications, Inc.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., Shuffler, M.
(2011). A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 214-225.
Mittleman, D., Briggs, R. (1999). Communication technologies for traditional and virtual teams.
Supporting work team effectiveness, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 246–270.
Röse, K. (2004). The development of culture-oriented human machine systems: specification,
analysis and integration of relevant intercultural variables. In Cultural ergonomics Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, pp. 61-103.
Röse, K., Züblke, D. (2001). Culture-oriented design: Developers' knowledge gaps in this area.
IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 34, no. 16, pp. 11-16.
 The Impact of Using Technology-Based Communication 153

Salleh, L. M. (2005). High/low context communication: The Malaysian Malay style. In

Proceedings of the 2005 Association for Business Communication Annual Convention,
Irvine, CA: Association for Business Communication, pp. 1-11.
Steers, M. L. N., Wickham, R. E., Acitelli, L. K. (2014). Seeing everyone else's highlight reels:
How Facebook usage is linked to depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, vol. 33, no. 8, pp.701-731.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research
and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1,
2-24.
Thompson, L. F., Coovert, M. D. (2006). Understanding and developing virtual computer-
supported cooperative work teams. Creating high-tech teams: Practical guidance on work
performance and technology, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Vignovic, J. A., Thompson, L. F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration:
Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 95, no. 2.
Wallace, J. R., Oji, S., Anslow C., (2017). Technologies, methods, and values: Changes in
empirical research at CSCW 1990–2015. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction, 1(CSCW), 106.

Received February 18, 2020, accepted March 14, 2020

View publication stats