Juggling multiple conversations with communication technology: towards a theory of multi-communicating impacts in the workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of existing information systems (IS) theories and research do not speak to the complexities inherent in today's many-to-many relationship between users and their technologies. These relationships are further complicated as many users interact with other users, who also use many technologies. A paradigm shift is required such that our research moves beyond studying one technology in isolation toward the investigation of multiple technologies within the whole suite of a user's systems. One example where such a shift is needed is the study of computer-mediated communication. As one step in this direction, this dissertation examines the impacts of multi-communicating, or using communication technologies to engage in multiple conversations at the same time, for both the focal individual juggling multiple conversations and his or her communication partners. In the first study of this research program, an exploratory qualitative methodology is used to conduct on-site structured observations and interviews to explore the concept of multi-communicating intensity and the particular task and relational outcomes associated with multi-communicating in the workplace. Based on the results of this qualitative study, two models of multi-communicating outcomes are developed. The next stage of this research consists of a survey (Study 2) to test the model of multi-communicating outcomes from the perspective of the focal individual. Before testing this model, a series of preliminary studies were conducted in order to develop and test newly created scales, to develop validated measures of media fit and media characteristics, and to gain a preliminary understanding of the multiple dimensions of multi-communicating intensity. The final study also uses a survey methodology to test the model of multi-communicating outcomes but this time from the perspective of the communication partner. Based on the results from Studies 2 and 3, a revised model of multi-communicating outcomes emerged. The theoretical and practical contributions of this program of research are discussed, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".