Journal:What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?

From LIMSWiki
Revision as of 22:02, 29 April 2019 by Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Saving and adding more.)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Full article title What is the meaning of sharing: Informing, being informed or information overload?
Journal Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies
Author(s) Haugsbakken, Halvdan
Author affiliation(s) Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Primary contact Email: Halvdan dot Haugsbakken at ntnu dot no
Year published 2018
Volume and issue 6(1)
Page(s) 46–58
DOI 10.5324/njsts.v6i1.2546
ISSN 1894-4647
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Website https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/njsts/article/view/2546
Download https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/njsts/article/view/2546/2796 (PDF)
This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress.

Abstract

In recent years, several Norwegian public organizations have introduced enterprise social media platforms (ESMPs). The rationale for their implementation pertains to a goal of improving internal communications and work processes in organizational life. Such objectives can be attained on the condition that employees adopt the platform and embrace the practice of sharing. Although sharing work on ESMPs can bring benefits, making sense of the practice of sharing constitutes a challenge. In this regard, the paper performs an analysis on a case whereby an ESMP was introduced in a Norwegian public organization. The analytical focus is on the challenges and experiences of making sense of the practice of sharing. The research results show that users faced challenges in making sense of sharing. The paper indicates that sharing is interpreted and performed as an informing practice, which results in an information overload problem and causes users to become disengaged. The study suggests a continued need for the application of theoretical lenses that emphasize interpretation and practice in the implementation of new digital technologies in organizations.

Keywords: enterprise social media, sharing, public organizations, Norway

Introduction

In the last decade, many private and public organizations have started to take great interest in enterprise social media platforms (ESMPs).[1] Implying an expansion of Enterprise 2.0[2], the term refers to a platform used for internal communication in organizations. ESMPs contain a range of features that are used to share and organize information, such as tagging systems, user profiles, search engines, follower features, discussion boards, and group features. Known examples of ESMPs are Yammer and Facebook@ work. The platforms are assumed to bring a range of benefits for organizations and for the organization of work processes. These benefits can include enhancement of the quality of internal communications and workflows. A central practice related to the successful use of ESMPs is active engagement by users or employees through the sharing or co-creation of content, although the workplace principle is not always easy to put into practice.

Since the end of the 2000s, several large Norwegian private and public organizations have introduced ESMPs to their employees. The incentive for their acquisition is motivated by various goals. For example, they can reduce internal organizational barriers, enhance organizational communications, and cut down on time spent sending e-mails. In this way, one can attain a greater overview of organizational activities and the competencies of employees. In this regard, ESMPs are presented as a solution that can contribute to solving traditional management challenges that are faced daily by public organizations. In the wake of this development, discourses focusing on the importance of sharing in organizations emerge. Top and middle managers stress the sharing of work and engagement via ESMPs as means of bringing about organizational change and unity and the use of digital technologies in work life. Surfing on the top of such management discourses is an emphasis that employees embrace a “sharing culture.” Such developments substantiate the importance of analyzing the meaning of "sharing" through social constructionist research perspectives regarding the use of technology in organizations.

In 2012, a Norwegian County Authority decided to upgrade its intranet to become an ESMP, an effort initiated by the top management. The goal was to simplify the workspace because the employees previously worked across separate forms of information and communications technologies (ICTs). A further objective was to transfer work practices from e-mail and local storage to the newly acquired platform by sharing. Although the technical implementation of the ESMP was successful, top management found that employees were not sharing work as intended. By using a practice perspective on technology and the organization of work, as well as related research on enterprise social media[3][4], this paper questions how a group of employees working in the County Authority interpret the meaning of sharing and put it into practice through the ESMP. The use of a practice perspective indicates that employees face challenges in interpreting the meaning of sharing. Sharing is interpreted and performed as an informing practice, which results in an information overload problem and disengaged users.

In order to tackle the research question, the paper is divided into different parts. The following section addresses the scholarly discussion upon which the study is based. Thereafter, the research strategies used to complete this study are outlined. The research findings are subsequently presented, before the research results are discussed in relation to the relevant research horizon. The final part concludes the paper.

Theoretical perspective

Sharing has emerged as a significant social action performed by billions of social media users worldwide. In general, sharing brings with it a range of claimed unintended consequences[5], and it can be defined as a practice that originates in reconstituting dynamics and reciprocal relationships between the material properties of social media and social action. As such, it has affected the organization of social life. For example, what people share on social media draws media attention and is predicted by traditional media as having positive and negative effects on our well-being. The sharing of experiences can create community awareness on civic matters that are important to society, but also accusations of egocentric behavior. We also see that ongoing online socialization may lead to new mediated practices such as phubbing and digital detox. "Phubbing" is defined as the act of ignoring a person’s surroundings through the use of a cellphone, which is deemed an impolite action. "Digital detox" is understood as a period in which a person stops using electronic, web-connected devices such as smart phones and tablets. These indicate that the organization of communicative practices in the digital sphere can become unmanageable and chaotic. Although research on social media and sharing has proliferated, organization researchers have yet to fully frame the impact of sharing on organizational life.

In consequence, such dynamics call for the development of a research perspective that discusses the meaning of sharing in organizations by use of ESMPs, especially where sharing assumes a different role than that intended. This argument is valid for several reasons. Surprisingly, organizational scholars who study knowledge-sharing processes by use of knowledge management systems (for example) claim that what is actually shared by users on platforms for the sharing of work has yet to be adequately framed.[6] In particular, a knowledge gap seems to exist regarding the formation of sharing processes and how this is related to emergent properties coming from the use of recursive technology in work processes.[7] Instead, the knowledge management research stream has examined predefined assumptions of sharing[8][9] and conditions that prevent the sharing of knowledge in virtual communities.[6][10][11]

With the advent of ESMPs in organizations, there is an urgent need to formulate and facilitate a new and much broader research agenda. This has been seen in organizational research, which has introduced new definitions of platforms and has criticized existing definitions of social media for their shortcomings. An example of a new definition is enterprise social media, which is defined as: “web-based platforms that allow workers to (1) communicate messages with specific coworkers or broadcast messages to everyone in the organization; (2) explicitly indicate or implicitly reveal particular coworkers as communication partners; (3) post, edit, and sort text and files linked to themselves or others; and (4) view the messages, connections, text, and files communicated, posted, edited, and sorted by anyone else in the organization at any time of their choosing.”[1] This definition is a modified version of Kaplan and Haenlein’s[12], who define social media as a “group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content.”

Current definitions of social media are criticized for failing to adequately explain organizational processes.[13] To accommodate these limitations, we find an emerging body of research studying ESMPs that uses a social constructionist research lens on technology and the organization of work.[14] This research stream has (among others) developed an "affordance" perspective[15] to grasp the impact of ESMPs in organizations. Affordance[15] stresses the advantages of technologies. It argues that technologies can be perceived as beneficial in performing activities without paying attention to what an object “is,” that is, to ask what it can afford.[13] The focus on perception means to put emphasis on an object’s utility, and affordance provides the possibility of understanding action potential and the capabilities of a technology, and how it can be linked to processes in organizations.[13] The affordance lens is used to place greater emphasis on the meaning of materiality, which is said to have diminished in value as other concepts dominate the research agenda, such as sociomateriality.[16] Affordance is linked to critical theory, which is deemed as providing new innovative ways of addressing the relationships between materiality and immateriality.[17] A critical theory approach assumes the existence of multiple realities that operate interchangeably and independently of one another, with the implication that actors and objects are self-contained entities that influence each other through impacts or social interaction.[17]

In contrast, sociomateriality[18], which draws on influences from Actor-Network-Theory[19][20][21], has emerged as an alternative sub-research stream to understanding the impact of social media in organizational studies. Sociomateriality, which assumes that “materiality is intrinsic to everyday activities and relations,”[22] provides an alternative approach to understanding the meaning of technology and therefore what the potential consequences of social media might entail. Orlikowski argues that previous understandings of materiality in management studies were framed around an ontology of separateness[23], in which one theorized that the material and the immaterial are separate entities and realities.[24] Sociomateriality instead argues that they should be seen as linked, equal, and inseparable, which means addressing a relational ontology. Therefore, future organizational researchers with an interest in social media could study technological artifacts “symmetrically to the humans, and as equivalent participants in a network of humans and non-humans that (temporarily) align to achieve particular effects.”[24] In this regard, Orlikowski and Scott[25] apply a sociomaterial practice perspective in one of their latest research works on valuation regimes. They demonstrate that online evaluations of hotels performed by users on social media have a drastic impact on the domestic travel industry.[25]

However, an important argument running through the above literature is the requirement for more theorizing. Current research focuses on a particular platform or features, leading to a claim that researchers are incapable of making inferences about the consequences of the material for organizing.[1] Current definitions of ESMPs are too application-focused and overlook the social dynamics and reciprocal relationships between the material and the immaterial.[1] Treem and Leonardi[13] argue that this causes scholars to fail to possess sufficient terminology to explain the ways in which ESMPs can influence social behavior and to generalize matters to organizations across contexts. Here, the affordance lens offers researchers the possibility of making interesting analyses regarding the ways in which ESMPs influence organizational processes such as socialization and power aspects in organizations. Research has suggested various affordances that ESMPs can give for organizational processes. For example, Treem and Leonardi[13] suggest that ESMPs can enable four affordances: visibility, edibility, persistence, and association. A case in point highlighting the meaning of a singular affordance is Treem and Leonardi’s[13] argument that the affordance visibility is seen when employees use an ESMP to make their behavior, knowledge, preferences, and commutation network visible to others. They argue that actions like posting updates, showing a list of friends, and writing personal profiles are beneficial and enable the visualization of work to third parties. Leonardi[26][27] illustrates this point by showing that work interaction on an ESMP platform is pivotal for knowledge work and for the transfer of knowledge in a large organization. Based on a study of a financial service in the United States of America, Leonardi shows that the use of a company’s ESMP assists third-users to enhance awareness of meta knowledge, as one learns about the competencies of co-workers and the matters on which they are working. ESMPs can be used to make accurate interferences of people’s meta knowledge and the sharing of co-workers’ communication activities, and communicating via messenger software can offer innovative products and avoid the duplication of work. In a related study, Leonardi and Meyer[28] develop the above claim in a study of a communications business unit in a telecommunication unit. Leonardi and Meyer test out a set of hypotheses and instances of knowledge transfer to show that when knowledge workers are exposed to communication activities on an ESMP, internal communication can be enhanced.

Beyond these works, researchers have theorized affordance in two other principle directions. First, we can identify works that conceive of affordance at a conceptual level. Second, researchers develop the term empirically through case study designs. An example of the former is a study by Majchrzak, Faraj, Kane, and Azad[29], who demonstrate how ESMPs have four affordances to inspire engagement of visible knowledge conversations in organizations. These include met voicing, triggered attending, network-informed associating, and generative role-taking. For example, met voicing would mean that an ESMP has the action capability to enable users to react to others’ presence, profiles, content, and activities. Ellison, Gibbs, and Weber[30] develop a collective affordance and affordances for organizing, and explore the role of organizational affordances in light of the fact that organizations become distributed entities.

The affordance lens needs to be broadened beyond the context of individual uses, which has been seen in many analyses. Ellison et al.[30] note that the affordances of ESMPs can include concepts such as social capital dynamics, identity formation, context collapse, and networked organizational structures. Fulk and Yuan[31] argue that ESMPs have the affordance to solve organizational challenges and represent a preferable platform for organizing knowledge sharing in comparison to older knowledge management systems. Fulk and Yan argue that by combining transitive memory theory, public good theory, and social capital theory, ESMPs have the affordance to deal with three associated challenges in the sharing of organizational knowledge. These include knowledge of the location of expertise in the organization, motivation to share knowledge, and the development and maintenance of relationships with knowledge providers. In considering work that uses the affordance lens for cases from organizational life, however, Vaast and Kaganer[32] explore how organizations react to employees’ adoption of ESMPs. Based on a sample of corporate policy documents, Vaast and Kaganer find that organizations view ESMPs as more of a risk than an asset. Oostervink, Agterberg, and Huysman[33] have undertaken a study connecting enactment to the affordance lens, as affordances are enacted in practice and institutional forces in an organization can shape how ESMPs are used by employees. Oostervink et al. point out that the institutional logics of a corporation and employees’ professional expertise shape the knowledge that employees share on ESMPs. Although the affordance of visibility and associability are assumed to enhance knowledge sharing in organizations, Gibbs, Rozaidi and Eisenberg[34] find the opposite effect. They performed a study among a group of engineers and noted that engaging EMPSs create contradictions in workplace interactions. For example, constantly remaining accessible and open to other suggestions is a hassle, thus causing employees to feel that they need to hide certain behaviors from others. Based on this finding, Gibbs et al.[34] have suggested that scholars theorize affordance in terms of dichotomies, not singular affordance concepts. They establish three affordances with which users interact when they use an ESMP. These include visibility-invisibility tension, engagement-disengagement tension, and sharing-control tension.

Organizational researchers have also explored ESMPs from other angles. Research shows that employees are receptive to ESMPs in certain organizations: those that make and sell the technology, being IT companies and organizations with the resources to research the technology in large projects. In this regard, IBM’s Beehive project is groundbreaking. One can read in numerous research papers the ways in which Beehive has been implemented and tested on IBM employees, as researchers have documented basic user behaviors. Researchers have focused on an entire ESMP[35] or on features such as tagging systems[36] and user profiles[37] Beehive research papers often use a social capital perspective[38] to establish links between ESMP uses, and connecting strategies constitute a recurring theme. Researchers have identified that IBM employees use Beehive as a platform to expand their professional networks, using it to communicate with colleagues across organizational levels.[39] IBM employees undertake a range of search and retrieving practices[40] and use Beehive as a knowledge repository.[41] Other case studies on ESMPs in organizations other than IBM exist, but have yielded limited insights. They show that employees use ESMPs to streamline their online behavior to work practices and organizational affiliation.[42] Researchers have examined the challenges of adopting an organizational ESMPs. It is not uncommon to come across findings that highlight how employees continue to prefer to communicate via e-mail and chat software, and silently monitor news streams.[43][44][45] Consequently, one finds a pattern that a core group adopts SNS and maintains network activities, while a larger group uses "older" forms of ICTs.

Therefore, the research horizon described appears limited and somewhat inchoate. Scholars have predominantly focused on the material properties of ESMPs and have contributed through experimental theorizing. Absent from the research literature is the specific role that interpretation and practice take in employees’ recursive use, with ESMPs a crucial aspect of work processes. Moreover, it appears that the research field has yet to adequately frame whether sharing can take on a different role than that intended, and what it means when technology is used differently in an organizational setting. This means that the research field can advance a research lens focusing on situations and enacting with emergent properties that come from the use of recursive technology, hence placing clearer emphasis on what people do with an ESMP. Thus, one can use a practice perspective on technology.[3] A practice lens on ESMPs can also be used to fill a knowledge gap regarding the formation of knowledge-sharing processes in the use of ESMPs, facilitating our understanding of the unintended consequences of technology use in organizations. Here, Orlikowski and Gash’s[4] technological frames can be of assistance. Technological frames are defined as: “that subset of members’ organizational frames that concern the assumptions, expectations, and knowledge they use to understand technology in organizations. This includes not only the nature and role of the technology itself, but the specific conditions, applications, and consequences of that technology in particular contexts.”[4] The concept can enable us to frame how individuals and social groups in organizations alike make sense of a technology to determine their actions, allowing us to move beyond conceptualizing a technology’s mere value and perception among users. Technological frames problematize the "taken for granted" notions of a technology and can facilitate an understanding of how individuals and groups in organizations develop particular assumptions, expectations and knowledge of a new technology in an organizational setting. Orlikowski and Gash[4] have illustrated technological frames in their study of the implementation of the groupware Notes in a consultant company. The researchers interviewed the implementers and adopters, grouping them into "technologists" and "users." "Technologists" was used to refer to technology staff, whereas "users" comprised the organization’s consultants. Orlikowski and Gash demonstrated a large set of differences in terms of expectations and actions, which they attributed to differences in technological frames. For example, the technologists viewed Notes as an enabler for information sharing, electronic communication, document management, and online discussion, which they believed could contribute to collaboration. The users’ interpretation was different, viewing Notes’ electronic e-mail features as a potential substitute for existing communication technologies such as fax and telephone. The technologists therefore framed Notes as a collaborative technology, whereas the users used it as a means for individual and personal communications.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Leonardi, P.M.; Huysman, M.; Steinfield, C. (2013). "Enterprise Social Media: Definition, History, and Prospects for the Study of Social Technologies in Organizations". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12029. 
  2. ↑ McAfee, A. (September 2006). "Enterprise 2.0 Inclusionists and Deletionists". AndrewMcAfee.org. http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/09/enterprise_20_inclusionists_and_deletionists/. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Orlikowski, W.J. (2000). "Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations". Organization Science 11 (4): 367–472. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Orlikowski, W.J.; Gash, D.C. (1994). "Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations". ACM Transactions on Information Systems 12 (2): 174–207. doi:10.1145/196734.196745. 
  5. ↑ Merton, R.K. (1936). "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action". American Sociological Review 1 (6): 894–904. doi:10.2307/2084615. 
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Ardichvili, A.; Page, V.; Wentling, T. (2003). "Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge ‐ Sharing communities of practice". Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (1): 64–77. doi:10.1108/13673270310463626. 
  7. ↑ Kosonen, M. (2009). "Knowledge sharing in virtual communities – A review of the empirical research". International Journal of Web Based Communities 5 (2): 144–63. doi:10.1504/IJWBC.2009.023962. 
  8. ↑ Chen, C.-J.; Hung, S.-W. (2010). "To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities". Information & Management 47 (4): 226-236. doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.03.001. 
  9. ↑ Wasko, M.M.; Faraj, S. (2005). "Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice". MIS Quarterly 29 (1): 35-57. doi:10.2307/25148667. 
  10. ↑ Ardichvili, A. (2008). "Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers". Advances in Developing Human Resources 10 (4): 541–44. doi:10.1177/1523422308319536. 
  11. ↑ Ardichvili, A.; Maurer, M.; Li, W. et al. (2006). "Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice". Journal of Knowledge Management 10 (1): 94–107. doi:10.1108/13673270610650139. 
  12. ↑ Kaplan, A.M.; Haenlein, M. (2010). "Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media". Business Horizons 53 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003. 
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Treem, J.W.; Leonardi, P.M. (2012). "Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association". Communication Yearbook 36: 143–89. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2129853. 
  14. ↑ Leonardi, P.M.; Barley, S.R. (2010). "What’s Under Construction Here? Social Action, Materiality, and Power in Constructivist Studies of Technology and Organizing". Academy of Management Annals 4 (1): 1–51. doi:10.5465/19416521003654160. 
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Gibson, J.J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0898599598. 
  16. ↑ Mutch, A. (2013). "Sociomateriality — Taking the wrong turning?". Information and Organization 23 (1): 28–40. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.001. 
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Leonardi, P.M. (2013). "Theoretical foundations for the study of sociomateriality". Information and Organization 23 (2): 59–76. doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.02.002. 
  18. ↑ Orlikowski, W.J. (2007). "Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work". Organization Studies 28 (9): 1435-1448. doi:10.1177/0170840607081138. 
  19. ↑ Callon, M. (1986). "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay". In Law, J.. Power, action, and belief: A new sociology of knowledge?. Routledge & Kegan Paul. ISBN 9780710208026. 
  20. ↑ Latour, B. (1988). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674792913. 
  21. ↑ Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199256051. 
  22. ↑ Orlikowski, W.J.; Scott, S.V. (2008). "Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization". Academy of Management Annals 2 (1): 433–74. doi:10.5465/19416520802211644. 
  23. ↑ Suchman, L. (2007). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521858915. 
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Orlikowski, W.J. (2010). "The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in management research". Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (1): 125–41. doi:10.1093/cje/bep058. 
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Orlikowski, W.J.; Scott, S.V. (2014). "What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector". Organization Science 25 (3): 868–91. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0877. 
  26. ↑ Leonardi, P.M. (2014). "Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility". Information Systems Research 25 (4): 796–816. doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0536. 
  27. ↑ Leonardi, P.M. (2015). "Ambient Awareness and Knowledge Acquisition: Using Social Media to Learn "Who Knows What" and "Who Knows Whom"". MIS Quarterly 39 (4): 747–62. https://misq.org/ambient-awareness-and-knowledge-acquisition-using-social-media-to-learn-who-knows-what-and-who-knows-whom.html. 
  28. ↑ Leonardi, P.M.; Meyer, S.R. (2015). "Social Media as Social Lubricant: How Ambient Awareness Eases Knowledge Transfer". American Behavioral Scientist 59 (1): 10–34. doi:10.1177/0002764214540509. 
  29. ↑ Majchrzak, A.; Faraj, S.; Kane, G.C.; Azad, B. (2013). "The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 38–55. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12030. 
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Ellison, N.B.; Gibbs, J.L.; Weber, M.S. (2015). "The Use of Enterprise Social Network Sites for Knowledge Sharing in Distributed Organizations: The Role of Organizational Affordances". American Behavioral Scientist 59 (1): 103–123. doi:10.1177/0002764214540510. 
  31. ↑ Fulk, J.; Yuan, Y.C. (2013). "Location, Motivation, and Social Capitalization via Enterprise Social Networking". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 20–37. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12033. 
  32. ↑ Vaast, E.; Kaganer, E. (2013). "Social media affordances and governance in the workplace: An examination of organizational policies". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 78–101. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12032. 
  33. ↑ Oostervink, N.; Agerberg, M.; Huysman, M. (2013). "Knowledge Sharing on Enterprise Social Media: Practices to Cope With Institutional Complexity". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 21 (2): 156–76. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12153. 
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Gibbs, J.L., Rozaidi, N.H.; Eisenberg, J. (2013). "Overcoming the “Ideology of Openness”: Probing the Affordances of Social Media for Organizational Knowledge Sharing". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 102–20. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12034. 
  35. ↑ Ehrlich, K.; Lin, C.-Y.; Griffiths-Fisher, V. (2007). "Searching for experts in the enterprise: combining text and social network analysis". Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work: 117–26. doi:10.1145/1316624.1316642. 
  36. ↑ Thom-Santelli; J.; Muller, M.J.; Millen, D.R. (2008). "Social tagging roles: Publishers, evangelists, leaders". Proceedings of the 2008 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1041–44. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357215. 
  37. ↑ Dugan, C.; Geyer, W.; Muller, M. et al. (2008). "It's all 'about you': Diversity in online profiles". Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work: 703–06. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460672. 
  38. ↑ Steinfield, C.; DiMicco, J.M.; Ellison, N.B. et al. (2009). "Bowling online: Social networking and social capital within the organization". Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies: 245–54. doi:10.1145/1556460.1556496. 
  39. ↑ Wu, A.; DiMicco, J.M.; Millen, D.R. (2010). "Detecting professional versus personal closeness using an enterprise social network site". Proceedings of the 2010 SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1955–64. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753622. 
  40. ↑ Thom-Santelli, J.; Millen, D.R.; MiMicco, J.M. (2010). "Characterizing global participation in an enterprise SNS". Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration: 251–54. doi:10.1145/1841853.1841900. 
  41. ↑ Thom-Santelli, J.; Millen, D.R.; Gergle, D. (2011). "Organizational acculturation and social networking". Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work: 313–16. doi:10.1145/1958824.1958871. 
  42. ↑ Zhang, J.; Qu, Y.; Cody, J.; Wu, Y. (2010). "A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: Use, value, and related issues". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 123–32. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753346. 
  43. ↑ Lüders, M. (2013). "Networking and notworking in social intranets: User archetypes and participatory divides". First Monday 18 (8). doi:10.5210/fm.v18i8.4693. 
  44. ↑ Pettersen, L. (2014). "From Mass Production to Mass Collaboration: Institutionalized Hindrances to Social Platforms in the Workplace". Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies 2 (2): 29–40. doi:10.5324/njsts.v2i2.2146. 
  45. ↑ Pettersen, L. (2016). "The Role of Offline Places for Communication and Social Interaction in Online and Virtual Spaces in the Multinational Workplace". Nordicom Review 37 (Special Issue): 131–46. doi:10.1515/nor-2016-0028. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version—by design—lists them in order of appearance.

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Journal:What_is_the_meaning_of_sharing:_Informing,_being_informed_or_information_overload%3F&oldid=35525"