Wikipedia talk:Wiki Ed/Chapman University/CSCW (SP 21)

Here is our ROUGH DRADT of EDITS EMBEDDED ON CSCW PAGE from APril 19, 2021: CSCw Class sandbox for CSCW WIKI page

The term computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) was first coined by Irene Greif and Paul M. Cashman in 1984, at a workshop attended by individuals interested in using technology to support people in their work.[1] At about this same time, in 1987, Dr. Charles Findley presented the concept of Collaborative Learning-Work.[2] According to Carstensen and Schmidt,[3] CSCW addresses "how collaborative activities and their coordination can be supported by means of computer systems". On the one hand, many authors consider that CSCW and groupware are synonyms. On the other hand, different authors claim that while groupware refers to real computer-based systems, CSCW focuses on the study of tools and techniques of groupware as well as their psychological, social, and organizational effects. The definition of Wilson (1991)[4] expresses the difference between these two concepts: CSCW [is] a generic term, which combines the understanding of the way people work in groups with the enabling technologies of computer networking, and associated hardware, software, services and techniques. Edit Table of Contents here: 1 Central Topics

1.3 Erin addition: Ubiquitous computing 2 Central concerns/ Principles Kai: Articulation Work 3 Tools Nima Nakhjavani: Tools in CSCW and how they are impacting us Nikita: E-Learning

4 Challenges 4.1 Leadership 4.2 Adoption of groupware 4.3 Intergenerational groups Mica addition: Adding more to the discussion of these intergenerational groups 4.4 Erik - Gender and CSCW 4.5 Hari: CSCW in Gaming Mitch - Standardization vs flexibility

5. Challenges in research 6.1 Kashish: social- technical gap 6.2 Differing meanings 6.3 Identifying user needs Liz: self-presentation and affordances of social media 6.4 Evaluation and measurement 6 Advantages

7 Conferences See also References 10 Further reading 11 External links Central Topics Matrix One of the most common ways of conceptualizing CSCW systems is to consider the context of a system's use. One such conceptualization is the CSCW Matrix, first introduced in 1988 by Johansen; it also appears in Baecker (1995).[14] The matrix considers work contexts along two dimensions: first, whether collaboration is co-located or geographically distributed, and second, whether individuals collaborate synchronously (same time) or asynchronously (not depending on others to be around at the same time). Same time/same place[edit]

Same time/different place[edit]

Different time/same place[edit]

Different time/different place[edit]

There is a collaborative mode called multi-synchronous that can not fit the matrix. Advantages[edit] While CSCW working environments certainly face challenges, they also provide many advantages as well. For instance, teams that work together asynchronously provide members with the luxury to contribute when they want, from the location of their choosing, thus eliminating the need for members to "synchronize schedules".[18] CSCW also allows employees with specific expertise to be a part of teams without the concern of geographic restraints."[19] CSCW can also result in major cost savings to companies who implement virtual teams and allow employees to work at home by eliminating the need for travel, rented office space, parking, electricity, office equipment, etc. Conversely, from the employee’s perspective, commuting costs and time associated with communing are also eliminated. Further, research has shown that the use of multiple communication threads can increase group participation and contribution from more team members and foster a more egalitarian communication structure.[16][20] Along the same lines, text-based CSCW communication, such as email, allows users to keep a record of communication and can promote long-term collaboration and learning through observing others.[21] Nasser history>CSCW overview here Subtopic: Ubiquitous computing (Erin’s addition) Ubiquitous computing was first coined by Mark Weiser of Xerox PARC. This was to describe the phenomenon of computing technologies becoming prevalent everywhere. It was key to create a new language for this to observe the dynamics of computers becoming available at mass scale and its effects on us as users in collaborative systems. Between social commerce apps, the rise of social media, and the widespread availability of smart devices and the Internet, there is a large amount of research that has been and can be written on just these two topics of computing alone within CSCW and collaborative technologies. Despite this, there are some perspectives that are missing from current research and can be added to expand upon our existing understanding of collaborative systems. These include topics such as ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) within social media, ‘ubiquitous computing infrastructure,’ and instant message based social commerce. In You Recommend I Buy: How and Why People Engage in Instant Messaging Based Social Commerce, researchers on this project analyzed twelve users of Chinese Instant Messenger (IM) social commerce platforms to study how social recommendation engines on IM commerce platforms result in a different user experience. The study was entirely on Chinese platforms, mainly WeChat. The research was conducted by a team composed of members from Stanford, Beijing, Boston, and Kyoto. The interviewing process took place in the winter of 2020 and was an entirely qualitative analysis, using just interviews. The goal of the interviews were to probe about how participants got involved in IM based social commerce, their experience on IM based social commerce, the reasons for and against IM based social commerce, and changes introduced by IM based social commerce to their lives. There were three main questions posed by the study: “[how] and why do users engage in IM based social commerce? Do such platforms create novel experiences that are distinct from prior commerce? And do these platforms bring changes to user social lives and relationships? (Cao et al., 2021, p. 1)” These questions introduced a couple of paradigm shifts: the IM technology for commercial activities makes shopping a more distributed business process. The second shift is that an IM based service integrates directly with our more intimate social experiences. If we think about what IM means, it is essentially texting in real-time over a network. This can be both a synchronous or asynchronous activity. This is important because it is highly beneficial in terms of the effectiveness of commerce. IM based social commerce makes the user shopping experience more accessible. In terms of CSCW, this is an example of ubiquitous computing. This creates a “jump out of the box” experience as described in the research because the IM based platform facilitates a change in user behavior and the overall experience on social commerce (Cao et al., 2021, p. 9). The benefit of this concept is that the app is leveraging personal relationships and real-life networks that can actually lead to a more meaningful customer experience, which is founded upon trust. A second CSCW paper, Embeddedness and Sequentiality in Social Media, explores a new methodology for analyzing social media -- another expression of ubiquitous computing in CSCW. This paper used ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (EMCA) as a framework to research Facebook users. The team behind all this, hailing from University of Nottingham and Stockholm University, recognized that “moment-by-moment, unfolding, real-time human action” had really not been delved into too much within CSCW research on social media (Reeves & Brown, 2016, p. 1054). The significance of this is they felt that by exploring EMCA, it could point the way forward in terms of coming up with new solutions in collaborative social network systems (Reeves & Brown, 2016, p. 1054). First, let us take a step back to define what EMCA is:

For EMCA, the activities of everyday life are structured in time—some things routinely happen before others. Fundamentally there is a ‘sequentiality’ to activity, something that has been vital for developing understanding of the orderly nature of talk [45] and bodily interaction [16] (Reeves & Brown, 2016, p. 1054).

In summary, EMCA pays attention to the sequence of events, so as to reveal some sort of underlying order about our behavior in our day-to-day interactions. Instead of relying on accounts of user experiences about social media, which are all based on recollection, we can now ask different questions and get a whole new set of answers to unresolved issues in the ubiquitous computing systems. These include: “How does social media start being used, stop being used? When is it being used, and how is that usage ordered and integrated into other, parallel activities at the time? (Reeves & Brown, 2016, p. 1055).” Parallel activities refer to occurrences in co-located groupware and ubiquitous computing technologies like social media. By examining these sequential and parallel activities in user groups on social media networks, we then have the ability to “[manage] the experience of that everyday life (Reeves & Brown, 2016, p. 1061).” In the last article, Democratizing Ubiquitous Computing - a Right for Locality, the authors from Lancaster University researched ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) infrastructures to identify where there exists positive or negative effects on users and society at large. The research specifically focuses on cities or urban areas as they are places where one can expect a lot of technological and social activities to take place. An apparent guiding principle to the research is that the goal of advancing any ubicomp technologies should be to maximize the amount of good to as many people in a society as possible. A key observation is made about the way in which these infrastructures come into being:

A ubiquitous computing infrastructure can play an important role in enabling and enhancing beneficial social processes as, unlike electricity, digital infrastructure enhances a society’s cognitive power by its ability to connect people and information [39]. While infrastructure projects in the past had the idealistic notion to connect the urban realm and its communities of different ethnicity, wealth, and beliefs, Graham et al. [28] note the increasing fragmentation of the management and ownership of infrastructures (Weise et al., 2012, p. 523).

This is because ubicomp has the potential to further disadvantage marginalized communities online. The current disadvantage of ubicomp infrastructures is that they do not best support urban development. Proposals to resolve these social issues include increased transparency about personal data collection as well as individual and community accountability about the data collection process in ubicomp infrastructure. Essentially, ubiquitous computing will reflect society and the choices it makes will influence those computing systems that are put in place. Ubiquitous computing is huge to the field of CSCW because as the barriers between physical boundaries that separate us break down with the adoption of technology, our relationships to those locations is actually strengthened (Weise et al., 2012, p. 521). In the IM based social commerce platform paper, we explored a complete shift to the way things worked before in collaborative systems like social media and in our behavior. That is, instead of knowing we want to buy and then searching for what we want, apps like WeChat influences us to now have our search done first for us (by the recommendation engine), and then we decide if we are going to buy. An important takeaway from the EMCA and sequentiality in social media paper is that it reveals how the choices made by designers of social media apps ultimately mediates our end-user experience, for better or for worse. More to the point, it reveals: “when content is posted and sequentially what is associated with it (Reeves & Brown, 2016, p. 1061).” And lastly, studying how the wider availability of ubicomp has left some unintended negative consequences for us to sort out at both the individual user level, as well as the need to regulate ubicomp at the societal level.

3 main CSCW articles mentioned: Cao, H., Chen, Z., Cheng, M., Zhao, S., Wang, T., & Li, Y. (2020). You Recommend, I Buy: How and Why People Engage in Instant Messaging Based Social Commerce. You Recommend, I Buy: How and Why People Engage in Instant Messaging Based Social Commerce, 0, 1-25. doi:https://doi.org/00.0000/0000000 Reeves, S., & Brown, B. (2016). Embeddedness and Sequentiality in Social Media. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. doi:10.1145/2818048.2820008 Weise, S., Hardy, J., Agarwal, P., Coulton, P., Friday, A., & Chiasson, M. (2012). Democratizing ubiquitous computing. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing - UbiComp 12. doi:10.1145/2370216.2370293

References: Directorate, OECD Statistics. OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms - Ubiquitous Computing Definition, stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6093#:~:text=The%20term%20was%20first%20coined,the%20concept%20at%20Xerox%20PARC. Bjørn, P., Esbensen, M., Jensen, R. E., & Matthiesen, S. (2014). Does Distance Still Matter? Revisiting the CSCW Fundamentals on Distributed Collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 21(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670534 [6] Bjørn, P., & Scupola, A. (n.d.). Groupware Integration in Virtual Learning Teams. IT Innovation for Adaptability and Competitiveness, 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8000-x_18 [7] Charles Goodwin. 1986. Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation, Semiotica 62 (1-2):29-50 (1986). [8] Suryani, S., Amelia, R., & Efnita, Y. (2019). Analysis of E-Commerce Online Purchase Decisions: Case Study on the Implementation of E-Commerce in Online Shop Blanja.com. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Social, Economy, Education and Humanity. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009059500570062 [9] Simons, R. N., Gurari, D., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2020). "I Hope This Is Helpful". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415176 [10] Nakajima, T., Fujinami, K., Tokunaga, E., & Ishikawa, H. (2004). Middleware design issues for ubiquitous computing. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia - MUM '04. https://doi.org/10.1145/1052380.1052389

Addition as of Wed, April 14: “Why Replacing Legacy Systems is So Hard in Global Software Development: An Information Infrastructure Perspective” by Bjørn & Matthiesen Central concerns[edit] CSCW is a design-oriented academic field that is interdisciplinary in nature and brings together librarians, economists, organizational theorists, educators, social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and computer scientists, among others. The expertise of researchers in various and combined disciplines help researchers identify venues for possible development. Despite the variety of disciplines, CSCW is an identifiable research field focused on understanding characteristics of interdependent group work with the objective of designing adequate computer-based technology to support such cooperative work. Essentially, CSCW goes beyond building technology itself and looks at how people work within groups and organizations and the impacts of technology on those processes. CSCW has ushered in a great extent of melding between social scientists and technologists as developers work together to overcome both technical and non-technical problems within the same user spaces. For example, many R&D professionals working with CSCW are computer scientists who have realized that social factors play an important role in the development of collaborative systems. On the flip side, many social scientists who understand the increasing role of technology in our social world become "technologists" who work in R&D labs to develop cooperative systems. Over the years, CSCW researchers have identified a number of core dimensions of cooperative work. A non-exhaustive list includes: Awareness: individuals working together need to be able to gain some level of shared knowledge about each other's activities.[5] Articulation work: cooperating individuals must somehow be able to partition work into units, divide it amongst themselves and, after the work is performed, reintegrate it.[6][7] Appropriation (or tailorability): how an individual or group adapts a technology to their own particular situation; the technology may be appropriated in a manner completely unintended by the designers.[8][9][10] These concepts have largely been derived through the analysis of systems designed by researchers in the CSCW community, or through studies of existing systems (for example, Wikipedia[11]). CSCW researchers that design and build systems try to address core concepts in novel ways. However, the complexity of the domain makes it difficult to produce conclusive results; the success of CSCW systems is often so contingent on the peculiarities of the social context that it is hard to generalize. Consequently, CSCW systems that are based on the design of successful ones may fail to be appropriated in other seemingly similar contexts for a variety of reasons that are nearly impossible to identify a priori.[12] CSCW researcher Mark Ackerman calls this "divide between what we know we must support socially and what we can support technically" the socio-technical gap and describes CSCW's main research agenda to be "exploring, understanding, and hopefully ameliorating" this gap.[13]

(KAI): Articulation Work[edit] Articulation work, being one of the most important aspects to CSCW, is essentially the work to make work work. Articulation work can be planned or unplanned; there are times in a work setting where articulation work is needed when things do not go as planned. Therefore articulation work is an integral part of software process enactment since software processes can sometimes fail or break down. Articulation work is also commonly known as invisible work since it is not always noticed. Articulation work was introduced by Anselm Strauss [3]. He discovered articulation work as a way to observe the “nature of mutually dependent actors in their division of labour” [2]. This concept was then introduced in the CSCW by Schmidt and Bannon in 1992, where it would be applied to more realistic work scenarios in society [2]. Articulation work is inherent in collaboration. The idea of articulation work was initially used in relation to computer-supported cooperative work, but it was travelled through other domains of work, such as healthcare work [1]. Initially, articulation work was referred to known mainly for scheduling and allocation of resources but extends far more than just that. Articulation work can also be seen as the response developers make to adapt to changes due to error or misjudgements in the real world [3]. There are various models of articulation work that help identify applicable solutions to recover or reorganize planned activities. It’s also important to note that articulation can vary depending on the scenario. Oftentimes there is an increase in the need for articulation work as the situation becomes more complex. Because articulation work is so abstract, it can be split into two categories from the highest level: articulation in individual activity and articulation in collective activity [2]. With individual activity, articulation work is almost always applicable. It is obvious that the subject is required to articulate his/her own work. But when a subject is faced with a new task, there are many questions that must be answered in order to move forward and be successful. This questioning is considered the articulation work to the actual project; invisible, but necessary. There is articulation of action within an activity [3]. For example, creating to-do lists and blueprints may be imperative to progressing a project. There is also articulation of operation within an action. In terms of software, the user must have adequate knowledge and skill in using computer systems and knowledge about software in order to perform tasks [2]. What goes in between the user and the system is often overlooked. But software process modeling techniques as well as the model of articulation work is imperative in creating a solid foundation that allows for improvement and enhancement. In a way, all work needs to be articulated; there needs to be a who, what, where, when and how. Ultimately, articulation work is the work that allows for cooperative work to be cooperative, which is why it is so important in CSCW.

Online communities Pelin here or in tools, Hari here or in terms)

Gaming mixed reality:

The IT specialists focus on synchronous and asynchronous locations while analyzing geographical distribution aspects. In the case of synchronous location, players play at the same time in the same location[2]. Alternatively, they can play at the same time from different places. On the other hand, asynchronous location defines gaming practices during different times at the same place of playing at different times from diverse locations. Computer-mediated communication in gaming settings takes place across different channels. They include structured message systems, bulletin boards, meeting rooms, and shared diaries[3]. As such, the players can hold conversations while proceeding with the game to create a lively experience. Moreover, the channels allow for updates on scores and other guidelines. CSCW has enhanced the flexibility levels in online games since players have more options for the set-up depending on personal preferences. The collaborative virtual environments have attracted numerous individuals who wish to exchange ideas regarding different aspects of life while at the same time enjoying their favorite gaming moments. For instance, Everquest has attained over half a million subscribers following the provision of gaming options for multiple players2. The platform allows players to connect with people within the same cultural backgrounds if they wish to build a sense of solidarity. Additionally, they can connect with others in multicultural settings and exchange ideas on life experiences. Both approaches develop strong social bonds at local, national, and global levels.

Gaming Collaborative Interactions Other than designing games with collaboration and social interactions involved, some game makers also work together to further advance each other’s games. For example, in the OAM (Orange Adventure Game Maker, popular social space for Chinese game makers) community, game makers often work with other developers within the community to gain feedback and outside perspectives [2]. In this community, game makers are inclined to collaborate with one another because they are interested in sharing common values and becoming friends with individuals who share the same values [2]. This is an example of the social interactions involved in gaming communities and in the process of developing a video game. Furthermore, within the OAM community there is a “Blurred Boundary” between a user being a player or a game developer [2]. The term “Blurred Boundary” has been coined by, Guo Freeman from University of Cincinnati, and is used to describe the large number of game makers in the OAM community who are also players so that they can not only provide feedback to their peers, but also to understand the game from a player’s perspective [2]. The process of developing a video game in the OAM community is a very collaborative process and promotes social interactions between game makers, as some of them are players themselves. Other than the game makers in the OAM community, the players are very involved within the creation and development of a video game. Guo Freeman describes the social interactions between a game maker and player during the development stage of the game as, Interactive Crafting. This is a process in which the game maker and player actively work together to develop the storyline of a video game [2]. The collaboration and social interactions between the game maker and player during the creation of the game allow for active feedback, and the ability for the game maker to fulfill their customer’s wishes. The most collaborative and socially interactive aspect of a video game is the online communities. Popular video games often have various types of social groups for their diverse community of players. For example, World of Warcraft is a quest-based multiplayer game which allows players to focus on individual player development while collaborating with other players to complete quests [3]. The collaborative and socially interactive aspect of WOW are the “Guilds” in the game. A “Guild” in WOW in simple terms is like an alliance or group of individuals that you are on a “team” with [3]. By incorporating Guilds, WOW is creating opportunities for players to collaborate and interact with their team members who can be from anywhere around the world. WOW players who are associated with a Guild are more likely to play and do quests with the same Guild mates each time which creates a strong bond between players and a sense of community [3]. These bonds and friendships formed from playing with Guild mates, not only improves collaboration within the game, it also allows for deeper social interactions between players. Furthermore, the sense of belonging and community is the most important attribute of these online gaming communities because that is what they are created and designed for. Tools E-learning Technology-enhanced learning, or “e-learning”, has been an increasingly relevant topic in education today, especially with the development of the COVID-19 pandemic that has caused many schools to switch to remote learning [2]. Students around the world have had to learn a completely new method of educating themselves while also grasping the concepts they are supposed to learn, which has been a difficult and slow process. In-person education relies on communication, social cues, and collaboration between peers and between the teacher and their students. The lack of these key factors are just some of the challenges that the transition to e-learning has been faced with. They highlight why it is important to study e-learning and its impacts on what is known about computer-supported collaborative work. Just in 2020 and 2021 alone, there have been massive changes in the way online education has changed to support collaboration in a more natural and efficient way [2]. E-learning works as a CSCW tool to allow students to collaborate with their peers and teachers even when they don’t share a physical space, bridging the social gap that comes with distance learning. E-learning is expressed through a wide variety of methods that facilitate students in their learning and collaboration with others. In an analysis of e-learning concepts, the area was divided into four components: the development, management, delivery, and standardization of content [3]. The development of content is mainly through using learning objectives to create activities, and management is through Virtual Learning Environments, Content Management Systems, and Learning Management Systems [3]. These systems allow students and teachers to work on the same platforms and have a shared online space in which to communicate in. The delivery of content can be either asynchronous, such as email and discussion forums, or synchronous, like through chat or video conferencing [3]. Synchronous education allows for a different sort of collaboration in learning because the students can react in real time and ask questions as they come up. The last component of e-learning is the standardization of content, which is done by head organizations who create specific guidelines and requirements for the material. Social presence is a huge factor in what differs between in-person and online education, so understanding how it plays a role can also impact the way e-learning systems are designed. In a study of 125 students taking an online course in Korea, researchers studied the group cohesion (bond between the people in the group) and group efficacy (belief in the group’s abilities to solve problems) [4]. The study was split into groups where some were allowed to video conference while others were not, and they had to solve different logical problems. The study found that “social presence in VC [Virtual Conferencing] can have a positive effect on group efficacy and performance by amplifying group cohesion” [4]. This information is greatly useful in designing future systems, because it explains the importance of technology like video conferencing in synchronous e-learning. Groups that are able to see each other face to face have a stronger bond and are able to complete tasks faster than without [4]. Increasing the social presence in online education environments helps facilitate in the understanding of the content and the ability for the group to solve problems.

Tools in CSCW Collaboration amongst peers has always been an integral aspect to getting something done. Working together not only makes the task at hand easier to accomplish, but also the work gets done more effectively as well. As computers and technology become more and more important in our lives both at college and in the workforce the communication skills change as technology allows us to stay connected across many previous barriers. Barriers to communication might have been the end of the work day, being across the country or even slow applications that are more of a hindrance than an aid. With new collaborative tools that have been tried and tested, these previous barriers to communication have been shattered and replaced with new tools that help progress collaboration. Tools that have been integral to shaping computer supported cooperative work can be split into two major categories: communication and organization. In college, but especially in the workplace communication between employees is a key element to the success of the company. The ability to communicate with your coworkers while you are working is a luxury that not only has increased the speed at which tasks are accomplished, but also the accuracy of those tasks. Employees could also send pictures of code and issues over Teams when before they had to bring their computers over or the supervisor had to come to them. This one subtle change increased office productivity and communication by ten fold. The ability to send more specific information faster gave the employees the ability to get more done with also much less effort for themselves. Tools like Microsoft Teams and Slack also allow people to collaborate with ease even if they are in different time zones or different geographical areas. This means that work is no longer tied to specific offices at a 9-5 job, but can be done anywhere because you have the ability to communicate with one or groups of people on a large scale. Not only is communication important to cooperative work, but organization also plays a huge role. Apps like iCal and Reminders can help declutter a very busy work day and remind someone of the important tasks they have to get done. Organization and communication go hand in hand with one another. This application helps people miss less meetings and better plan their day because the app will warn you when two events overlap or if there is not time for an event. This takes all the hassle of scheduling your busy work day out of the equation and gives people an easy way to schedule and coordinate with one another. Also Reminders is another tool that notifies you when something is due or you need to be somewhere. The app also ties into all kinds of different electronic devices such as computers and tablets, meaning you can get reminders of things across different platforms. If you are on the same account for the app, say an officewide account, you can even set reminders for other people as well. In conclusion, Computer Supported Cooperative Work tools have not only made the lives of college students and people in the workforce much easier, but it has also changed the way we communicate with one another. These tools have also taken down barriers to work that would have otherwise hindered people from achieving the same level of work efficiency in a timely manner. These tools and their functions specifically have made a huge impact on my life in general as well as the lives of my peers in my computer science classes. Guidelines Hari-social interactions-guidelines for multiuser, personal interdepedencies. Gives examples, common goal, Beginning with the creation and development of a video game, game makers have a number of guidelines to follow when designing a multi-user collaborative game. Some of the main guidelines (these guidelines are suggestions, not requirements) include Positive Interdependence, Personal Accountability, and Social Skills [1]. Positive Interdependence is the idea of players on a team or in a group understanding that working together is beneficial, and that the success and failure of the group is shared equally if all members participate [1]. An example of including a positive interdependence aspect to a video game includes, creating a common shared goal for the team to increase collaboration and work towards success for the team in a collaborative manner. The next guideline is Personal Accountability, which is the idea that each individual in a group or team must put forth their best effort for the overall team’s success [1]. Some examples of incorporating Personal Accountability in a video game are including an incentive system where individual players are rewarded with additional points for completing an objective or an action that improves the team’s chances of success. In addition, another example would be creating a “leader” role, and players take turns being the leader and taking charge of certain responsibilities for the team’s success [1]. Both examples are techniques to maintain player accountability. The final guideline, Social Skills, has a vague name but is the most important to consider when designing a collaborative game. The importance of social skills is self-explanatory because they are necessary to develop and especially important when playing a collaborative game. An example of developing player social skills through a video game can be creating in-game situations where players have to assign roles, plan, and execute to solve the problem [1]. By following these three guidelines (Positive Interdependence, Personal Accountability, and Social Skills) game makers can create gaming-environments which encourage collaboration and social interaction between players.

The Guilds in WOW are a perfect example of the three guiding principles (Positive Interdependence, Personal Accountability, Social Skills) game designers should follow when creating a collaborative game. WOW includes a Positive Interdependence aspect to the game by including team-based quests in which group members must collaborate together to complete a quest. In addition, Personal Accountability is found in WOW because players recognize they must perform at their best for the team’s success. Finally, the Guild feature represents the Social Skills guideline, as it creates a community for WOW players to interact with, build relationships with other players, and participate in team-based collaborative game modes. Challenges[edit] Leadership[edit] Generally, teams working in a CSCW environment need the same types of leadership as other teams. However, research has shown that distributed CSCW teams may need more direction at the time the group is formed than traditional working groups, largely to promote cohesion and liking among people who may not have as many opportunities to interact in person, both before and after the formation of the working group.[15] Adoption of groupware[edit] Groupware goes hand in hand with CSCW. The term refers to software that is designed to support activities of a group or organization over a network and includes email, conferencing tools, group calendars, workflow management tools, etc.[16] While groupware enables geographically dispersed teams to achieve organizational goals and engage in cooperative work, there are also many challenges that accompany use of such systems. For instance, groupware often requires users to learn a new system, which users may perceive as creating more work for them without much benefit. If team members are not willing to learn and adopt groupware, it is difficult (if not impossible) for the organization to develop the requisite critical mass for the groupware to be useful. Further, research has found that groupware requires careful implementation into a group setting, and product developers have not as yet been able to find the most optimal way to introduce such systems into organizational environments.[16] On the technical side, networking issues with groupware often create challenges in using groupware for CSCW. While access to the Internet is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, geographically dispersed users still face challenges of differing network conditions. For instance, web conferencing can be quite challenging if some members have a very slow connection and others are able to utilize high speed connections.[16] Intergenerational groups[edit] One of the recurring challenges in CSCW environments is development of an infrastructure that can bridge cross-generational gaps in virtual teams.[17] Ideally, system designs will accommodate all team members, but orienting older workers to new CSCW tools can often be difficult. This can cause problems in virtual teams due to the necessity of incorporating the wealth of knowledge and expertise that older workers bring to the table with the technological challenges of new virtual environments. Orienting and retraining older workers to effectively utilize new technology can often be difficult, as they generally have less experience than younger workers with learning such new technologies. Not only issues in the workplace with orienting older workers are relevant, but also issues when dealing with applications/websites that have a wide target audience from young children to older adults.

Adapting CSCW tools for intergenerational groups is a prevalent issue within all forms of computer science cooperative work. Different generations have different feelings towards technology as well as different ways to utilize technology [3]. However, in the modern world, technology has become integral to our society, and therefore must be accessible to all generations of people. With cooperative work becoming increasingly important and diversified, online and technical interaction between different generations is expanding [4]. Given this, many fields that utilize computer supported cooperative work require carefully designed frameworks to account for different generations. Intergenerational Groups in the Workplace Many companies rely on communication and collaboration between intergenerational employees to be successful, and often this collaboration is performed using various softwares and technologies. These team-driven groupware platforms range from email and daily calendars to version control platforms, task management softwares, and more. These tools must be accessible to large companies and many individuals within workplace teams, both in-person and remotely, with remote work having become more commonplace [5]. In both in-person and remote environments, it is sometimes difficult to orient older workers with various CSCW tools. This can cause tensions between younger and older employees in workplace teams, as older members have expertise and knowledge that younger members lack, but are not able to utilize the CSCW tools to do so, as younger workers often are [6]. It also may be difficult to go about retraining older workers in effectively utilizing new technologies. Retraining would require significant amounts of time and funds, making it highly inefficient. As older workers are delaying their retirement and re-entering the workforce, teams are becoming increasingly intergenerational, meaning that the creation of effective intergenerational CSCW frameworks is essential [6]. Intergenerational Groups in Education Education has evolved to utilize several CSCW tools that encourage teamwork, participation, and communication between students, teachers, parents, and other faculty. Classroom technologies, applications to monitor grades and class progress, as well as remote educational platforms all must be accessible to these various generational groups [6]. This can cause difficulty in several forms. Younger students may struggle with learning how to use CSCW tools in person and remotely, while older teachers may also have issues adapting to the CSCW technologies. For students, difficulty learning how to use CSCW groupware and group technology platforms can further lead to a decrease in participation within the classroom, as well as diminished collaboration between peers [7]. In addition, parents of students may not be comfortable with using specific CSCW tools, potentially causing less parental involvement within their child’s studies, and less communication with teachers and faculty [6]. With educational platforms and schooling shifting to be more accommodating remotely, there is a necessity for functional and accessible intergenerational CSCW frameworks for education [6]. With the grand challenge of creating CSCW tools for intergenerational groups, it is crucial that CSCW designers account for this gap in diverse fields, and build platforms that are accessible and supportive for different generations. Group work is readily expanding in both in-person environments as well as remote environments, and requires CSCW tools for effective collaboration. With the papers discussed above regarding the broadness of intergenerational gaps in CSCW, challenges of intergenerational groups in the workplace, and challenges of intergenerational groups in education, it is evident that many fields need carefully constructed frameworks that will be accessible to multiple generations of people.

Standardization vs. Flexibility MITCH Standardization and flexibility are two of the most important aspects of Computer Supported Collaborative Work tools, yet they are almost mutually exclusive. In CSCW, flexibility comes in two forms, flexibility for future change, and flexibility for interpretation.[2] Everything we do on the internet has a level of standardization due to the internet standards. In fact, Email has its own set of standards, of which the first draft was created in 1977[3]. No CSCW tool is perfectly flexible, and all lose flexibility in the same three levels. Either flexibility is lost when the programmer makes the toolkit, when the programmer makes the application, and/or the user’s use of the application.

Creating CSCW toolkits themselves is when flexibility of interpretation is most necessary. It is important that these tools are generic and can be used in many different ways.[3] Another important part of a toolkit’s flexibility is the extensibility, the extent to which new components or tools can be created using the tools provided. An example of a toolkit that is flexible in how generic the tools are is Oval. Oval only has four components; objects, views, agents, and links. This toolkit was used to recreate four previously existing communication systems; The Coordinator, gIBIS, Lotus Notes, and information lens. This proved that, due to genericity in the components, Oval was able to be used to create many forms of peer to peer communication applications.

Challenges in research[edit] Methods :need text on methods Evaluation and measurement[edit] The range of disciplinary approaches leveraged in implementing CSCW systems makes CSCW difficult to evaluate, measure, and generalize to multiple populations. Because researchers evaluating CSCW systems often bypass quantitative data in favor of naturalistic inquiry, results can be largely subjective due to the complexity and nuances of organizations themselves. Possibly as a result of the debate between qualitative and quantitative researchers, three evaluation approaches have emerged in the literature examining CSCW systems. However, each approach faces its own unique challenges and weaknesses:[23] Methodology-oriented frameworks explain the methods of inquiry available to CSCW researchers without providing guidance for selecting the best method for a particular research question or population. Conceptual frameworks provide guidelines for determining factors that a researcher should consider and evaluate through CSCW research but fail to link conceptual constructs with methodological approaches. Thus, while researchers may know what factors are important to their inquiry, they may have difficulty understanding which methodologies will result in the most informative findings. Concept-oriented frameworks provide specific advice for studying isolated aspects of CSCW but lack guidance as to how specific areas of study can be combined to form more comprehensive insight. Social-Technical Gap [edit] Mark Ackerman defines the term social-technical gap as “the divide between what we know we must support socially and what we can support technically”[1]. It is important to analyze ‘what we know we must support socially’ for a few reasons. The way interaction takes place within an in-person setting is something that cannot be easily unlike the way technology is able to be manipulated to fit specific needs. There are certain norms and standards lived up to within peoples’ day to day lives, a certain part of those norms and attitudes carry over into the online world. The problem is mimicking daily communication styles and behavior into an online setting. Schmidt examines this concept within “Mind the Gap”, he states “Cooperative work is a tricky phenomenon. We are all engaged in cooperative activities of various sorts in our everyday lives and routinely observe others working together around us. We are all experts from our everyday experience. And yet this quotidian insight can be utterly misleading when applied to the design of systems to support cooperative work” [2]. Even though everyone knows how to go about communicating in person on a day-to-day basis, it doesn’t easily translate over into cooperative work. This highlights the need for adaptability within CSCW systems, Schmidt expands on the “crucial requirement of flexibility that arises from the changing needs of the cooperative work setting” [2]. These all tie together to highlight the gaps within CSCW.

Differing meanings[edit] Even within the CSCW field, researchers often rely on different journals, research, contextual factors and schools of thought, which can result in disagreement and confusion especially when common terms in the field are used in subtly different ways ("user", "implementation", etc.) Also, user requirements change over time and are often not clear to participants due to their evolving nature and the fact that requirements are always in flux.[1] Identifying user needs[edit] Because organizations are so nuanced, CSCW researchers often have difficulty deciding which set(s) of tools will benefit a particular group.[22] This is exacerbated by the fact that it is almost impossible to accurately identify user/group/organization needs and requirements because such needs and requirements inevitably change through the introduction of the system itself. Even when researchers study requirements through several iterations, such requirements often change and evolve yet again by the time that researchers have completed a particular iteration of inquiry. Considerations for Interaction Design Self-presentation and affordances of Social Media (Liz) In 1985, prior to technological advances and the expansion of social media, Barry Schlenker defined self-presentation as being “goal-directed and performed for an audience, and the success of one’s self-presentation is measured by whether or not the audience accepts this performance.” [3]. Self-presentation has been studied in traditional face-to-face environments, but as society has embraced content culture, social platforms have generated new affordances for presenting oneself online. Due to technological growth, social platforms, and their increased affordances, have reconfigured the way users self-present online as a result of audience input, context collapse, and anonymity [3]. Audience input in self-presentation Audience input can be classified as comments, sharing, liking, tagging, etc. [3]. Online, the audience is physically invisible which confuses thdistinguish their true audience [3]. LinkedIn is an example of a platform, who encourages commentary where positive feedback outweighs negative feedback on topics including, but not limited to, career announcements, etc. Conversely, audience feedback can be unwarranted which can potentially lead to real world implications. Marginalized groups are prone to both warranted and unwarranted commentary on public posts. Individuals going through life transitions are more likely to account for followers and how their followers will perceive life transition posts. This may trigger their decision to unfollow certain people or forgo posting content if they feel uncomfortable with the audience's potential input. Context collapse in self-presentation Context collapse is when previously separate audiences are united as a singular audience, making curated content with intents for one audience to be visible to unintended audiences [3]. The likelihood of content collapse is especially challenged with the surge of proprietary software which introduces a conflict of interest for the users who have an ideal audience, but the algorithm has a differing one [1]. This instance also reinforces the previous notion of user input and the overlap of unintended user interaction when context is collapsed. Furthermore, this crossover of collapsed context increases the challenges of self-presentation due to the blurred line of intended and unintended audiences. Affordances As social media platforms continue to proliferate, so do the affordances offered that directly influence how users manage their self-presentation. A social computing definition of affordance, popular in the CSCW community, was proposed in 2013 by Faraj and Azad who describe affordance as “the mutuality of actor intentions and technology capabilities that provide the potential for a particular action” [1]. According to researchers the three most influential affordances on how users present themselves in an online domain include anonymity, persistence, and visibility [3]. Anonymity of self-presentation and affordances Anonymity, in terms of self-presentation and affordances, is something that “separates a person’s online identity from their offline one” [3]. Platforms that support anonymity have users that are more likely to depict their online self as an accurate representation of their offline self. Comparatively, platforms with less constraints on anonymity are subject to users that portray their online and offline selves differently, thus creating a “persona”. Authors DeVito, Birnholtz, and Hancock described that, “A persona may be one of many online personas a real-world individual maintains, or there may be a one-to-one relationship between real world individuals and persona(s).” Furthermore, being able to unequivocally associate an online persona to real-life human factors into how users present themselves online [1]. Affordance of persistence “Content persistence is the extent to which a platform affords the continued availability of content over time.” [1]. Platforms including Instagram and Facebook are highly persistent because its users share major life events, experiences, and status updates that are available until they decide to delete the post. Whereas, Snapchat is a lower persistence platform because content is ephemeral causing actors to post content that represents their offline self[3]. This affordance strongly affects users' self-presentation management because they recognize their content can be accessed freely. Another persistent affordance is searchable content. Search bar features have become a factor of users' self-presentation when posting online because audience's have an affordance, both visible and accessible, that directly navigates to user profiles housing personal content [1]. Affordance of visibility On social platforms, visibility is caused when information is acquired with little effort, an example being a hashtag. Interaction such as clicking, searching, or following makes such information available. When content is highly visible, the user becomes more aware of their self-presentation and will adjust their content accordingly [1]. Platforms give the user leverage in specifying how visible their content is, thus affording for visibility control [1-3]. For example one can build a “close friends list” on Snapchat and Instagram or the ability to block certain people from viewing public stories, reinforcing the concept of diverse users goals and visibility preferences [2]. However, intended audiences are never guaranteed to be the actual audience. Facebook is an example of a platform that shares content to both primary (e.g. direct friends) and secondary viewers (e.g. friends of friends) [1]. The concern of visibility with Facebook's algorithm is notably challenging for marginalized groups because of such blurred visibility mechanisms [2]. In addition, users face privacy concerns relative to visibility given the current era of screenshotting [3].

Gender and CSCW 1 DEFINITION OF GENDER IN CSCW In CSCW, many might wish to think that gender is something that does not need to be considered, as we should all be considered equal behind a computer screen. However, this is not the case. There are both small psychological differences between how men and women approach CSCW programs, leading to potentially biased and unfair systems. As well, in a system where societal gender differences are not accounted for and countered, men tend to overpower women in these online spaces, leading to an experience that many women are unfortunately familiar with. Through proper system design and user expectations, these societal biases can be dramatically reduced, if not outright removed. Because of this, CSCW and gender are deeply entwined. Ignoring gender is a surefire way to lead to alienating potentially half of your audience. 2 CONTEXT OF GENDER IN CSCW (JOURNAL ANALYSIS)

  Gender is an unavoidable aspect when creating any CSCW system. In the papers referenced below,  gender, and particularly the differences between the genders, are the key area of study. In the first paper, “The influence of visual feedback and gender dynamics on performance, perception and communication strategies in CSCW,” the paper talks about the differences between men and women performing a cooperative navigation task. While the paper finds that there is functionally no performance difference between men and women while performing this task differences do arise when communications between different sex pairs is involved. For example, women tended to be far more conservative in their communications when a man was teamed with them, but inversely be very communicative when paired with another woman. As well, women rated themselves as doing poorer in the task, despite being just as successful as the men. Lastly, and perhaps most interestingly, was the difference in how women and men approached the same task. Men, on average, were far more exploratory in how they approached the task, being far more willing to take gambles and risks in trying new approaches. Combining all of these findings begins to paint a picture of what differences exist between men and women in CSCW, and potential areas of improvement that can be implemented in the future. 

The next paper, “Gender-related differences in computer-mediated communication and computer supported collaborative learning” delves far more into researching and discussing why this behavior mentioned in the previous paper arises, using information gained from studying computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments. While this study does primarily focus on children in classroom settings, it does offer some vital information on how these attitudes are present in children and persist into adulthood. For example, this paper finds that boys are more likely than girls to take charge of groups, and that boys generally post more messages and talk more than girls in computer-mediated communication software. However, the study finds that the more emphasis that is placed on communication and cooperation, the more likely it becomes that girls become more involved. It then goes on to state that by emphasizing aspects of programs that girls traditionally enjoy in communications (particularly teamwork, writing, and creative solutions), you are able to increase female participation to almost the level of males. By acknowledging the differences between boys and girls and how they interact with each other in these types of online systems, it allows us to better understand and develop for adults.

In the final paper, “Exploring gender differences on general and specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption” the authors go on to discuss the contradictory findings they made in analyzing the differences between how men and women rate their interactions with computers in general, and how these differences can potentially be used in the adaptation of new mobile systems. The findings were that women generally rated themselves as being poor at understanding technology, having difficulty at using mobile software in general, and in general disliked using software. However, when asked these same questions about specific software in general, they rated themselves just as strongly as the men in the study did. This shows that women do not have any more or less difficulty than men when it comes to choosing and adapting to new software and technologies, but view themselves at being worse at it in general. This sentiment might be able to explain why women are more timid than men in general in software settings, in addition to normal societal pressures. By increasing the confidence of women using software, particularly in CSCW, it might allow women to feel just as comfortable and confident as men when it comes to voicing and sharing opinions.

3 WHEN DID GENDER BECOME A CONCERN IN CSCW?

    While gender has been a research topic since at least the 1990’s, with papers such as 

“Male and female attitudes towards Computer–Mediated group interactions (2000)” researching important interactions between the sexes, I would argue that no major CSCW software actually takes gender into account when it comes to user interactions and user experience. Much of this research has not been implemented in practice, and remains predominantly theoretical. Prinsen et. al discuss that the vast majority of software being developed is designed for a male brain unintentionally, due to differences in how men and women process information. This trend has not changed in the years since this paper was written, and remains a concern for developers. I believe gender must become a key issue in CSCW if we are to encourage its adoption and useability for the world as a whole.

4 HOW GENDER CAN BE USED IN CSCW

    Based on the findings in the 3 papers above, we can begin to draw some conclusions on how studying gender differences between men and women in CSCW can be used to better the comfort and usability of CSCW software as a whole. From the first paper, we can begin to understand the differences in gender dynamics in mixed-sex teams, and how that can lead to potential issues of women not speaking up or feeling as if their opinions are heard. Combining this with the information from the second paper, on how increasing emphasis on teamwork and cooperation can lead to more interaction and participation from women, we can see how developers will be able to address this issue in the future. Lastly, the final paper shows how this is not an issue limited to CSCW, but to technology and society as a whole. Efforts must be put in by software developers of CSCW to ensure that both men and women feel comfortable using their products, and in sharing opinions with each other. 

Conferences[edit] Since 2010, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has hosted a yearly conference on CSCW. From 1986-2010, it was held biannually.[24] The conference is currently held in October or November and features research in the design and use of technologies that affect organizational and group work. With the rapidly increasing development of new devices that allow collaboration from different locations and contexts, CSCW seeks to bring together researchers from across academia and industry to discuss the many facets of virtual collaboration from both social and technical perspectives. Internationally, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) sponsors the International Conference on Computer Supported Work in Design, which takes place yearly.[25] In addition, the European Society for Socially Embedded Technologies sponsors the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, which has been held every two years since 1989.[26] CSCW panels are a regular component of conferences of the adjacent field of Science and Technology Studies. See also[edit] Collaborative working environment Collaborative working system Collaborative software Collaborative innovation network Collaborative information seeking Computer-supported collaboration Commons-based peer production Electronic meeting system E-professional E-work Integrated collaboration environment Knowledge management Mass collaboration Pervasive informatics Participatory design Social peer-to-peer processes Virtual research environment References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b Grudin, J. (1994). "Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and Focus". Computer. 27 (5): 19–26. doi:10.1109/2.291294. ^ .Findley, Charles A. 1989. Collaborative Learning-work. Presentation at the Pacific Telecommunications Council 1989 Conference, January 15–20, Honolulu, Hawaii.Collaborative Networked Learning Project – Digital Equipment Corporation. Primary documents stored on Internet Archive ^ Carstensen, P.H.; Schmidt, K. (1999). "Computer supported cooperative work: new challenges to systems design". Retrieved 2007-08-03. ^ Wilson, P. (1991). Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9780792314462. ^ Dourish, P.; Bellotti, V. (1992). "Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative workcc. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 107–114. ^ Schmidt, K.; Bannon, L. (1992). "Taking CSCW seriously". Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 1 (1–2): 7–40. doi:10.1007/BF00752449. ^ Strauss, A. (1985). "Work and the Division of Labor". The Sociological Quarterly. 26 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00212.x. ^ MacKay, W.E. (1991). "Patterns of sharing customizable software". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 209–221. ^ Dourish, P. (2003). "The Appropriation of Interactive Technologies: Some Lessons from Placeless Documents". Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 12 (4): 465–490. doi:10.1023/A:1026149119426. ^ Schmidt, K. (1991). "Computer Support for Cooperative Work in Advanced Manufacturing". International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing. 1 (4): 303–320. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.142.652. doi:10.1002/hfm.4530010402. ^ Stuart Geiger (2011). Lovink & Tkacz (ed.). "The Lives of Bots" in Critical Point of View: A Wikipedia Reader (PDF). ^ Grudin, J. (1988). "Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organization of organizational interfaces". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 85–93. ^ Ackerman, M. (2000). "The Intellectual Challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility". Human-Computer Interaction. 15 (2): 179–203. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.4.9910. doi:10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_5. ^ Baecker, R.M.; Others (1995). Readings in human-computer interaction: toward the year 2000. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. ^ Thompson, L.F; Coovert, M.D (2006). Bowers, C.; Salas, E.; Jentsch, F. (eds.). "Understanding and developing virtual computer-supported cooperative work teams". Creating Hi-tech Teams: 213–241. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Olson, J.M.; Olson, J.S. (2008). Sears, A.; Jacko, J. A. (eds.). "The human computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications". Group Cooperative Work: 545–558. ^ Convertino, J.; Farooq, U.; Rosson, M.; Carroll, J.; Meyer, B. (2007). "Supporting intergenerational groups in computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW)". Behaviour & Information Technology. 4. 26 (4): 275–285. doi:10.1080/01449290601173473. S2CID 18381170. ^ Thompson, L.F.; Coovert, M. D. (2003). "Teamwork online: The effects of computer conferencing on perceived confusion, satisfaction, and post-discussion accuracy". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 7 (2): 135–151. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.2.135. S2CID 56359429. ^ Kraut, R.E.; Fussell, S. R.; Brennan, S. E.; Siegel, J (2002). Hinds, P.; Kiesler, S. (eds.). "Understanding effects of proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote collaborative work". Distributed Work. ^ Bordia, P. (1997). "Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature". Journal of Business Communication. 34: 99–120. doi:10.1177/002194369703400106. ^ Olson, J.S.; Olson, G.M. (1999). "Computer supported cooperative work". In F.T. Durso; R.S. Nickerson; R.W. Schvaneveldt; S.T. Dumais; D.S. Lindsay; M.T.H Chi (eds.). Handbook of Applied Cognition. pp. 409–442. ^ Koch, M; Gross, T (2006). "Computer-Supported Cooperative Work - Concepts and Trends". Proc Conf of the Association Information and Management AIM. 75: 165–172. ^ Neale, D; Carrol, J; Rosson, M (2004). Evaluating Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Models and Frameworks. CSCW '04 Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. p. 112. doi:10.1145/1031607.1031626. ISBN 978-1581138108. ^ "ACM Digital Library". Retrieved 23 June 2019. ^ "International Working Group on CSCW in Design". Retrieved 23 June 2019. ^ "ECSCW – European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work". Retrieved 23 June 2019.

Our References:

[1] Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., & Macredie, R. D. (2017). The influence of visual feedback and gender dynamics on performance, perception and communication strategies in CSCW. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 97, 162-181.

[2] Prinsen, Fleur Ruth, Monique LL Volman, and Jan Terwel. "Gender‐related differences in computer‐mediated communication and computer‐supported collaborative learning." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 23.5 (2007): 393-409.

[3] Bao, Y., Xiong, T., Hu, Z., & Kibelloh, M. (2013). Exploring gender differences on general and specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(1), 111-132.

[4] Bernard, M., Mills, M., & Friend, C. (2000). Male and female attitudes towards Computer–Mediated group interactions. Usability News, 2(2), 34-35.

Klimczuk, Andrzej, Intergenerationality, Intergenerational Justice, Intergenerational Policies, [in:] S. Thompson (ed.), Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham 2015, pp. 419-423; Lüscher, Kurt, Hoff, Andreas, Klimczuk, Andrzej, Lamura, Giovanni, Renzi, Marta, Oliveira, Paulo d.S., Sánchez, Mariano, Viry, Gil, Widmer, Eric, Neményi, Ágnes, Veress, Enikő, Bjursell, Cecilia, Boström, Ann-Kristin, Rapolienė, Gražina, Mikulionienė, Sarmitė, Oğlak, Sema, Canatan, Ayşe, Vujović, Ana, Svetelšek, Ajda, Gavranović, Nedim, Ivashchenko, Olga, Shipovskaya, Valentina, Lin, Qing, Wang, Xiying, Generations, intergenerational relationships, generational policy. A multilingual compendium - Edition 2017, Universität Konstanz, Konstanz 2017; [2] Ramaa Prasad (1 December 1992). Generation Gap, a Sociological Study of Intergenerational Conflicts. Mittal Publications. ISBN 978-81-7099-351-3. Retrieved 7 June2012. [3] Murray, A. (2013). Mind the gap: Technology, millennial leadership and the cross-generational workforce. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049670.2011.10722556 [4] Convertino, J.; Farooq, U.; Rosson, M.; Carroll, J.; Meyer, B. (2007). "Supporting intergenerational groups in computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW)". Behaviour & Information Technology. 4. 26 (4): 275–285. doi:10.1080/01449290601173473. S2CID 18381170. [5] Brynjolfsson, E., Horton, J., Ozimek, A., Rock, D., Sharma, G., & TuYe, H. (2020, June 15). COVID-19 and remote work: An early look at us data. Retrieved April 07, 2021, from https://www.nber.org/papers/w27344 [6] Baltimore, G., Walsh, G., Baltimore, U., Maryland, E., Foss, E., Maryland, U., . . . Authors: Greg Walsh University of Baltimore. (2013, April 01). FACIT PD: A framework for analysis and creation of intergenerational techniques for participatory design. Retrieved April 07, 2021, from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2470654.2481400?casa_token=fqtFKj_NyJsAAAAA%3A86wXvonRpbq_qg_0hQrNS_1JhegReH-RGMJc40JFLhWguG5AD2H2E-rdLHlti25cqteJul2vU_qt [7] Baltimore, G., Walsh, G., Baltimore, U., Google, E., Foss, E., Google, . . . Authors: Greg Walsh University of Baltimore. (2015, June 01). A case for intergenerational distributed co-design: The online kidsteam example. Retrieved April 07, 2021, from https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2771839.2771850?casa_token=ehDqcy8rwFsAAAAA%3AhEDdDj002iEik7Z9tIFwGyd1wz_lQ57Zg0Bg0vYY2QxHuwJHdVr6BC6_vN1OpvxxOZQt4Bee73pG

[8] Tendedez, Helena, Maria Angela Felicita Cristina Ferrario, and Jonathan Nicholas David Whittle. "Software Development and CSCW: Standardization and Flexibility in Large-Scale Agile Development." Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction-CSCW 2, no.CSCW(2018). [9] Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4), 407-426. [10] Dourish, J. P. (1996). Open implementation and flexibility in CSCW toolkits (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)). [11] Patterson, J., ACM Digital Library, Hill, R., Rohall, S., & Meeks, S. (1990, September). Rendezvous: an architecture for synchronous multi-user applications. ACM Digital Library.

[3] Vijayalakshmi, V., Venkatachalapathy, K., & Ohmprakash, V. (2017). Analysis of e-learning concept. International Journal on Future Revolution in Computer Science & Communication Engineering, 3(12), 392–396. [4] Yoon, P., & Leem, J. (2021). The influence of social presence in online classes using virtual conferencing: Relationships between group cohesion, group efficacy, and academic performance. Sustainability, 13(4), 1988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041988

[1] Ackerman, M. S. (2000). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human–Computer Interaction, 15(2-3), 179-203. [2] Schmidt, K. (2000). The critical role of workplace studies in CSCW. Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design, 141-149. [3] Schmidt, K., & Simone, C. (2000). Mind the gap. Towards a unified view of CSCW. COOP, 200, 205-221.

[1] Natalia Padilla Zea, José Luís González Sánchez, Francisco L. Gutiérrez, Marcelino J. Cabrera, and P. Paderewski. 2009. Design of educational multiplayer videogames: A vision from collaborative learning. (April 2009). Retrieved April 8, 2021 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965997809000490?casa_token=T3vc2-m5TF4AAAAA%3APgiPcpo-NY7J-vLstxGsVXoF96uN-uoMJmdd0v1q8Z1_hI40iQOFmnaSYEY6Kc-jk4WiMZY-6Q#!

[2] Guo Freeman. 2016. Making Games as Collaborative Social Experiences: Exploring An Online Gaming Community. (February 2016). Retrieved April 8, 2021 from https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2818052.2869076?casa_token=7DTl15uNYrEAAAAA%3ApITqmPOrMdmKfXQ_sJwMUULQujlYXI64_LUxu5oAZrDEjnrSBhK8mdyReE66CGml5r4Jn8lIwW-w

[3] Nicolas Ducheneaut, Nicholas Yee, Eric Nickell, and Robert J. Moore. 2006. "Alone together?": exploring the social dynamics of massively multiplayer online games. (April 2006). Retrieved April 8, 2021 from https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1124772.1124834

[1] DeVito, M. A., Birnholtz, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2017, February). Platforms, people, and perception: Using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (pp. 740-754). [2] Haimson, O. L. (2017). Digital and physical barriers to changing identities. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 24(2), 26-29. [3] Hollenbaugh, E. E. (2020). Self-Presentation in Social Media: Review and Research Opportunities. Review of Communication Research, 9, 80-98. Received January 2020; revised June 2020; accepted July 2020. [4] Jensen Schau, H., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of consumer research, 30(3), 385-404.

[1] Pallesen, T., & Jacobsen, P. H. (2018). Articulation work from the middle—a study of how technicians mediate users and technology. New Technology, Work and Employment, 33(2), 171-186. [2] Mi, P., & Scacchi, W. (1991, January). Modeling articulation work in software engineering processes. In Proceedings. First International Conference on the Software Process, (pp. 188-189). IEEE Computer Society. [3] Fjuk, A., Nurminen, M. I., & Smørdal, O. (1997). Taking articulation work seriously: an activity theoretical approach. Turku, Finland: Turku Centre for Computer Science. Further reading[edit] Most cited papers The 47 CSCW Handbook Papers.[1] This paper list is the result of a citation graph analysis of the CSCW Conference. It has been established in 2006 and reviewed by the CSCW Community. This list only contains papers published in one conference; papers published at other venues have also had significant impact on the CSCW community. The "CSCW handbook"[1] papers were chosen as the overall most cited within the CSCW conference <...> It led to a list of 47 papers, corresponding to about 11% of all papers. Dourish, P.; Bellotti, V. (1992). "Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 107–114. Grudin, J. (1988). "Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organization of organizational interfaces". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 85–93. Root, R.W. (1988). "Design of a multi-media vehicle for social browsing". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 25–38. Patterson, J.F.; Hill, R.D.; Rohall, S.L.; Meeks, S.W. (1990). "Rendezvous: an architecture for synchronous multi-user applications". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 317–328. Greenberg, S.; Marwood, D. (1994). "Real time groupware as a distributed system: concurrency control and its effect on the interface". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 207–217. Nardi, B.A.; Whittaker, S.; Bradner, E. (2000). "Interaction and outeraction: instant messaging in action". Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 79–88. Hughes, J.A.; Randall, D.; Shapiro, D. (1992). "Faltering from ethnography to design". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 115–122. Tang, J.C.; Isaacs, E.A.; Rua, M. (1994). "Supporting distributed groups with a Montage of lightweight interactions". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 23–34. Neuwirth, C.M.; Kaufer, D.S.; Chandhok, R.; Morris, J.H. (1990). "Issues in the design of computer support for co-authoring and commenting". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 183–195. Crowley, T.; Milazzo, P.; Baker, E.; Forsdick, H.; Tomlinson, R. (1990). "MMConf: an infrastructure for building shared multimedia applications". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 329–342. Roseman, M.; Greenberg, S. (1992). "GROUPKIT: a groupware toolkit for building real-time conferencing applications". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 43–50. Shen, H.H.; Dewan, P. (1992). "Access control for collaborative environments". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 51–58. Gaver, W.W. (1992). "The affordances of media spaces for collaboration". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 17–24. Orlikowski, W.J. (1992). "Learning from Notes: organizational issues in groupware implementation". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 362–369. Sun, C.; Ellis, C. (1998). "Operational transformation in real-time group editors: issues, algorithms, and achievements". Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 59–68. Bly, S.A. (1988). "A use of drawing surfaces in different collaborative settings". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 250–256. Leland, M.D.P.; Fish, R.S.; Kraut, R.E. (1988). "Collaborative document production using quilt". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 206–215. Conklin, J.; Begeman, M.L. (1988). "gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion". ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 6 (4): 303–331. doi:10.1145/58566.59297. Bentley, R.; Hughes, J.A.; Randall, D.; Rodden, T.; Sawyer, P.; Shapiro, D.; Sommerville, I. (1992). "Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 123–129. Mantei, M. (1988). "Capturing the capture concepts: a case study in the design of computer-supported meeting environments". Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 257–270. Lantz, K.A. (1986). "An experiment in integrated multimedia conferencing". Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 267–275. Harrison, S.; Dourish, P. (1996). "Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 67–76. Roseman, M.; Greenberg, S. (1996). "TeamRooms: network places for collaboration". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 325–333. Ishii, H. (1990). "TeamWorkStation: towards a seamless shared workspace". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 13–26. Ressel, M.; Nitsche-ruhland, D.; Gunzenhäuser, R. (1996). "An integrating, transformation-oriented approach to concurrency control and undo in group editors". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 288–297. Edwards, W.K. (1996). "Policies and roles in collaborative applications". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 11–20. Bellotti, V.; Bly, S. (1996). "Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 209–218. Ackerman, M.S. (1998). "Augmenting Organizational Memory: A Field Study of Answer Garden". ACM Transactions on Information Systems. 16 (3): 203–224. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.12.589. doi:10.1145/290159.290160. Abbott, K.R.; Sarin, S.K. (1994). "Experiences with workflow management: issues for the next generation". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 113–120. Resnick, P.; Iacovou, N.; Suchak, M.; Bergstrom, P.; Riedl, J. (1994). "GroupLens: an open architecture for collaborative filtering of netnews". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 175–186. Prakash, A.; Shim, H.S. (1994). "DistView: support for building efficient collaborative applications using replicated objects". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 153–164. Streitz, N.A.; Geißler, J.; Haake, J.M.; Hol, J. (1994). "DOLPHIN: integrated meeting support across local and remote desktop environments and LiveBoards". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 345–358. Foster, G.; Stefik, M. (1986). "Cognoter: theory and practice of a colab-orative tool". Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 7–15. Shen, C.; Lesh, N.B.; Vernier, F.; Forlines, C.; Frost, J. (2002). "Sharing and building digital group histories". Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 324–333. Sohlenkamp, M.; Chwelos, G. (1994). "Integrating communication, cooperation, and awareness: the DIVA virtual office environment". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 331–343. Olson, J.S.; Teasley, S. (1996). "Groupware in the wild: lessons learned from a year of virtual collocation". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 419–427. Reder, S.; Schwab, R.G. (1990). "The temporal structure of cooperative activity". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 303–316. Fish, R.S.; Kraut, R.E.; Chalfonte, B.L. (1990). "The VideoWindow system in informal communication". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 1–11. Haake, J.M.; Wilson, B. (1992). "Supporting collaborative writing of hyperdocuments in SEPIA". Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 138–146. Hudson, S.E.; Smith, I. (1996). "Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 248–257. MacKay, W.E. (1990). "Patterns of sharing customizable software". Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 209–221. Trigg, R.H.; Suchman, L.A.; Halasz, F.G. (1986). "Supporting collaboration in notecards". Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 153–162. Patterson, J.F.; Day, M.; Kucan, J. (1996). "Notification servers for synchronous groupware". Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 122–129. Myers, B.A.; Stiel, H.; Gargiulo, R. (1998). "Collaboration using multiple PDAs connected to a PC". Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 285–294. Ackerman, M.S.; Halverson, C. (1998). "Considering an organization's memory". Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 39–48. Teasley, S.; Covi, L.; Krishnan, M.S.; Olson, J.S. (2000). "How does radical collocation help a team succeed?". Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 339–346. Kuzuoka, H.; Kosuge, T.; Tanaka, M. (1994). "GestureCam: a video communication system for sympathetic remote collaboration". Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 35–43. External links[edit] CSCW Conference, ACM CSCW Conference Series European CSCW Conference Foundation, European CSCW Conference Series GROUP Conference COOP Conference Authority control BNF: cb125566233 (data) GND: 4288972-8 LCCN: sh92006326 MA: 198439703 SUDOC: 034858083

^ Jump up to: a b Jacovi, M.; Soroka, V.; Gilboa-freedman, G.; Ur, S.; Shahar, E.; Marmasse, N. (2006). "The chasms of CSCW: a citation graph analysis of the CSCW conference". Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM Press New York, NY, USA. pp. 289–298.

Collaborative Mixed Reality Games in CSCW Pelin Nisa Top, Chapman University, Orange

CSCW Concepts: • Human-Computer Interaction Systems (HCI) - Computer-mediated communication-synchronous and asynchronous locations

KEYWORDS: Social networks, gaming, players ACM Reference format: Xun Zhang, Xinning Gui, Yubo Kou, and Yukun Li. Mobile Collocated Gaming: Collaborative Play and Meaning-Making on a University Campus. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. CSCW2, Artcle 142 (2020), 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1145/3415213 1 INTRODUCTION

           Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) allows people to work collaboratively using virtual tools.   The concept of CSCW arose in 1980 to define a bi-annual conference[1]. However, it has become widely popular as a tool that enables individuals to work together by utilizing communication and computing technologies. It is applicable to diverse disciplines, including information science, psychology, and anthropology2. The group members experience effective communication practices following the availability of a common platform for expressing opinions and coordinating tasks.  The technology is applicable not only in professional contexts but also in the gaming world. For instance, two or more players from different parts of the world can connect across a social site and play a certain game together for fun or even competitions3.  CSCW also offers a more enjoyable approach to gaming by allowing multiple individuals to compete in a certain activity across social networks. Thus, the tool has made gaming more interesting by facilitating group activates in real-time and widespread social interactions beyond geographical boundaries.

CSCW differs significantly from other human-computer interaction systems (HCI). The software and hardware designers begin by examining the nature of cooperative tasks involved in a specific setting. They need to develop an in-depth understanding of the game and the necessary automation features in this context. The other considerations include the game's specific goals, equality status, feelings of comradeship, and relevant frameworks 3. Moreover, the geographic distribution of the users shapes the designing process significantly. The IT specialists focus on synchronous and asynchronous locations while analyzing geographical distribution aspects. In the case of synchronous location, players play at the same time in the same location[2]. Alternatively, they can play at the same time from different places. On the other hand, asynchronous location defines gaming practices during different times at the same place of playing at different times from diverse locations. Computer-mediated communication in gaming settings takes place across different channels. They include structured message systems, bulletin boards, meeting rooms, and shared diaries[3]. As such, the players can hold conversations while proceeding with the game to create a lively experience. Moreover, the channels allow for updates on scores and other guidelines. The CSCW technology is a vital tool for economic growth and development. The gaming processes involve substantial transactions based on the selected types of subscriptions. For example, the Everquest platform attains an annual GNP of approximately 140 million2. The data implies CSCW is not only a platform for social collaborations but also income generation. Thus, it has generated meaningful job opportunities for the IT specialists who install the relevant software and hardware. Moreover, they undertake the tasks of monitoring daily activities. CSCW has enhanced the flexibility levels in online games since players have more options for the set-up depending on personal preferences. The collaborative virtual environments have attracted numerous individuals who wish to exchange ideas regarding different aspects of life while at the same time enjoying their favorite gaming moments. For instance, Everquest has attained over half a million subscribers following the provision of gaming options for multiple players2. The platform allows players to connect with people within the same cultural backgrounds if they wish to build a sense of solidarity. Additionally, they can connect with others in multicultural settings and exchange ideas on life experiences. Both approaches develop strong social bonds at local, national, and global levels. CSCW has transformed gaming experiences on virtual platforms to a great extent. The players can develop social bonds and contribute to economic operations by joining the human-computer interaction systems. However, extensive research and a thorough understanding of the players' interests are vital for developing personalized frameworks.

REFERENCES [1] Alharthi A. Sultan, et al. 2018. Collaborative Mixed Reality Games. Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW18 (2018), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1145/3272973.3273013 [2] Wohn, Donghee Yvette, and Guo Freeman. 2020. Live Streaming, Playing, and Money Spending Behaviors in eSports." Games and Culture 15, 1 (2020), 73-88. [3] Zhang, Xun, et al. 2020. Mobile Collocated Gaming: Collaborative Play and Meaning-Making on a University Campus. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (2020), 1-24.

1. [1] The study is supported by College of Computing Sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology, University Heights, Newark, NJ, USA. 2. Wohn, Donghee Yvette, and Guo Freeman. "Live Streaming, Playing, and Money Spending Behaviors in eSports." Games and Culture, vol. 15, no. 1, 2020: 73-88. 2 This work is supported by Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Zhang, Xun, et al. "Mobile Collocated Gaming: Collaborative Play and Meaning-Making on a University Campus." Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 4, no. CSCW2, 2020: 1-24 [2] Alharthi A. Sultan, et al. 2018. Collaborative Mixed Reality Games. Companion of the 2018 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, CSCW18 (2018), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1145/3272973.3273013 3 This work is supported by Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction.

Zhang, Xun, et al. "Mobile Collocated Gaming: Collaborative Play and Meaning-Making on a University Campus." Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol.  4, no. CSCW2, 2020: 1-24.

Start a discussion about improving the Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Chapman University/CSCW (SP 21) page

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Chapman University/CSCW (SP 21)" page.

Start a discussion