Professional or Faux Pas? Effects of Multicommunicating on the Analyst-User Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important factor that can influence the user-analyst relationship during information systems development is how analysts communicate with users. The present study examines the extent to which analyst multicommunicating behaviors during meetings with users influence perceptions of the analyst and willingness to help the analyst with subsequent tasks. A research model was developed by integrating two streams of research, namely research on user-analyst relationships and multicommunicating. Using a 2×2 factorial experimental design and video vignettes depicting a series of meetings between an analyst and a user, data was collected from 80 participants. The results indicate that when the analyst engaged in multicommunicating, the study participants perceived significantly higher levels of analyst incivility, even when the analyst's multicommunicating did not interfere with or hamper his/her conversation with the user. In addition, perceived analyst incivility negatively influenced the participants' willingness to help the analyst in a future task. The paper then discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the study findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".