🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9103151149.aa13843@ICS.UCI.EDU>, kling@ICS.UCI.EDU (Rob Kling) writes:
> 
> ...
> In fact, the Ellis article is generally ambivalent about the value
> of social science in studies of CSCW .....
> ...
> Their definition of groupware in terms of common goals tends to
> reinforce the prevailing CSCW ideologies which ignore intergroup &
> intragroup conflict/competition. I would not accept their conception.
> 
> Rob Kling
> UC-Irvine

Perhaps, as one of the co-authors of the article mentioned (and since
Skip Ellis is off the net for a period of time), I could respond to
the above comments.

First I am surprised that the article gave the impression of
being "ambivalent about the value of social science in
studies of CSCW." This, I'm very sure, is not the personal
opinion of any of the authors. The article does focus on technology
rather than social science, however this merely reflects the
background of the authors. There are a number of indications
in the paper of the importance of social science to the
development of successful groupware applications, just a few
of these indications are:

"Drawing on the expertise of many specialists, including
social scientists, CSCW looks at ..."

"Thus, an important area not covered in this paper is concerned
with the social and organizational aspects of groupware ..."

"It is our belief that in groupware design, it is very difficult
to separate technical issues from social concerns - and that
the methods and theories of the social sciences will prove critical
to groupware's success."

The last quote is the last sentence in the article. I don't
see how this could be interpreted as being "ambivalent".

Concerning the second comment about the groupware definition
given in the paper, ie:
	computer-based systems that support groups of people
	engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide
	an interface to a shared environment
let me just make a few remarks about why we ended up with
this particular definition.

The main reason is that we wanted a definition of groupware rather
than CSCW. I see two differences:
1) The term groupware, at least in its popular usage, is
   closely associated with technology. CSCW, on the
   other hand, is associated with a broad range of issues
   and concepts. The technological connotation of
   "groupware" is worth preserving since the "ware" part
   of groupware suggests some analogy with hardware/software,
   both of which deal with technologies.
2) CSCW specifically refers to "work". But many
   interesting examples of groupware, such as multi-player
   games and shared virtual realities, are not directly
   concerned with work and so "work" should not appear in
   a definition of groupware.

Simon Gibbs
University of Geneva