THE USER -CENTERED NATURE OF AWARENESS CREATION IN COMPUTER -MEDIATED COMMUNICATION Completed Research Paper Russell Haines Kai Riemer Old Dominion University The University of Sydney Norfolk, Virginia, USA Sydney, NSW, Australia [email protected] [email protected] Abstract In face-to-face contexts, information about the activities, context or emotions of others is typically available and often taken for granted. In computer-mediated communication (CMC) contexts, this awareness information is not readily available and thus needs to be actively signaled by users or technology or otherwise conveyed as byproduct of the ongoing interaction. We present a theory of the dynamic creation of awareness via computer-mediated communication illustrated by a metaphor of pools fed from streams of interaction. Pools of awareness are held within users and gradually fill via signals from others. Users need different pools to be fed and draw from the streams of interaction to feed their pools and reciprocally place information in the streams to feed the pools of others. In addition, pools drain and must be replenished when a new CMC encounter begins. Awareness is thus created actively or as byproduct of social communicative practice, but is not an instant product of technology. We formulate theoretical propositions and discuss implications of our proposed theory for CMC researchers and practitioners. Keywords: awareness, computer-mediated communication, presence Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 1 Human Behavior and IT Introduction People increasingly work and live in distributed contexts, where they and those with whom they interact do not share a common physical environment (Leinonen et al., 2005; Mark, 2002). Interacting in a distributed context necessitates the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC), meaning one cannot as easily obtain much of the information about others that is readily available in face-to-face contexts, such as information about activities, physical context, emotions, etc. of others (Scupelli et al., 2005; Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002). Lack of information about others and the resulting uncertainty is believed to create the coordination problems typically seen in distributed work, such as inter-group conflicts (Rennecker, 2005) and adverse reactions to external events (Tangirala and Alge, 2006). Coordination can be difficult when information about others’ actions and personal and individuating information must be actively sought (Tangirala and Alge, 2006). One prominent framework suggests that technology designers can fill these needs by providing information about: who is present in the mediated space, where is their attention focused in the mediated space, and what task are they accomplishing in the mediated space (Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002). Another framework goes further, suggesting that technological tools should also provide information that defines the boundaries of a group within the mediated space (i.e., group awareness), convey others’ interests, attitudes, and personal feelings (i.e., social awareness), in addition to information about the mediated space and the objects in it (Gross et al., 2005). Such technology tools in distributed contexts have been experimentally shown to increase conformity (Haines and Mann, 2011) and motivation (Shepherd et al., 1996) over those that did not have such tools. These frameworks and experimental results suggest that there are limitations to CMC encounters that can be overcome by providing technological tools. Such tools might provide information about the presence (Lee, 2004), identity (Cooper and Haines, 2008), and activities (Dourish and Bellotti, 1992) of others. However, this technology-centric approach runs contrary to the notion that with the “passage of sufficient time and messages exchanged,” mediated communication will be experienced in much the same way as face-to-face communication (Walther, 1992). In this paper, we argue that simply looking at how much information can be transmitted verbally or nonverbally in a given context understates what is a qualitatively different situation to the interactants. When interacting with someone that is not bodily present, it appears that one will attempt to cognitively and/or verbally compensate for the missing other (e.g., Emberson et al., 2010; Lee, 2004). The goal of this paper is to develop a new conceptualization of the nature of awareness, which we define as information about others that is used to facilitate coordinated behavior in a social setting. Our notion of awareness is consistent with prior conceptualizations, but we wish to clearly differentiate this paper from prior research and frameworks that sought to explicate the fundamental awareness needs in mediated encounters (e.g., social presence, identity awareness, activity awareness, etc.). For example, Dourish and Belotti define awareness as “an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for your own activity” (1992, p. 107). While we recognize that awareness of the activities of others might be a critical need for a particular user in an encounter, other users in different contexts may have other awareness needs, such as building trust (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998). Thus, we note here that we conceive of awareness as potentially consisting of multiple dimensions, each of which represents a need that might be felt and met separately. This is a conceptual, explorative and theory-building paper. Against the above backdrop we will engage with the construct of awareness in computer-mediated communication. While a large body of research has investigated awareness, such as different types of awareness, technologies for awareness creation, and the positive effects of awareness for improving coordination via CMC, there is a distinct lack of conceptual understanding of the construct itself and how awareness arises (Schmidt 2002). Therefore, we offer a set of theoretical propositions in reply to the following two research questions: 1) What are the characteristics of awareness as a construct? 2) How does awareness arise in CMC and what is the role of technology in awareness creation? Drawing on existing literature, a hypothetical CMC scenario (introduced below), and examples of every- day communication behavior, we will expose awareness as a dynamic construct, created through user actions, enabled and shaped by technology. The proposed dynamic awareness theory will contribute to a 2 Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 Haines & Riemer / User-centered Awareness Creation in Computer-mediated Communication better understanding of the anatomy of awareness as a construct and its creation, thereby providing a basis to reignite research on this unquestionably important topic. In doing so, we offer a distinct Information Systems perspective, which goes beyond the tool-centric understanding that dominates the orthodox view in neighboring disciplines. The paper proceeds as follows. In the next section we will motivate our study and position our research. For doing so, we offer a thought experiment in the form of a hypothetical CMC encounter. Thereafter, we will expose the current dominant view of awareness in the literature, and argue for an action-centered view. Sections four and five are the core of the paper, offering propositions regarding awareness as a construct and awareness creation as a product of user actions. We then discuss our findings to derive implications for researchers and tool designers. Motivation and Paper Overview Our paper rests on the observation that awareness in mediated communication is not strictly analogous to face-to-face communication, but has different, unique needs that arise from the specific characteristics of a mediated encounter. To illustrate this point, we offer a brief scenario outlining a hypothetical communication encounter in an online chat environment A hypothetical CMC encounter Imagine a situation in which an experimenter leads a person to a computer terminal. No other people are present, but on the computer a chat program is running (Figure 1). There is nothing on the screen other than the window, and only a flashing cursor to indicate that any activity is taking place. What will the person do? There is no indication that another person or persons is at “the other end” and will respond to messages, only the implicit suggestion that something might happen if the person enters something, which comes from a general familiarity with “experimenters,” “computer terminals,” and “chat programs.” Figure 1. Chat illustrating the hypothetical CMC encounter Once seated, the person types “Hi” and presses enter. His/her “Hi” then appears on the upper part of the chat screen. A short time later, “Hi. Who is this?” also appears on the upper part of the screen. The person types, “This is Pat. Who are you?” and presses enter. A short time later, “Oh, this is Jordan” appears. From here, a conversation can unfold: it might concern a recent party that each of them attended, a discussion of current political issues, or anything else that they might wish to talk about. What enabled this conversation to occur? Thirty Second International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai 2011 3 Human Behavior and IT We acknowledge that the situation described in this hypothetical encounter is a simplification in that there were relatively few assumptions that could be made by the person up front, but we believe that it serves well as a first step in