LYNNE M. SCALIA is Assistant Professor, Business Department, S.ll.N.Y. Col-lege at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14222. E-mail: Scalialm~snybufaa.cs.snybuf.edu
Benjamin Sackmary
BENJAMIN SACKMARY is Assistant Professor, Business Department, S.U.N.Y. College at Buffalo, 1300 Elmwood Avenue, Buffalo. NY 14222. E-mail: Sackmadb~snybufaa.cs.snybuf.edu
TYPES OF GROUPWARE
There are a variety of groupware products available to support Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (Wild & Winniford, 1993). These programs range from simple to very complex with some targeted to the average computer user while others are designed for highly specialized applications. With new groupware programs, features, and applications appearing almost monthly, the terminology can be confusing and inconsis-tent (Bannon & Schmidt, 1993). Indeed, it may prove as difficult to devel-op a formal definition of groupware as it has been to develop a single definition for the concept "group." However, groupware products do share some features in common.
Most groupware offers computer or electronic conferencing capability along with basic information management features such as a reference database or library of information, a discussion database that contains a record of all comments, and an activity-tracking database (Glyn-Jones, 1995). Enhanced groupware systems or application-specific groupware may include group scheduling, project management, desktop video con-ferencing, workflow routing, and other features (Coleman & Khanna, 1995; The, 1995). Despite the diversity, it is possible to classify software that supports CSCW into three categories. The categories are neither ex-clusive nor exhaustive. In order of complexity, the types of groupware capable of supporting CSCW are presented below.
E-mail and Electronic Bulletin Boards
E-mail and electronic bulletin boards are computer-based communica-tion methods that permit asynchronous communication among group members at any location (Sullivan, 1995). Asynchronous refers to the fact that communication does not occur in "real-time." Rather, messages can be sent and will be electronically stored until retrieved and read. E-mail is fast, efficient, and widely used at all education levels from grammar school through college and in organizational communication networks (Finholt & Sproull, 1990) Electronic bulletin boards, where messages can be stored for all group members to read, and e-mail are excellent substi-tutes or supplements for "voice" communication or traditional "snail mail" (Grudin, 1993). However, they do not easily support the high levels of group interaction required for CSCW
Computer or Electronic Conferences
Computer or electronic conferences are electronic meetings in which participants can send and receive messages, edit and modify the contribu-tions of other group members, develop collaborative documents that repre-sent group consensus, and maintain a database of group activity and information (Edwards, 1995; Velayo, 1994; Zuboff, 198X). They are independent of geography, allow for either real-time interaction or asynchronous messaging, and fully support CSCW. Electronic conferences can supplement or replace face-to-face meetings, conference calls, and video conferences (Ellis et al., 1991; Hunt & Burford, 1994). Examples of groupware products that offer electronic conference capability include Lotus Notes, Collabra Share, and IBM WorkGroup.
Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)
A group decision support system (GDSS) is designed to promote discussion and analysis of problems and to improve thc speed and quality of the decision-making process. GDSS activities typically take place in an electronic meeting room (EMR) with terminals for participants, a large screen visible to all, a moderator, an accessible database with relevant information, and software to support voting, recordkeeping, and group decision processes (Beauclair, 1990; Ellis et al., 1991; Petrovic & Krickl, 1994). The University of Mississippi GroupForum is a typical example of GDSS. GroupForum is designed to generate possible solutions to problems and includes features that permit brainstorming, ranking and rating of alternative solutions, and automated record keeping (Aiken, Hawley, & Zhang, 1994). Commercial GDSS products include GroupSystems from Ventana, TeamFocus from IBM, and others.
Not all groupware is equal in its potential to improve education and work. While e-mail is a communications method that is already used as casually as the telephone, it has serious limitations as a basis for group work. In contrast, a GDSS is a formidable tool to support group problem solving and decision making, but it has significant spatial and equipment requirements. The need for high cost EMRs will slow the diffusion of this technology, especially in educational institutions. Given the inherent limitations of e-mail and the expense involved with GDSS, electronic conferencing may well be the choice for organizational and educational CR(:W in the near future.
IMPACT OF GROUPWARE AND CSCW
Groupware is likely to have far-reaching consequences for both educational institutions and commercial enterprises (Baig, 1995). It has already been adopted by numerous corporations engaged in increasingly fast-movine and fra~mented markets. Many of these companies have been forced by global competition to alter radically their internal structures through decentralization and employee empowerment. Groupware allows these mod-em, fast-moving corporations to maintain close links among widely dis-persed branches, divisions, and employees (Kirkpatrick, 1992). Groupware, in some form, is likely to continue to rapidly penetrate global business and to change the way we work (Bullen & Bennen, 1993; Chidambaram & Jones, 1993; Posner & Baecker, 1993).
The success of groupware and CSCW also seems ensured by the fact that in both public and private organizations of all types and sizes, a great deal of reaming, innovation, and creative effort involves collaboration in groups. Indeed, groups are the fundamental building blocks of organiza-tions. They provide the context within which people of different back-grounds and specialized knowledge generate insights and solutions that are often superior to those produced by isolated individuals (Nunamaker et al., 1995; Turoff, I 991).
Groupware and CSCW may prove to be as beneficial for education, with teams of students working on collaborative projects, as they have been for companies with teams of globally dispersed workers. However, to date the results of classroom applications have been mixed. Everett and Ahern (1994) reviewed the research literature on the impact of computer--mediated communication on group effectiveness and found that in some cases groupware had a positive impact, while in others there was no significant difference between CMC groups and traditional face-to-face groups. In other research, the outcome of CSCW in the classroom has been found to vary widely, depending on task, group composition, and orga-nizational context (Aiken, Hawley, & Zhang, 1994). Thus, computer--based "electronic meetings" in the classroom may significantly improve productivity and quality of documents or may lead to few gains over face-to-face groups (Easton et al., 1994; Fey, 1994).
Even if groupware is not a superior instructional technology, students at all grade levels should receive some instruction and hands-on experience. They are very likely to be using some form of groupware and CSCW on the job or in their role as citizens and they certainly will need to develop skills and knowledge crucial for successful application of these communication technologies. Of course, CSCW is not a panacea or a magic wand that will transform the traditional classroom into a high-tech learning environment (McNeil, 1992). While CSCW may enhance the educational process, it is essential, as with any instructional tool, that the teacher be thoroughly familiar with its strengths and weaknesses and with the pattern of usage by students. A brief discussion of our own experience with CSCW will show that computer-based collaborative work remains a very human process.
A CLASSROOM GROUPWARE PROJECT
During 1995, we conducted a groupware project with students in tour undergraduate business courses at a large, public university in the north-eastern United States. The students were all business majors in their junior or senior year and 90% were attending college full-time. In terms of gender, 39% were male and 61% were female. The classes were divided into 27 teams consisting of three or four students each. Each team was provided with a specific business problem and instructed to solve the "case" collaboratively using a groupware package called "VAX Notes."
VAX Notes is a computer-mediated conferencing system that supports CSCW. VAX Notes software allows participants to prepare, review, revise, discuss, and distribute a draft of a collaborative document. In terms of communication benefits, VAX Notes is both convenient and fast. It per-mits different discussions to occur simultaneously, and maintains a data-base of all messages. However, VAX Notes software lacks some higher order amenities that would simplify CSCW, such as indexing, searching, or access to a cross-referenced database of supporting information.
Students participating in the study were given an account number, a password to access the university's mainframe computer, and instruction on using VAX Notes. Electronic meetings were held during class, but most activities took place outside of class time. Students were instructed that no "voice" or paper interaction was permitted and that all communication among group members had to take place using VAX Notes software. Students were aware that their computer-mediated communication was monitored by the instructor.
After the initial confusion and anxiety that attend any new computer application, the students settled down to working with the software and solving their case problems. Most of the groups developed a set of norms governing interaction patterns and problem-solving strategies. As with any work group, members gradually assumed different roles and responsi-bilities, with some performing leadership functions while others contrib-uted as editors or analysts. At the end of the project, a questionnaire was used to obtain student views on computer conferencing and to determine his/her level of satisfaction with the conference and with the outcomes of the group decision-making process. Results were generally positive. Stu-dents expressed satisfaction with both the software features and electronic conferencing.
As with face-to-face groups, participation levels among group members were not uniform. Some students remained marginal to group activities and made few contributions, while others dominated the discussion. Two groups simply failed to develop an effective working style and produced a weak final report. These "dysfunctional" groups suffered from limited participation by some of the members and did not reach the point where they acquired norms and procedures for effective collaborative work.
Several groups experienced considerable debate about thc correct solu-tion to their case problem. As with real-time, face-to-face groups, a main problem was that group members often did not listen carefully enough to one another. For example, in one group thc correct answer to the case was posted several times by one member, only to have the others repeatedly ignore ideas that did not fit into the ongoing discussion. Content analysis of group processes indicated that, as with any group, whether using face-to-face or computer-mediated communication, the interpersonal dimension is a critical element for success.
Overall, the classroom groupware project had mixed results. The output of some groups was of high quality, while others produced barely accept-able reports. Some students seemed to benefit from the CSCW experience, while others did not. Clearly, groupware is neither a cure-all nor an easy-to-apply technology.
GUIDELINES FOR GROUPWARE IN THE CLASSROOM
Based on our experiences with groupware and a review of the research literature on the topic, we have developed a series of guidelines and recommendations for use of CSCW in the classroom. Our focus is primari-ly on the college classroom, our arena of expertise, but the basic concepts could be applied at any educational level.
The guidelines are not intended to bc a set of inflexible or definitive rules for classroom-based computer conferences. However, they should help smooth the transition from voice and paper communication to inter-action in electronic conferences. As with any instructional tool, each teacher will find his or her own best way to use groupware. Most impor-tant, no matter how sophisticated it may be, groupware ultimately is still only a tool in the classroom. The central task for the teacher is to use the technology to support the educational process and group activities (Robin-son, 1993). The following guidelines should help ease thc transition to groupware and electronic conferences.
Preparation, Planning, Training, and Support Are Essential
Preparation and planning are absolutely essential for effective use of groupware and CSCW (DeSanctis & Jackson, 1994). The use of groupware in the classroom requires, at the minimum, training, adequate student access to computers, easy-to-use software, and technical support. Prob-lems with access or software glitches dampen enthusiasm, limit student participation, and create enough friction to slow the adoption process (Mitchell et al., 1995; Phillips & Santoro, 1990; Wild & Winniford, 1993).
Set Clear Group Goals and Identify Educational Goals
In the absence of definite goals and clearly established procedures to follow, groups may remain at an undeveloped level or, worse, get side-tracked onto personality issues or adopt dysfunctional group dynamics (Kettelhut, 1994). Clear goals in electronic meetings also help to avoid problems of information overload (Kirkpatrick, 1993; Rodden, 1993). Phillips and Santoro (1990) recommend that CSCW goals be specified as a formal course expectation at the start of the project. In addition, they prefer to assign to each group member engaged in an electronic confer-ence specialized tasks such as coordinating and scheduling activities, col-lecting information, and the like. However, some instructors may prefer a less formal approach. In any case, depending on the task and the abilities of group members, the instructor needs to make a judgment about ap-propriate goals for electronic conferences.
Whatever the goals may be, they should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate changes that inevitably result from the electronic confer-ence experience. We suggest that reasonable goals include what students can expect to learn about problem solving, group discussion, and decision making. Learning goals should focus on intellectual attainment and inter-personal skills rather than simply getting to know the software.
Not Every Task Needs a Groupware (or Group) Approach
When groupware first appeared, some managers were so taken by its allure that they wanted to use it for all communication functions. Eventu-ally, reality set in, and it is now clear that not every task benefits from the use of groupware nor is groupware applicable to every task (Canning & Swift, 1992; Kettelhut, 1994; Rash, 1990). Sullivan (1995) examined communications activities in state government and found that individuals choose a communication technology that is congruent with task demands. In general, students will do the same. The challenge is to select group tasks that take advantage of the strengths of an electronic conference. In the classroom, to maximize the value of groupware, tasks should be open-en-ded, offer opportunity for creative solutions, promote discussion and multiple viewpoints, and be complex enough to require division of labor and collaboration among group members (Berge, 1995; Canning & Swift, 1992; Turoff, 1991; Watson et al., 1994).
Identify Guidelines for Behavior in Electronic Groups
Instructors should not expect every group involved in an electronic conference to run smoothly and be effective at task completion. Some groups may prove to be dysfunctional and unable to achieve their goals. Wild & Winniford (1993) suggest that the social anonymity permitted by electronic communications may even be conducive to heightened levels of interpersonal conflict. Other research supports the argument that electron-ic groups have lower levels of interpersonal conflict compared to face-to--face groups (Miranda & Bostrom, 1993-1994). Most likely, groups en-gaged in CSCW are similar to face-to-face groups. Thus, some groupware groups will exhibit a high level of cooperation or consensus, others will have disagreements, and still others will experience open conflicts (Wood & Phillips, 1990), depending on the goals, student abilities and personalities, and grade level, among many other factors.
As CSCW can sometimes deteriorate into negative behavior, partici-pants should be given guidelines at the outset and cautioned about abuses such as insults, vendettas, and "flaming" (e.g., anger, swearing, insults, etc.) (Yellen, 1993). Of course, cooperative work, like any social process, can raise social problems, and teachers should not overreact to disagree-ment or conflict. Establishing clear guidelines about appropriate behavior will help to keep the groups focused.
Be Prepared for Student Resistance to Groupware
The perception of groupware will differ among individual students. Some will see it as improving efficiency, while others will condemn it as a slow and tedious process. Still others will feel insufficient incentive to learn how to use the software or will see no relevancy in it for their personal or career interests (Hurley et al., 1994). Finally, some students may simply prefer not to work in groups, regardless of whether they are face-to-face or electronic. In short, groupware is like any other commu-nications tool. It may be used by everyone, but people with different communication styles will use it differently or not at all (Rice et al., 1992). Teachers should anticipate that, while most students will view groupware in a positive way, a significant minority may reject the technology (Smith, 1994).
Groupware May Affect Group Processes
Groups engaged in electronic conferencing differ from conventional groups in that they may have fewer status symbols, a less visible social hierarchy, and they may impose fewer contextual or situational constraints on their participants (McComb, 1993). Research also indicates that CSCW can promote belongingness, critical thinking, honesty, and effectiveness of decision making, and reduce inhibitions to communicate. In effect, group-ware may generate a more democratic environment in which group mem-bers are considered equals and are judged on their contributions rather than social attributes (Yellen et al., 1995). Within this decentralized CSCW environment, students may take increased responsibility for the learning process.
Groupware Groups Tend to Act Like Groups
Groupware usage may be directly affected by group interaction pat-terns, group development processes, and all the myriad social factors that are found in any task group (Berge, 1995). At thc same time, the software itself can be a vital influence on group processes, and it may act as an independent variable that positively or negatively alters group activities and outputs (Finholt & Sproull, 1990). Teachers should be alert to the fact that, even if groupware is specifically designed to fit group social structures and processes, this powerful technology may still induce unanticipated changes (Bannon & Schmidt, 1993). Effective classroom use of group-ware will require that teachers be well-informed about the technical fea-tures of the software, understand how students view the CSCW process and be familiar with how students function together in electronic groups (Grudin 1994).
Task Completion May Take More Time with Groupware
Even though electronic communications is instantaneous and permits a rapid exchange of ideas, electronic groups often take more time for discus-sion, problem solving, and decision making than traditional face-to-face discussion groups (Perreault & Moses, 1992; Petrovic & Krickl, 1994 Zigurs & Kozar, 1994). In particular, asynchronous electronic conferences afford members more time to reflect on message content and to make more deliberate decisions. For example, e-mail-based discussion groups tend to have long, multiple-topic, multilevel interchanges that are much richer than those found in the traditional classroom and take more time to assimilate (Riedl, 1989). To expedite problem solving, it may be useful to clearly state milestones and to require periodic progress reports from the groups. In any case, teachers should anticipate that a groupware project may take more than its allotted time for completion (Wild & Winniford, 1993).
Groupware Interaction Is an Informal Process
At the outset, transcripts of electronic conferences show that they are much like a casual conversation, consisting of short, informal messages, often containing poor spelling and sloppy grammar (Zuboff, 1988). In the interest of saving time, groups make use of abbreviations, ignore misspell-ings, adopt symbols such as "smileys" or "emoticons" to convey emo-tions, and use abbreviations such as "BTW" (by the way), "IMHO" (in my humble opinion), and the like. It is important that teachers do not overreact to the grammatical excesses of electronic groups and keep in mind that the end product matters more than the grammar displayed in the discussion that led to its development. Even though their communication style may remain very casual, groupware groups will eventually prepare well-written documents (Easton et al., 1994; Fey, 1994).
Culture and Values May Affect Groupware Use
Cultural differences may have an impact on student use of groupware. For example, much of American college education is based on individual competition. Working in groups and sharing information may directly conflict with elements of this cultural framework and impede adoption of the technology (Watson et al., 1994). Resistance to groupware is also found in corporations where sharing information can be synonymous with relinquishing power (Hurley et al., 1994). On the positive side, groupware may reduce sociocultural differences. Zuboff's (1988) discussion of com-puter conferencing in a single organization indicates that it can facilitate interaction among individuals of diverse social backgrounds. Groupware may also help to resolve cultural and language problems in organizations. Eventually, advanced programs that translate comments from one lan-guage to another will help smooth the way to international use of CSCW (Aiken, Martin, Shirani, & Singleton, 1994).
Stay Out Of It (But Keep an Eye on the Groups)
In large organizations, groupware and electronic conferences can foster a sense of equality and empowerment among employees. Groupware may also provide a "hyper-grapevine" that permits employees to easily and rapidly share and discuss information outside of the influence of manage-ment (Verity & Brandt, 1989; Wilke, 1993). The result is a weakening of the traditional corporate hierarchy of authority. Students may also find the groupware experience exhilarating and revel in the unstructured collabora-tion and independence it provides them. Teachers using groupware in the classroom may have to cope with their own reduced power and control (McComb, 1993).
To minimize problems, we suggest two rules. First, teachers should inform students in advance of their intention to monitor group interaction and, second, teachers should not interfere with any ongoing group discus-sion unless absolutely necessary. In our experience, unobtrusive surveil-lance does not have a negative impact on the content and flow of electron-ic conferences, and the teacher should only intervene to facilitate group development or to assist a dysfunctional or unproductive group (Berge, 1995).
Groupware Benefits Increase with Usage
Communication with groupware, like written or verbal communication, is an acquired skill that improves with regular use (McComb, 1993). In order for students to gain maximum benefit from groupware, they should have ample opportunity to use it and should use it often. Further, frequent users of electronic communications will have a more positive attitude toward the medium and are likely to want to use it again (Komsky, 1991). Teachers should make every effort to provide appropriate encouragement for the electronic groups and also make sure the CSCW group is positive and valuable for participants. It is especially important that students have regular and convenient access to groupware and sufficient time to com-plete their CSCW projects.
CONCLUSIONS
Whether it is called groupware, electronic conferencing, or computer-supported cooperative work, the phenomenon of computer-based collabo-ration is very likely to exert an increasingly important influence over organizations and education. It may well become a routine part of the pedagogical process as well as a necessity in the preparation of students for the workplace and for citizenship in an on-line society. However, this will not occur without many missteps along the way.
Past experience with computers in educational institutions indicates that adoption of innovation may be very slow due to resistance from students, faculty, and administrators. McNeil (1992) suggests that there are five basic reasons for slow rates of adoption of groupware in academia: fear of new technology, computer center dominance and resistance to change, lack of adequate training and support, a failure to "market" groupware on campus, and the cost of the software itself.
Even with faculty adoption and support, groupware will not automati-cally provide benefits to students. Effective use of this powerful commu-nication tool will require careful planning and a great deal of effort. The adoption process will not be helped by the fact that groupware is evolving so rapidly that educators will have to scramble to keep up with its applica-tions, successes, and failures. In any case, inclusion of computer confer-ences in education will require significant change on thc part of both teachers and students. Hopefully, the guidelines for use of groupware in the college classroom presented in this article will help faculty to avoid some pitfalls and problems and to keep the entire subject of groupware in perspective.
Groupware-based classroom computer conferencing and CSCW are not stand-alone learning experiences. Rather, they are but one pathway to learning and, at best, they will constitute a relatively small part of total course content; that is, CSCW can supplement the traditional classroom activities of reading, discussion, and lecture, but it is hardly a substitute for them. Ultimately, groupware is merely another way for groups of students to collaborate, learn from each other, and acquire essential skills needed for work, citizenship, and social life. As always, it is up to the individual teacher to find the appropriate mixture of technology and interpersonal processes that will yield for the student a positive, challenging, and worth-while learning experience.
REFERENCES
Aiken, M., Hawley, D., & Zhang, W. (1994). Increasing meeting cfficicncy with a GDSS. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 94(8), 13-16.
Aiken, M., Martin, I., Shirani, A., & Singleton, T. ( 1994). A group decision support system for multicultural and multilingual communication. Decision Support Systems, 12(2), 93-96.
Baecker, R. (Ed.). ( 1993). Readings in groupware and computer-supported coop-erative work. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Baig, E. (1995, June 26). Welcome to the officeless offce. Business Week, 104,p.106.
Bannon, L., & Schmidt, K. ( 1993). CSCW: Four characters in search of a context.
Lynne M. Scalia and Benjamin Sackmary 51
In R. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported coopera-tive work (pp. 50-56). San Mateo, CA: Morgan KauEmann Publishcrs.
Beauclair, R. (1990). Group decision support systems and their effect on small group work. In G. Phillips (Ed.), Teaching how to work in groups (pp. 151 - 172). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Berge, Z. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30.
Bullen, C., & Bennett, J. (1993). Groupware in practice: An interpretation of work experiences. In R. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-sup-ported cooperative work (pp. 69-84). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Canning, C., & Swift, K. (1992). Connecting the university and thc field of practice: Computer conferencing in education at the University of Michigan. In M. Waggoner (Ed.), Empowering networks: Computer conferencing in educa-tion (pp. 1-33). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Chidambaram, L., & Jones, B. (1993). Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: A comparison of face-to-face and dispersed meetings. MIS QuarJerly, 17(4), 465-491.
Coleman, D., & Khanna, R. (1995). Groupware: Technologies and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
DeSanctis, G., & Jackson, B. (1994). Coordination of information technology management: Team-based structures and computer-based communication sys-tems. Journal of Management Information Systems, /0(4), 85-110.
Easton, A., Eickelmann, N., & Flatley, M. (1994). Effects of an electronic meeting system group writing tool on the quality of written documents. Journal of Business Communication, 3/(1), 27-40.
Edwards, M. (1995, July). Users offered many options for groupware. Commu-nication News, 32, 48-49.
Ellis, C., Gibbs, S., & Rein, G. (1991). Groupware: Some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1 ), 39-58.
Everett, D., & Ahem, T. (1994). Computer-mediated communication as a teach-ing tool: A case study. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26(3), 336-357.
Fey, M. (1994). Finding voice through computer communication: A new venue for collaboration. Journal of Advanced Composition, 14(1), 221 -238.
Finholt, T., & Sproull, L. (1990). Electronic groups at work. Organizational Science, 1(1),41-64.
Glyn-Jones, F. (1995, April). The groupware grapevine. Management Today, pp. 83-86.
Grudin, J. (1993). Groupware and cooperative work: Problems and prospects. In R. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 97- 105). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: Eight challenges for develop-ers. Comm- unications of the A CM, 3 7( 1), 92- 105.
Hunt, C., & Burford, A. (1994). Group support systems: A new frontier for amplifying creativity and collaborative learning. Business Education Forum, 48(3), 31-34.
Hurley, D., Piesner, M., & Held, J. (1994, April 4). On the road to collaboration. Network World, 11(14), 27, 32.
Johansen, R., Martin, A., Mittman, R., Saffo, P., Sibbet, D., & Benson, S. (1991). Leading business teams. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kettelhut, M. (1994). How to avoid misusing electronic meeting support. Plan-ning Review, 22(4), 34-38.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1992, March 23). Here comes thc payoff from PCs. Fortune, 125, 93-99.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1993, December 27). Groupware goes boom. Fortune, 128, 99-102, 106.
Komsky, S. (1991). A profile of users of electronic mail in a university: Frequent verses occasional users. Management Communication Quarterly 4(3), 310-340.
McComb, M. (1993). Augmenting a group discussion course with computer-me-diated communication in a small college setting [17 pages]. Interpersonal Computing and Technology. An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century [On-line serial], 1(3). Archived as McComb ipctv In3 at listserv~guvm.georgetown.edu.
McNeil, D. (1992). Computer conferencing: The causes for delay. In M. Waggoner (Ed.), Empowering networks. Computer conferencing in education (pp. 195-213). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Miranda, S., & Bostrom, R. (1993-1994). The impact of group support systems on group conflict and conflict management. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(3), 63-95.
Mitchell, S., Mosier, J., Hayford, S., & Spitz, G. (1995, January 9). The rallying cry. Network World, 12(2), 15-17.
Nunamaker, J., Briggs, R., & Mittleman, D. (1995). Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned. In D. Coleman & R. Khanna (Eds.), Groupware: Technologies and applications (pp. 149-193). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.
Perreault, H., & Moses, D. (1992). A comparison of face-to-face and groupware meeting approaches on a collaborative writing project. Delta Pi Epsilon Jour-nal, 34(4), 151 - 166.
Petrovic, O., & Krickl, O. (1994). Traditionally moderated versus computer sup-ported brainstorming: A comparative study. Information & Management, 27(4), 233-243.
Phillips, G., & Santoro, G. (1990). Teaching group discussion via computer-me-diated communication. In G. Phillips (Ed.), Teaching how to work in groups (pp. 115- 129). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Posner, 1., & Baecker, R. (1993). How people write together. In R. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 239-250). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Rash, W. (1990, November). The growth of groupware. Byte, 15, 89-90.
Rice, R., Chang, S., & Torobin, J. (1992). Communicator style, media use, orga--
Lynnc M. Scalia and Bcnjamin Sackmary 53
nizational level, and use and evaluation of electronic messaging. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(1), 3-33.
Riedl, R. (1989). Patterns in computer-mediated discussions. In R. Mason & A. Kaye (Eds.), Mindweave: Communication, computers, and distance education (pp. 215-221). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Robinson, M. (1993). Computer-supported cooperative work: Cases and concepts. In R. Baecker (Ed.), Readings in groupware and computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 29-49). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Rodden, T. (1993). Technological support for cooperation. In D. Diapcr & C. Sanger (Eds.), CSCW in practice. An introduction and case studies (pp. 1-22). London: Springer-Verlag.
Smith, W. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: An experimental study. Journalism Educator, 48(4), 27-33.
Sullivan, C. (1995). Preferences for electronic mail in organizational communication tasks. Journal of Business Communication, 32(1), 49-64.
The, L. (1995, July 15). Beta not wait for groupware. Datamation, 4/(13), 69-75.
Thierauf, R. (1989). Group decision support systems for effective decision making. A guide for MlS practitioners and end users. New York: Quorum Books.
Turoff, M. (1991). Computer-mediated communication requirements for group support. Journal of Organizational Computing, 1, 85- 113.
Velayo, R. (1994). Supplementary classroom instruction via computer conferencing. Educational Technology, 34(5), 20-26.
Verity, J., & Brandt, R. (1989, June 5). Groupware: Big breakthrough-or big brother? Business Week, pp. 130- 131.
Watson, R., Ho, T., & Raman, K. (1994). Culture: A fourth dimension of group support systems. Communications office ACM, 37(10), 44-55.
Wild, R., & Winniford, M. (1993). Remote collaboration among students using electronic mail. Computers and Education, 21(3), 193-203.
Wilke, J. (1993, December 9). Computer links erode hierarchial nature of workplace culture. Wall Street Journal, pp. Al, A5.
Wood, I., & Phillips, G. (1990). Teaching groups alternative patterns of decision making. In G. Phillips (Ed.), Teaching how to work in groups (pp. 50-65). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Yellen, R. (1993). Introducing group decision support software (GDSS) in an organization. Journal of Systems Management, 44(10), 6-8.
Yellen, R., Winniford, M., & Sanford, C. (1995). Extraversion and introversion in electronically supported meetings. Information & Management, 28, 63-74.
Zigurs, 1., & Kozar, K. (1994). An exploratory study of roles in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarteriv, 18(3), 277-297.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine. The future of work
and power. New York: Basic Books.